    [Senate Hearing 105-817]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                   S. Hrg. 105-817, Pt. 1

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4193/S. 2237

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
    RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)

                           Department of Agriculture
                           Department of the Interior
                           General Accounting Office
                        National Endowment for the Arts
                     National Endowment for the Humanities
                           Nondepartmental witnesses
                    Department of Health and Human Services
                              Department of Energy
                            Smithsonian Institution

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     senate

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    46-102                      WASHINGTON : 1999

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402
                               ISBN 0-16-057987-2

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
    LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      BARBARA BOXER, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                   James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

                       SLADE GORTON, Washington, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BARBARA BOXER, California
                               Professional Staff
                                  Bruce Evans
                                  Ginny James
                                 Anne McInerney
                                 Kevin Johnson

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 26, 1998

                                                                       Page
    National Endowment for the Arts..................................     1
    National Endowment for the Humanities............................    27

                            Wednesday, April 1, 1998

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    39

                            Tuesday, April 21, 1998

    General Accounting Office........................................   231
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs.............   231

                            Thursday, April 23, 1998

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................   309
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   443

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Cochran, Bennett, Gregg, and
    Bumpers.

                        NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. KATHRYN O'LEARY HIGGINS, ACTING CHAIRMAN; DEPUTY
                SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
            SCOTT SHANKLIN-PETERSON, SENIOR DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

                                 budget request

        Senator Gorton. I would like to call this hearing on the
    National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
    the Humanities to order.
        Those of you who are repeat visitors at these hearings will
    note a slightly smaller attendance this year than last. Partly,
    that is due to the fact that there are competing Appropriations
    Committee hearings this morning, including one in which I am
    interested, that have drawn others. Partly, I believe it stems
    from the impression that the appropriation for the National
    Endowment for the Arts this year, at least, is somewhat less
    controversial than it was a year ago and maybe, I may say, due
    to the fact that we do not have a permanent head of that
    Endowment at this point.
        That may be modestly good news for the defenders of the
    National Endowment for the Arts, though it still is a
    controversial agency out of all proportion to the share of the
    budget that it occupies. I think that Jane Alexander and the
    people who worked with her did a great deal of very good work
    in meeting the objections of many thoughtful people to the way
    in which the Arts Endowment was being handled and have
    certainly dramatically reduced, together with instructions from
    the Congress, the number of grants that were objectionable to a
    large number of the American people.
        I regard that as a major step forward in the work that we
    do here, much of which has been left up to this subcommittee
    and the fault of any action on an authorization bill for the
    National Endowment for the Arts. So, I commend the Endowment
    for the intelligent way in which it has operated over the
    course of the last several years.
        I can say that it will be very difficult to provide any
    significant increase in the appropriation for either of the
    Endowments this year. Last year, an agreement on the budget was
    made with the President that froze discretionary spending
    essentially over a 5-year period. The President has found a way
    to wiggle out of that commitment, but he is not going meet
    agreement on the part of the Congress in that connection. The
    budget resolution that will be debated next week does, in fact,
    call for a freeze.
        I do not know yet what the precise allocation to this
    subcommittee will be after the budget resolution is passed, but
    we are operating on the assumption that it will be
    approximately the same number of dollars as last year.
        You can see, if your eyes are extraordinarily good
    [laughter] the chart there on my left, which indicates the
    general division of the amounts of money that are available to
    this subcommittee. The long green line on the left represents
    the various activities we fund in management of public lands:
    our parks, our forests, our Bureau of Land Management. The blue
    are the Indian activities that are funded through this
    subcommittee. The purple, science activities. The orange, the
    portions of the Department of Energy, mostly research, that
    this subcommittee deals with. The next to the last one on the
    right, the dark blue there, are the cultural activities,
    including things like the Smithsonian, for which we are almost
    solely responsible, and the Endowments.
        That is perhaps the best illustration I can give of the
    fact that the amounts of money that we are talking about are
    very disproportionate to the amount of interest that they
    create in the public as a whole.
        But we do want to give an opportunity today for a report on
    the stewardship of the Endowment in the last year and its plans
    for the coming year.

                  prepared statement of senator barbara boxer

        We have received a statement from Senator Boxer which will
    be included in the record at this point.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer

        I am very pleased that the President has requested $136
    million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for
    fiscal year 1999. This reflects an increase of 39 percent--
    approximately $38 million--in the Endowment's current budget of
    $98 million. I strongly support this increased funding level.
        This increase would be used to support programs to target
    under-represented states, to support national leadership
    initiatives, and to support partnerships with state and
    regional arts organizations. They reflect the Endowment's
    efforts to continue to bring the arts to Americans in every
    state across the country.
        Federal funding for the NEA is an investment in the
    education of our children, the strength of our economy, the
    preservation of our nation's cultural legacy, and the quality
    of American life. The NEA makes the arts accessible to all
    Americans, not just to those who are in cities or who can
    afford it.
        The NEA is a great investment. For less than 38 cents per
    American each year--practically the price of a postage stamp--
    the NEA helps bring culture, dance, music, and art to all
    Americans.
        For every $1 in grant awards, the NEA is able to leverage
    $12 by requiring arts organizations and artists to match NEA
    funds with funds from state and local agencies, foundations,
    corporations, and individuals.
        Public funding of arts is good for the economy. In San
    Diego, California, arts and culture spending generated $6.4
    million in taxes to the city and state, and contributed almost
    $68 million to the San Diego economy. A recent study conducted
    by McKinsey consultants for New York City concluded that more
    government money should be spent on the arts because it
    generates taxes, jobs and economic growth far in excess of the
    amounts invested.
        There are several projects in my state of California which
    I believe represent the importance and promise of the NEA.
        In Long Beach, NEA funding supports an initiative by the
    city's Public Corporation for the Arts to identify local
    traditional artists and to develop a series of folk arts
    presentations in the Long Beach area.
        A terrific example of public-private partnership launched
    with NEA funding is the California Cultural Tourism Coalition
    Initiative, an innovative program designed to promote San
    Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco as cultural destinations
    through three-to-five day itineraries in each city. This NEA
    project is fostering exciting new collaborations among the
    cultural community, the tourism industry, and local hotels and
    restaurants.
        In Los Angeles, a group called Inner-City Arts is creating
    an arts education program for children in grades two through
    six in the public schools.
        In Pasadena, the Southwest Chamber Music Society is
    developing a mentorship program with a local high school. This
    project will provide coaching, private instruction, performance
    experience and career advice to talented young people.
        An Oakland Storybridge project is an inter-generational
    arts and literacy initiative where low-income older adults
    interact with at-risk children through a program of
    storytelling in the schools and community.
        NEA funding supports the Urban Renewal Laboratory Project
    in San Francisco, in which artists, architects, urban planners,
    computer programmers, and youth will collaborate to create a
    virtual model city online as well as an actual model city.
        As evidenced from this brief list from only one state, the
    NEA is enhancing the lives of all Americans, and I urge this
    committee to provide full funding to the NEA at the level
    requested by the President.

                   summary statement of hon. kathryn higgins

        Ms. Higgins. I am Kitty Higgins. I am the current Acting
    Director of the Endowment. I am also the Deputy Secretary of
    the U.S. Department of Labor. I would like to give a few brief
    excerpts from my written statement, which I will submit for the
    record.
        Senator Gorton. We will include the entire written
    statement in the record. So, why do you not go right ahead.
        Ms. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As I had mentioned, I am the current Acting Chair. I have
    had this assignment for about 5 months, and it has really been
    an education and a pleasure to work with these folks in the
    Endowment and learn much more about the work that they do. I
    have come to have enormous respect, as I know you do, for a
    very small agency that has significant impacts by what they do.
    They have managed to do a lot more with a lot less, which I
    think is a credit to them.
        We are all eager for Bill Ivey to be confirmed, and I think
    you have had the chance to meet with him. He is very
    impressive, and we are hoping that a confirmation hearing will
    be set very soon.

                              new council members

        A few weeks ago, the National Council on the Arts met. As a
    result of changes last year, there are fewer members of the
    Council--eight fewer voting members. We have six new members
    who are colleagues of yours, three from the Senate, three from
    the House.
        We had a lively exchange with our new Council members and
    your colleagues. There were two significant messages that they
    delivered, one about the need to reach underserved
    communities--and we want to talk today about how we are going
    to do that--and also the priorities that they have--and I know
    this is reflected also in the rest of the Congress--for arts
    education. I think those are the two messages we heard loud and
    clear.

                          nea presence in north dakota

        I want to just give you my own sense of the role that the
    arts can play in a community like Grand Forks, ND, which as you
    recall, about a year ago at this time was really under siege.
    After the heavy snows of last winter, the Red River overflowed
    its banks. The city was literally drowning. And then the fires
    came.
        I was privileged to be able to join the President and
    members of the North Dakota and South Dakota congressional
    delegations, including Senator Dorgan from this committee, to
    visit there. When we flew over that town, it was just amazing.
    The whole town was literally flooded, but there were a few
    survivors, one of which is the North Dakota Museum of Art.
        We have for the record an article that appeared in the New
    York Times. CBS ``Sunday Morning News'' also did a piece on the
    role of this wonderful museum. I have had a chance to talk to
    the director. I think it is emblematic of the role that the
    arts play in communities like Grand Forks all around this
    country where they provide an anchor, if you will. After the
    floods--in fact they are still providing this service--the
    museum became essentially a community center. They are a
    gathering place now for the Bible Baptist Church, which holds
    Sunday services there. The North Dakota Ballet is now
    conducting rehearsals there. There are weekly meetings of
    various community groups because it was really one of the only
    places in the town that was spared from the flood. They hosted
    free concerts and potluck suppers last summer as a way to bring
    the community together and help them heal after the devastating
    floods.
        I think the director put it well when she said a museum is
    like a church in that it is the center for the community. The
    flood made people aware that cultural life and cultural
    institutions can offer comfort and solace in a crisis.
        The mayor of Grand Forks, Pat Owens, said, you need your
    businesses, houses, churches, and schools, but you also need
    something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture.
    I believe that the arts are the heart of our community and that
    cultural life had become a way of life for our community. If
    you do not have culture, you really are missing something
    mentally and emotionally.
        As I mentioned, the North Dakota Museum of Art is an NEA
    grantee. The director of that museum is a wonderful advocate
    for the Endowment and talks about the difference that the small
    amount of NEA funding makes to the people of Grand Forks and
    the people of North Dakota in terms of the kinds of exhibits
    that can be brought there that would not otherwise be available
    to that community.
        [The information follows:]

                [From the New York Times, Sunday, Nov. 23, 1997]

             After Flooding, After Fire, Salvaging a Cultural Life

                              (By Ian Swanson) \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ Ian Swanson is a staff writer for the Grand Forks Herald and
    founder of the High Plains Reader, a newspaper covering arts in the
    region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It happened quickly. The snow and ice covering North Dakota
    from the last and worst blizzard of the year was still melting
    in April when sandbaggers in Grand Forks retreated and watched
    their city fall to the flooding Red River.
        Water spilled over the sandbags, overwhelmed temporary clay
    dikes and shot up through storm sewers. In minutes people were
    fleeing their homes as the river slowly rose and expanded over
    the flood plain, overtaking neighborhoods one by one. It was
    Friday, the 18th. The next day, the entire city of 50,000 was
    evacuated, some in motorboats. As others drove away, they could
    look in their rearview mirrors and see the smoke rising.
        One calamity, they discovered, had produced another: fire
    had erupted in the deserted downtown, apparently from short-
    circuiting brought on by the flood. But with an icy river
    running waist-deep through the streets, firefighters were
    practically helpless. Fire hydrants--all underwater--failed.
    Airplanes had to be called in to smother the flames with a
    chemical liquid retardant, but not before the fire destroyed
    two of the oldest blocks in the city. Almost overnight, an
    America that had paid little if any attention to Grand Forks
    was now hearing a lot about it--about how it was both drowned
    and burned.
        Seven months later, with the help of millions of government
    dollars, the people of Grand Forks continue to rebuild the
    essentials of their ravaged city: homes, businesses, schools,
    churches. But in many quarters they are also asking a basic
    question that could be posed to any community waylaid by
    disaster and forced to rebuild almost from scratch: at what
    point should it properly turn its attention to reviving its
    cultural life? It's a question of priorities, and one that
    reaches back, really, over the millenniums. For it speaks
    directly to a fundamental and long-debated issue that any
    people must address: the importance, and place, of art in the
    life of a society.
        The issue has come up in Grand Forks in newspaper opinion
    pages and in coffee shops and taverns as people argue about how
    the city should set priorities in spending its limited
    resources. And while business and political leaders remain
    publicly supportive, cultural groups wonder where they will fit
    in.
        ``You need your businesses, houses, churches and schools,''
    said Pat Owens, the Mayor of Grand Forks. ``But you also need
    something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture.
    I believe the arts are the heart of our community, and that
    cultural life had become a way of life for the community. If
    you don't have culture, you're really missing something
    mentally and emotionally.''
        That may be, but homeowners still waiting for government
    flood relief checks and business owners concerned about a
    housing shortage and a tight labor market aren't always
    thinking about the health of their minds and spirits. When they
    are, they're more likely concerned with the public schools and
    the churches, which also need to be rebuilt.
        ``Shelter is the first priority,'' said Eliot Glassheim, a
    City Councilman from a mostly working-class district. ``You've
    got to eat, and you've got to have a place to live. We've got
    to make sure houses and businesses are taken care of because
    otherwise the tax base won't be there.'' He said the city could
    and should provide some financing for the arts, but in the long
    run, he maintained, it could best insure a healthy arts
    community by helping businesses and homeowners get back on
    their feet.
        Still, something important was lost in the flood and fire.
    As the state's second-largest city and a regional center for
    all of northeast North Dakota and northwest Minnesota, Grand
    Forks has also been something of a cultural capital, supported
    by the agricultural wealth of the Red River Valley, an area so
    fertile that wheat, sugar beets and potatoes thrive here
    despite the long and punishing winters of the northern Plains.
        The city has been home to the North Dakota Museum of Art,
    the state's only contemporary art museum; the Firehall Theater,
    a profitable community theater group; the North Dakota Ballet
    Company; the Greater Grand Forks Symphony; a city band, and a
    master chorale. It has also drawn cultural sustenance from the
    University of North Dakota, where 11,000 students can take
    advantage of Broadway groups, dance productions and a wide
    range of musicians who visit the campus, on the western edge of
    town, every year.
        ``Historically Grand Forks has one of the strongest
    humanities audiences on the Great Plains,'' said Bruce Gjovig,
    a member of the board of the museum.
        Indeed, in September of last year, the city was prepared to
    take a leap forward with the opening of the downtown Empire
    Arts Center, an auditorium, gallery and conference center for
    arts groups rising from the remains of the abandoned Empire
    Cinema, built in 1919. The arts center, along with a collection
    of new cafes, restaurants and bars, was being looked on as an
    emblem of rebirth for a downtown area that had lost much of its
    vitality to outlying areas and was now beginning to bustle
    again.
        The flood changed that picture. About four feet of water
    flooded the Empire's first floor, causing $150,000 in damage.
    The North Dakota Ballet Company's offices, studio and
    belongings disappeared in the fire, as did the quarters of two
    major employers, First National Bank and The Grand Forks
    Herald. The bank has since moved to an office building, while
    the newspaper now operates out of a converted department store.
        Firefighters stopped the fire 50 yards from the Firehall
    Theater, but they could do nothing about the Red River, which
    flooded the building and destroyed the theater's box office,
    stage and seating. Only the North Dakota Museum of Art was
    spared, miraculously escaping even basement flooding.
        But the museum hasn't eluded the consequences of the flood.
    Like every other arts institution in Grand Forks, the museum,
    which had operated on annual budgets of $600,000 to $1 million,
    faces a financial crisis. The people it had long depended on
    for support--large donors and small--have been putting their
    money elsewhere, in repairing their own homes, replacing
    furniture and clothing ruined by flood waters and helping
    others feed and shelter themselves. Now the museum is asking
    where it can find the precious dollars to keep art on the walls
    and electricity and heat in the building.
        Financing the arts certainly isn't the top priority today
    for Grand Forks citizens, most of them descendants of German
    and Scandinavian immigrants who settled here in the last
    century. As winter approaches, many continue to live in Federal
    Emergency Management Agency trailers on the outskirts of town.
    Some nervously await overworked contractors hired to install or
    repair boilers or furnaces in apartment buildings and houses.
    Owners of small businesses--if they're able to reopen at all--
    worry about finding people to work for them in a job market
    suddenly depleted by the flood.
        People in the arts understand these concerns and
    priorities; dance and museum directors also own homes, after
    all, and their children attend the schools. And the arts groups
    are encouraged when business and political leaders say that
    cultural institutions won't be shortchanged in the rebuilding
    of the city. But the arts organizations aren't taking any
    chances. They're trying to prove their worth by collectively
    broadening the scope and relevance of their work--and hoping
    that that will bring new patrons and benefactors through their
    doors.
        In many ways they're taking a cue from a recent report by
    the National Endowment for the Arts, which described the art
    world as out of touch with the public. If artists want to
    receive funds from the public or private sector, the report
    suggested, they need to become more relevant to their
    communities. They need to combat the public's perception that
    art institutions are elitist and class-based.
        Today, forced almost to start fresh, that's exactly what
    many people involved in the arts here are trying to do.
        ``The first thing I thought was, Where am I going to find
    the money to keep the place going?'' said Laurel Reuter, the
    founder and director of the North Dakota Museum of Arts. ``Then
    I thought about programming and how we could be useful at this
    time.''
        Her answer was to open the museum's doors to those in need
    of a roof and a dry floor. The Bible Baptist Church, driven out
    of its chapel after water had reached the roof, held Sunday and
    Wednesday night services in the museum, setting up chairs right
    under works by contemporary artists like Kiki Smith, Duane
    Michaels and Jenny Holzer. Every two weeks during the summer
    the museum held potluck dinners and free concerts that drew
    hundreds of citizens. (Ms. Reuter said that as the summer
    progressed the potluckers, often arriving straight from days
    spent ``mucking out'' their basements and rebuilding their
    homes, grew cleaner and cleaner.)
        On Thursday nights, the North Dakota Ballet Company, forced
    out of its studios when its building burned down, has been
    conducting classes and rehearsals at the museum. And community
    groups as disparate as the Firehall Theater and the Center for
    Violence and Intervention used the museum for weekly meetings.
        ``A museum is like a church, in that it is a center for the
    community,'' Ms. Reuter said. ``In all my history I'd never
    thrown a potluck for anything. But instinctively I knew it was
    the right thing to do. As every one of these events grew in
    size, it amazed me how much people liked them.'' The flood, she
    said, ``made people aware that cultural life and cultural
    institutions can offer comfort, solace and a center.''
        And the flood forced her to change her thinking, as well,
    she said. She, too, now shares the worry that the art world has
    become estranged from a general public that views it as elitist
    and class-based.
        ``I think what we're doing absolutely counters that
    problem, and without the flood I might not have learned that,''
    Ms. Reuter said. ``We show art that is difficult--contemporary
    art--and we work hard to make it accessible. The flood has
    given us a wonderful opportunity to address our public through
    contemporary art in a way that hits at the guts of the people.
    It's not esoteric. It's not intellectual. It's real.''
        And while eating hot dishes and singing hymns, a public
    that had little interest in art has begun to appreciate the
    paintings and sculptures that express ideas about alienation
    and identity.
        ``I think people became comfortable when they began to
    realize how much they understood about the works without a
    formal art education,'' Ms. Reuter said. ``The comfort goes up
    and the strangeness goes away as people begin to peel back the
    layers of meaning. People were surprised at how much the works
    related to their own lives.''
        Other cultural institutions have changed their programs and
    cut ticket prices to make themselves more accessible to the
    public.
        The Greater Grand Forks Symphony cut its ticket prices by
    $10, to $15, for its annual Oktoberfest concert. And to appeal
    to a wider audience it took an almost down-home approach in its
    advertisements, showing the symphony's director, Timm Rolek, in
    black tie and lederhosen and holding a German stein. But that
    doesn't mean the symphony has gone pop or is dumbing down. The
    Oktoberfest concert's program was entirely classical, with the
    Metropolitan Opera tenor Dennis Petersen as the guest vocalist
    performing the Prize Song from Wagner's ``Meistersinger'' and,
    appropriately, ``Their Land Brought Forth Frogs,'' from
    Handel's ``Israel in Egypt.''
        On the other hand, the Firehall Theater decided to present
    only musicals and comedies in its first postflood season,
    staging them in the theater even while it undergoes renovations
    (for seating, patio chairs have had to be dragged in from
    outside). The executive director, Steve Saari, said the theater
    was giving the audience what it wanted: a break from flood
    recovery.
        ``We want to keep trying to challenge our audience,'' Mr.
    Saari said. ``But this season we thought it was better to do
    comedies and musicals and give our audience a chance to
    laugh.''
        The theater is lucky to be open at all. After initially
    applying for a small-business loan, it received contributions
    from theater companies across the county as well as grants from
    the North Dakota Council on the Arts and the Minneapolis-based
    Otto Bremer Foundation, which donated $2.8 million to flooded
    communities throughout the Red River Valley. The theater was
    then able to turn down the loan and still rebuild, using its
    own staff instead of contractors. Mr. Saari himself hauled out
    loads of water-logged sheetrock.
        John Kostishack, the Bremer foundation's executive
    director, said he believed that some of the organizations
    Bremer had financed wouldn't survive their flood problems. But
    the arts groups in Grand Forks are more optimistic. While the
    North Dakota Ballet Company continues to meet, rehearse and
    hold classes at the Museum of Art, it has received several
    grants from regional foundations to replace costumes, equipment
    and other materials lost in the fire.
        ``I have been encouraged by the phone calls we've received
    from people who say we need this on such an important level,''
    said the ballet company's director, Mary Ellen Weir. Saving the
    ballet, she said, has been ``important for the overall health
    of the community as an escape from the rest of their
    problems.''
        ``I always felt we'd be back,'' she said.
        The Empire Arts Center hasn't set a date for its grand
    reopening, but Sheryl Smith, executive director of the North
    Valley Arts Council, a regional group in charge of the center's
    construction, is hoping for a spring debut. That chance
    increased with the announcement of $350,000 in grants from the
    Bush and Knight foundations.
        Like other groups, the arts council has turned to private
    foundations for support instead of local businesses and
    individuals, who in a normal year provide 60 percent of the
    council's budget. Besides providing workshops, meeting places
    and marketing efforts for arts groups across the northern Red
    River Valley, the arts council will dole out more than $60,000
    in grants itself. In overseeing the creation of the Empire
    center, a $1.5 million project, the arts council has tied
    itself even more closely to the future of Grand Forks. And its
    decision to choose the familiar old movie theater as the site
    for the center only underscores this bond with the city.
        ``One of the reasons we selected the Empire is that there
    are very few people around our community who haven't ever been
    there,'' Ms. Smith said. ``It's an unassuming place where
    people can feel comfortable--even if there is an art gallery
    inside.''
        A half-year after the flood, the Empire still looks
    unhealthy. Its crumbling brick facade, heavily damaged by flood
    water, makes one doubt the dogged determination of its marquee,
    which promises ``We are coming back.'' But across the street
    there are signs of rebirth. A favorite pub, destroyed by the
    fire, reopened in November. Every night it fills with college
    students and professors and lawyers still practicing near the
    downtown courthouse. Conversations revolve around memories of
    the old Grand Forks, and ideas about creating a new one.

                   proposed use of requested budget increase

        Ms. Higgins. As you know, the arts help communities all
    across this country. An estimated $37 billion of national
    economic activity is generated through the arts, and about $3.4
    billion in Federal income taxes each year. There are about 1.3
    million Americans employed in nonprofit arts activities and
    this is all as a result of a small agency budget of $98
    million.
        The President has asked for a modest increase of $38
    million. Those additional funds will go for the ArtsREACH
    Program which will serve underserved States, again a priority I
    think for this committee and for others in the Congress. There
    are about 20 States that are targeted for ArtsREACH. I would
    just point out to the committee that there are a number of
    members on this committee whose States would be served by an
    expansion of ArtsREACH. I think we are reaching 11 additional
    States that are represented by this committee, States that are
    underserved.

                              artsreach initiative

        There would be additional funding for the State arts
    councils and also additional funding for arts education.
        We have taken seriously the reforms that were put in place
    last year. As I mentioned, ArtsREACH is one of those reforms.
    We are trying also to reach out to communities by working with
    the country's mayors. I think you were the recipient of an
    award that the mayors presented in tribute to the work that you
    have done on behalf of the arts, along with Congresswoman
    Louise Slaughter.

                          importance of arts education

        On arts education, we had a wonderful presentation recently
    at the Council by Leonard Slatkin, who talked about what a
    difference the arts made when he was growing up. He went to a
    public high school in Los Angeles, and he said when he was in
    high school, there were three choruses, two bands, one
    orchestra, and a composer in residence. He said today the
    school is an armed camp. He said for two generations children
    have had no exposure to the arts in school.
        We have a small Arts Education Program, $13.7 million last
    year. As I mentioned, the President's budget would provide some
    more funding there.
        We are also trying to think about arts education in ways
    that go beyond just funding for the Endowment. The Council on
    Juvenile Justice, led by Attorney General Reno, is looking at
    the arts as a way to deal with youth crime.
        In the Department of Labor, for example, we are working on
    a memorandum of understanding [MOU] with the Endowment. There
    are now 30 MOU's, if you will, with other Federal agencies, as
    ways to partner and expand the reach of the arts through other
    Federal programs. We do a lot of work at the Labor Department
    with disadvantaged young people, and we are looking to do more
    in the area of the arts.

                             administrative budget

        Management, I know, has been a big concern of the Congress.
    I have been impressed, frankly, with how much the Endowment
    does with a very small staff. As I mentioned, my day job is
    managing the Labor Department. We have 17,000 employees and a
    $35 billion budget. NEA has less than 160 employees and a $98
    million budget, but last year they awarded 1,100 grants and
    they manage, on an annual basis, about 4,200 grants. The Labor
    Department is primarily an enforcement agency, but we also are
    a grantmaking agency. We managed to deliver 1,300 grants. So,
    you can see there is a significant difference in scale.

                           b-2 bomber grant proposal

        I also was impressed by the proposal, which I am sure you
    are aware of, that a number of your constituents from
    Washington State submitted to the Endowment. They actually
    proposed a grant for $98 million. [Laughter.]
        Their idea was to essentially create a model of part of the
    B-2 that they could then take around the country. I think it is
    humorous and obviously we were not able to fund it. [Laughter.]
        But I think it does point up and put in perspective the
    small amount of money that goes into the arts when you think
    that they could not even with that pay for all of the B-2. They
    are not quite sure how much it would pay for. But one B-2
    bomber, the estimates show, costs anywhere from $1.5 billion to
    $2.2 billion. So, our little bit of $98 million--and we would
    hope we could get some increase this year--does not even pay
    for probably one-half or one-quarter of a B-2 bomber.

                               prepared statement

        We are hopeful that the Congress will see fit to increase
    our funding. We take heart in the fact that we are less
    controversial this year. I think the NEA has come through, with
    your support and the support of your colleagues, a tough year.
    I think we have made some significant reforms. We are looking
    forward to working with you to continue to implement those
    reforms and to expand the reach of the Endowment in ways that
    will benefit all of our citizens.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathryn O'Leary Higgins
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee. When the President asked me to serve as the Acting Chair
    of the National Endowment for the Arts last fall, I was deeply honored.
    I am equally honored to appear before you today. I've had a delightful
    experience the last 5 months serving as Acting Chair of the Endowment.
    It's been a pleasure to work with Scott and her dedicated team.
        They have carried out the administration's commitment to make
    government work better and cost less. The 40 percent cut in funding and
    89-person cut in staff (in fiscal year 1996) have tested the patience
    and fortitude of the NEA team. I think they've passed with flying
    colors and with their sense of humor in tact.
        As much as I've loved this assignment, I know we are all eager for
    the Senate to confirm Bill Ivey as the new Chair. I know he has met
    with you Mr. Chairman and with Senators Bennett and Stevens, and I
    think you'll agree that he will be a great leader of the Endowment.
        One of my assignments as Acting Chair of the Endowment is to help
    convene meetings of the National Council. The Council met just two
    weeks ago and, as a result of changes in last year's appropriations
    bill, there are 8 (or 30 percent) fewer voting members than before; in
    September of this year, that number will go down by 4 more (an
    additional 15 percent reduction). The result of this downsizing already
    is that not all of the creative disciplines are represented. We are
    missing expertise in some key areas like design, dance and literature.
    This is of great concern to the council and I hope we can work with you
    Mr. Chairman to take another look at the size of the voting membership
    of the council.
        At this Council meeting, we welcomed six new members--three of your
    colleagues from here in the Senate (Senators Durbin, Sessions and
    Collins) and three Tom the ``other body'' (Representatives Nita Lowey,
    Cass Ballenger and John Doolittle).
        Four of our new members were able to personally participate in the
    Council's meetings and, as you might guess, the exchanges were lively
    and thought provoking. Two messages were offered by the new members:
      --(1) The Endowment should do more to make funds available to
            undeserved communities; and,
      --(2) Arts education should be a higher priority and given more
            prominence in the Endowment's agenda.
        Both messages were well received by the Council. Today Scott and I
    will address the actions the Endowment is taking to deal with these
    concerns.
        But first, I want to share with you a story that particularly
    touched me and I believe reveals the essential and invaluable role that
    the arts can play in bringing communities together and helping them to
    heal when tragedy strikes.
        Just one year ago, Grand Forks, North Dakota was under siege. When
    spring came to North Dakota last year, after one of the worst winters
    in memory, the Red River overflowed its banks, broke through the man-
    made dikes and levies, and inundated this modest community of 52,000.
        The city was literally drowning and its citizens had to be
    evacuated--and then the fires came. Who can forget the tragic scenes of
    those fires raging out of control, destroying several blocks of the
    business district as the volunteers fought desperately but in vain to
    save their downtown.
        I visited Grand Forks last April with President Clinton and the
    Congressional delegation, and the scenes of a flooded city and burned
    out buildings are indelibly etched.
        But all was not lost. There were a few miracles. The North Dakota
    Museum of Art and all the art it holds survived. Even the basement was
    dry. And because it was one of the few community facilities to come
    through the floods and fires unscathed, the museum quickly became a
    gathering place for displaced city residents.
        Members of the Bible Baptist Church gathered at the museum twice a
    week for services. The North Dakota ballet used the museum for
    rehearsals and the Center for Violence and Intervention conducted
    weekly meetings there. And last summer the museum hosted potluck
    suppers and free concerts for the citizens of Grand Forks who came
    every week, weary from digging their homes out from the muck and mire.
        Ms. Laurel Reuter, the museum's director, put it this way: ``A
    museum is like a church, in that it is the center for the community * *
    *. [t]he flood made people aware that cultural life and cultural
    institutions can offer comfort, solace and a center.''
        Or as the indomitable Mayor of Grand Forks, Pat Owens, said ``You
    need your businesses, houses, churches and schools. But you also need
    something for the spirit and the mind that deals with culture. I
    believe the arts are the heart of our community, and that cultural life
    had become a way of life for the community. If you don't have culture,
    you're really missing something mentally and emotionally.''
        The North Dakota Museum of Art is an NEA grantee. And the Council
    just provided additional funding to help the museum plan and manage an
    endowment campaign. This will secure the museum's place and prominence
    at the center and heart of the Grand Forks community I would ask that
    the New York Times November 23, 1997 account be entered for the record.
                            comparative perspective
        The Endowment helps communities like Grand Forks all across the
    country. The Endowment generates an estimated $37 billion in national
    economic activity and returns about $3.4 billion in federal income
    taxes each year. More than 1.3 million Americans are employed in the
    nonprofit arts industry. And all of this was accomplished, in this past
    year, with a budget of $98 million--or at a cost of about one postage
    stamp per taxpayer.
        The President's budget request is $136 million for the NEA, a $38
    million increase. By comparison, in constant dollars, this is less than
    half what the NEA's budget was 20 years ago. So, as you can tell, the
    President's fiscal year 1999 budget request is extraordinarily lean.
        The additional $38 million requested for fiscal year 1999 will fund
    the important $20 million ArtsReach program that Scott will discuss in
    greater detail; provide $14 million to States Arts Councils; and,
    provide $4 million to arts education.
                                  key concerns
        As I mentioned, the two issues discussed actively at the Council
    meeting were: the reach or distribution of the NEA grants--in other
    words, how do we help communities, specifically the undeserved; and,
    the importance of arts education.
        Let me touch on each.
    Reaching out to all communities--getting to the undeserved
        The NEA recognizes that too many states aren't participating as
    fully as we'd like, but we are determined to correct that problem. As
    Congressman Ballenger put it at the Council meeting, he is convinced
    there is now a very strong effort on the part of the NEA to go, as he
    said, ``into the boondocks.''
        The ArtsReach program, which Scott will address, would specifically
    target undeserved states, increasing the likelihood that we can reach
    all 50 states--if we get the money to carry it out.
        We also seek representation from all the states on the panels that
    review grants; in addition, we've established a multi-state funding
    category and this year 334 applications in this category were approved
    by the Council; we're also asking grantees to let us know exactly where
    projects occur--and with new software, tracking this by zip code.
        We also have enlisted the help of our nation's mayors. Recently I
    attended the awards dinner sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors
    and Americans for the Arts: Over 650 people attended including 300
    mayors and it was truly a celebration of the importance of federal
    support for the arts and the NEA. Awards were presented to you Senator
    Gorton, and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, from New York, in
    recognition of your and her outstanding support of the Endowment. Your
    comments, along with those of the mayors who participated in the
    evening, were a strong endorsement of the importance of the arts to
    communities across America.
        The NEA, through the Mayors Institute on City Design, is helping
    local governments do comprehensive planning and revitalize their
    communities--Scott will tell you in more detail about Rock Hill, South
    Carolina's Mayor Betty Jo Rhea's wonderful experience. When we broaden
    how we think of ``art,'' we recognize that the creative talents the
    arts engender, are talents that are invaluable in every element of
    society, in every endeavor.
    Arts education
        I wholeheartedly agree with several of your distinguished
    colleagues who pointed out to the full Council, that arts education is
    critically important.
        I'm reminded of what our second President John Adams wrote to his
    wife Abigail in 1780: ``I must study politics and war that my sons may
    have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to
    study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval
    architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give
    their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture,
    statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.''
        When Maestro Leonard Slatkin recently spoke to the Council about
    the importance of arts education, he noted that: ``we're close to two
    generations of the public who have seen cutbacks in programs in
    schools, public schools in particular.'' He told us how, when he was a
    student in a public high school in Los Angeles, there were three
    choruses, two bands, and one orchestra, and a composer in residence--in
    a public high school. He said, ``today the school is an armed camp.''
        The NEA does have an effective, albeit small, arts education
    program, just $13.7 million last year. Of the additional monies in our
    fiscal year 1999 request, an additional $4 million would go to expand
    arts education.
        The NEA helps educate youth through traveling programs in schools,
    and through after school training programs, and community exhibits. The
    NEA achieves this through a wide variety of partnerships, including 30
    agreements with other federal departments.
        I recently represented the NEA at the Coordinating Council on
    Juvenile Justice, chaired by Attorney General Reno. Along with
    Secretary Shalala, General McCaffrey and others, we discussed how arts
    activities are a tremendously positive alternative for youth, helping
    them avoid danger in the streets and the influence of drugs and crime.
        At the Department of Labor, we now recognize the Arts can help us
    do more to assist Americans, especially youth, in developing the skills
    needed to succeed in the workplace. Arts programs help improve self
    esteem, teach how to be more assertive in a positive way, improve
    communication skills, and develop discipline while involved in
    projects--all skills employers value!
        In Poughkeepsie, New York, for example, the Job Training
    Partnership Act and the New York State Council for the Arts, contribute
    to Project ABLE (Arts for Basic Education, Life Skills, and
    Entrepreneurship). Under the guidance of a carpenter, a retail design
    specialist and artists, city youth have renovated a gift shop, an arts
    gallery and a warehouse and have undertaken public arts projects. The
    teens gain specific job skills, learn how to resolve conflict, work in
    teams and exercise decision making abilities.
        The Department of Labor is developing a Memorandum of understanding
    with the Endowment--to learn from and expand on programs like Project
    ABLE.
        The benefit of arts education in promoting creative thinking, is
    well as recognized. Harvard and many other business schools are
    actually teaching creativity--and large companies sponsor conferences,
    training and guest speakers that highlight thinking ``outside the
    box.''
    Strategic management
        All this work is being done by the NEA, as I pointed out earlier,
    with fewer people, and with less money than since the late 1970's.
        I am impressed by the streamlined, cost effective and public way in
    which the NEA manages--responding to what I would call both the
    leadership and challenge of many in Congress.
        In addition, the new strategic and performance plan process known
    as GPRA, has helped the NEA to focus its efforts on tangible results.
        It's been fascinating for me to contrast the NEA with my day job,
    as Deputy Secretary of Labor. The Labor Department has about 17,000
    employees and a budget of almost $35 billion. The NEA on the other hand
    has just 150 employees and its budget last year was $98 million. In
    grant activity last year, the NEA awarded 1 101 grants and continued to
    manage another 4,200 or so. The Labor Department awarded approximately
    1,300 grants last year. The NEA is a small, but very effective
    organization.
        To continue to be effective, I urge the you to forward an
    appropriations bill for the NEA. CBO, according to a January 1997
    report, is not aware of any case in which appropriations have not been
    provided solely because a program or agency's authorization has
    expired.
    Closing
        In his State of the Union address, the President asked how we would
    mark our passage into the new Millennium.
        At the NEA, we want to mark this passage with a more open, well
    managed and enlightened effort to honor the past achievements of our
    nation's creative and artistic talents--through museum exhibits,
    traveling shows, and gala performances--so as to educate a generation
    about all aspects of its culture.
        And we shall also imagine the future, supporting new artists in all
    fields, and thinking about art in a new way--a way that encourages a
    generation to help shape its culture, as well as helps Mayors design
    revitalized communities, and businesses compete better in the global
    economy with creative talent.
        I think the best way to reach undeserved areas, to promote arts
    education, to enable all Americans to experience the richness of our
    culture, is to continue to have an active dialogue with those we serve,
    and to provide forums and opportunities for them to engage in that
    dialogue, and in the programs and activities that share, celebrate, and
    create anew this great culture.
        The role of the NEA is not to steer that dialogue or those shared
    experiences, but to continue to ensure they exist for as many Americans
    as possible.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.
    I'd like to introduce Scott Shanklin-Peterson, Senior Deputy Chairman
    of the National Endowment and its chief operating officer.
                                    ------

                 Biographical Sketch of Kathryn O'Leary Higgins

        Kathryn O'Leary Higgins was sworn in as Deputy Secretary of
    Labor on July 2, 1997. Currently the second in command under
    Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman, Ms. Higgins oversees policy
    development and the day-to-day operations of the 16,000
    employee Department.
        Ms. Higgins brings nearly three decades of experience and
    leadership to the job of Deputy Secretary. In her current role,
    she manages the Department's 16 agencies helping to assure that
    working Americans are paid a just wage, can depend on a secure
    retirement, have a safe, healthy and fair workplace, and are
    prepared for the highly-competitive global economy.
        Joining the Clinton Administration immediately after the
    1992 election, Ms. Higgins served as the Chief of Staff to
    President Clinton's first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich. In
    February 1995, she moved to the White House to serve as an
    Assistant to the President and the Secretary to the Cabinet.
    Ms. Higgins held this position until her July 1997 confirmation
    as Deputy Secretary of Labor.
        Kitty Higgins began her career in public service in the
    summer of 1968 as an intern at the Labor Department. After
    graduation from the University of Nebraska in 1969, she
    returned to the Department and worked as a Manpower Specialist
    until 1978. She then served on President Carter's Domestic
    Policy Council as an Assistant Director for Employment Policy
    from 1978 to 1981.
        In January 1981, Ms. Higgins joined Senator Edward
    Kennedy's staff as a Senior Legislative Associate for the
    Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and rose to
    become the Democratic Staff Director, serving the Senator in
    that capacity from September 1982 to January 1986. Ms. Higgins
    then moved to the House of Representatives, becoming Chief of
    Staff/Administrative Assistant to Representative Sander Levin
    of Michigan, until joining the Clinton Administration.
        In addition to her appointment as Deputy Secretary of
    Labor, Ms. Higgins agreed in November 1997 to serve as the
    Acting Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts until the
    President's nominee for that position, William J. Ivey, is
    confirmed.
        Ms. Higgins is from Yankton, South Dakota, and attended
    Mount Marty College in South Dakota from 1965-67 before earning
    her B.S. in social science and education from the University of
    Nebraska in 1969. She was married for 16 years to William J.
    Higgins until his death in 1987, and has two sons: Liam, 23,
    and Kevan, 19.

                  summary statement of scott shanklin-peterson

        Senator Gorton. Ms. Shanklin-Peterson?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and also
    appreciate the wonderful leadership which Kitty has provided to
    our agency during this interim period.
        Before joining Jane Alexander's staff in 1994, I was
    executive director of the South Carolina Arts Commission for 13
    years and on the staff for 8 years prior to that. So, I have
    brought to this position 21 years of experience of working with
    State and local leaders to develop the arts in South Carolina
    and also to promote arts education in our schools. So, I know
    firsthand how important the support of the Endowment is across
    the country.
        I am honored today to be here to represent the President's
    request of $136 million. This $38 million increase will enable
    the Congress and our agency to help preserve the cultural
    heritage of America's communities. It will help us expand our
    ArtsREACH Program. It will help us to enhance the learning
    opportunities in the arts in our schools and help provide
    access to the arts in communities across the country through
    our partnerships with the State arts agencies.
        I wanted to take this opportunity to bring you up to date
    on several actions that we have taken to address three
    important areas. One is the broadening of the distribution of
    our grants. The second is the multistate projects that we are
    funding, and third is arts education. I also want to assure you
    that the Endowment is working to implement all of the important
    directives which were included in the 1998 appropriations bill
    and continuing the administrative reforms which our Chairman,
    Jane Alexander, implemented.
        We are very concerned--and I know Members of Congress are
    concerned--about the inequitable geographic distribution of our
    funds. We have taken a number of steps to broaden the
    distribution.

                              artsreach initiative

        The first is that we recently announced the ArtsREACH
    Program which is a very promising new initiative and we are
    beginning a pilot this year with 1998 funding. The ArtsREACH
    Program is a new grants program for underserved States and it
    will be accompanied by targeted technical assistance to those
    same States from our staff. It was approved by the National
    Council on the Arts at its last meeting 3 weeks ago, and the
    new congressional members of the Council were very, very
    enthusiastic about it.
        We want to broaden the geographic distribution of our
    funds. ArtsREACH will also help strengthen the role of the arts
    in communities and increase support for the arts.
        We have designated 20 States which we consider to be
    underrepresented States. These are States that received five or
    fewer grants either this year or last year. We have put
    together an arts endowment technical assistance team. Our staff
    will go out to these 20 States and conduct grants workshops,
    talk about ArtsREACH, talk about the opportunities that are
    available through the Arts Endowment and work with the State
    and local arts agencies in doing this.
        Some 2 weeks ago we had staff in Tennessee, and last week
    in Delaware, South Dakota, and North Dakota. This week one of
    our staff members is touring the State of Alabama with one of
    Senator Sessions' staff members and conducting workshops
    throughout Alabama.
        ArtsREACH is also a grants program, and we will be
    providing small grants to arts organizations and communities in
    these targeted States for planning and for technical services.
    We hope to provide around 75 to 100 grants through ArtsREACH
    this year, and we hope that through ArtsREACH and the planning
    process that is involved with it we will make these areas more
    competitive not only for Arts Endowment funding, but also for
    funding from their State arts agencies, from their local
    communities, and from the private sector.
        Americans for the Arts indicates, through some of the
    research they have done, that local arts agencies that have
    cultural plans developed for their community are able to raise
    over 33 percent more in resources than communities that do not.
    This is what we hope to accomplish through ArtsREACH.
        One example is in my home State in Rock Hill, SC, which is
    a small city. It is about 10 miles south of Charlotte, NC. In
    the late 1980's, they had 17 percent unemployment because they
    had 12 textile mills that closed. The mayor, Betty Jo Rhea,
    brought the community together and they developed a plan to use
    the arts and design to revitalize their downtown and the
    economy of Rock Hill.
        In 1991, based on the strong plan that they developed, the
    Arts Endowment awarded a $150,000 grant to help them implement
    some of the projects that they had designed. They matched that
    with over $600,000 in support from the local government and
    also from the private sector. Now today they have outdoor
    sculpture throughout the community. They have a new arts
    center. They have artist studios on Main Street. They have an
    annual arts festival and performing arts series. They also have
    two booming industrial parks, and they have an unemployment
    rate of 2.2 percent.
        So, Rock Hill has really become a community where people
    want to live, where they enjoy living, a community where
    industry wants to locate, and the former, Mayor Betty Jo Rhea,
    really credits the Arts Endowment with being the catalyst for
    this change in their community. That is the kind of initiative
    that we want to see happen through ArtsREACH and through the
    communities that we are working with.
        We are proposing to allocate $20 million of the increase to
    ArtsREACH, and this would help us expand the number of
    communities that we are able to reach next year. It would also
    help us to be able to provide grants for the specific projects
    that are developed this year through the ArtsREACH planning
    process and also help us to provide grants through our regular
    direct grants program to organizations in these States. We
    believe a result of our staff working directly with the States
    and with the communities will assist them to develop
    competitive projects.
        We have taken a number of other actions. We are recruiting
    very actively panelists from all of the underserved States. We
    are making sure that the panel appointments that we make are
    monitored on a State-by-State basis. We have added geographic
    impact to our grant review criteria, and we are working with
    the State arts agencies. This year we developed a new folk arts
    initiative and we are providing grants to over 30 States for
    folk arts projects.
        In addition, our Millennium projects will be designed to
    serve all 50 States.

                               multistate grants

        We are also making sure of the grants that we do award, no
    more than 15 percent of them are to any one State.
        I also wanted to comment on our multistate grants. Congress
    has asked us to establish a category of multistate grants that
    serve more than one State or grants which have a national
    impact. This is one of the very important roles that the Arts
    Endowment can play. This year we will be providing
    approximately 300 multistate grants to support activities in
    more than one State, and these grants help support artists who
    tour to other States, and also help support broadcast
    opportunities.
        One such example is the National Dance Project which was
    awarded to the New England Foundation in Boston. It is a $1
    million grant that appears to have gone to Boston but actually
    supported 117 dance performances in 32 States last year.

                                 arts education

        Arts education, as you know, is one of our priorities. We
    have a new brochure which you have in front of you that
    explains the Arts Endowment's programs in arts education and
    our position with arts education.
        You also have a copy of Principal magazine which we would
    like to enter into the record.
        Senator Gorton. We will enter into the record that
    magazine, and I assume you want the New York Times article
    about Grand Forks and any of the other publications you would
    like to be in the record will be included.
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you very much.
        [Clerk's note.--Due to its volume the above mentioned
    magazine, Principal, is being retained in subcommittee files.]

                               prepared statement

        Senator Gorton. We have a partnership with 140 different
    organizations to promote arts education, and the Elementary and
    Secondary Principals Organization is one of those
    organizations. They have published this magazine that is
    totally devoted to arts education this year as result of this
    work.
        So, we appreciate your support and hope that you will be
    able to support the President's recommended increase.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Scott Shanklin-Peterson

        Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Interior
    Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
    about the importance of the National Endowment for the Arts.
        As the Senior Deputy Chairman, I am the Endowment's chief
    operating officer in the absence of a Senate-confirmed
    Chairman. As you know, our distinguished former Chairman Jane
    Alexander retired last October, and President Clinton has since
    nominated William J. Ivey of Tennessee to take her place. Mr.
    Ivey is the long-time Director of the Country Music Foundation
    in Nashville. His appointment is currently pending before the
    Senate, and we hope to have him on board very soon.
        In the interim, a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act
    requires the White House to appoint an Acting Chairman, and
    that distinguished person is the current Deputy Secretary of
    Labor, Kathryn (Kitty) O'Leary Higgins. She is with us here
    today.
        Before joining Jane Alexander's staff in 1996, I served as
    the Executive Director of the South Carolina Arts Commission
    for thirteen years, and was on the staff for eight years prior
    to assuming the director's position. So I bring to the
    Endowment 21 years of working experience with state and
    community leaders, educators, artists, and arts organizations,
    in a primarily rural state, working to develop the state's
    cultural resources and helping to ensure that the arts are a
    basic part of each child's education in South Carolina.
        I am honored to be here today to support the President's
    request of $136 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    in fiscal year 1999. This proposed funding increase will enable
    the agency to move forward with three distinct initiatives: (1)
    address serious concerns raised by Congress about the
    geographic distribution of direct NEA grants, (2) strengthen
    the Endowment's leadership efforts on behalf of arts education
    and preserving our cultural heritage, and (3) help ensure broad
    access to the arts, strengthen arts education programs and
    celebrate our living cultural heritage through increased grants
    to the states and regions. In the first instance, we are
    requesting $20 million in new funds to support a major
    expansion of the pilot program ArtsREACH, which will assure
    much greater NEA support in the form of direct grants to
    communities that have received limited funding in past years. I
    will discuss this in more detail in a moment.
        It is a fact that the geographic impact of direct NEA
    grants has declined considerably in recent years because of
    both reductions in our budget, and the increased amounts
    allocated to the states. In fiscal 1998 for example, direct
    funding available for arts organizations declined by more than
    ten percent--from $54.2 million to $48.6 million. Even though
    the overall agency budget declined by only $1 .5 million an
    additional $4.1 million of the remaining amount was allocated
    to the states, thus increasing their share from $28.3 million
    to $32.4 million. The inevitable result of these cuts and
    reallocations is that fewer and fewer organizations in all of
    the states receive direct grants each year.
        The increased competition for funding has caused many fine
    organizations to stop applying, and this is a very serious
    problem. There are excellent cultural resources in every state
    which we should be supporting, but when they don't apply, we
    can not assist them.
        Mr. Chairman in an effort to remedy this problem, we have
    created ArtsREACH. This year under ArtsREACH, we are providing
    small grants to arts organizations and communities in targeted
    states for planning and technical services. Arts Endowment
    staff are traveling to each of these states to conduct grant
    workshops, offer technical assistance, and provide other
    advice. We are working closely with our state and local arts
    counterparts. The overall program objective is to increase
    direct NEA funding in under-represented communities. Grants
    will be used to help local leaders develop plans to use the
    arts to preserve their local heritage, strengthen their arts
    education programs, revitalize their communities, and expand
    support for arts organizations. You may be interested to know
    that this week one of our staff people, accompanied by state
    and local officials, as well as a staff member from the office
    of Senator Jeff Sessions, conducted a series of ArtsREACH
    training sessions in four Alabama cities.
        Next year, the President's budget request would accommodate
    a major expansion of ArtsREACH communities, and would reserve
    new grant funds for specific project applications submitted by
    those communities. Again, we are asking for $20 million dollars
    in new funding to support projects in the targeted ArtsREACH
    states.
        ArtsREACH was recently approved by the National Council on
    the Arts at their meeting a few weeks ago, and I am pleased to
    report that the new Congressional members of the Council gave
    their wholehearted approval to the program.
        Mr. Chairman, the President's budget would also support the
    opportunity for Americans of all ages to enjoy educational
    experiences in the arts. This year, over 150 projects supported
    directly by the Arts Endowment are enabling children in grades
    K-12 to experience orchestral music, dance, theater, and other
    performances. Through our partnerships with the state arts
    agencies, we are helping to ensure that the arts become a basic
    part of each child's education through curriculum development,
    arts education research and teacher training. In addition, our
    partnerships with the states support artist residencies and
    artist-teacher collaborations in the schools of 2,400 separate
    communities. Those initiatives are an essential piece of the
    educational process, and they should be expanded.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, the 1998 appropriation bill
    contained a number of important structural changes in the way
    the Endowment does business. Today I want to assure you that we
    are working very hard to implement these changes.
        First, regarding the issue of grant distribution, and the
    directive to give greater priority to under-represented areas:
    as the legislation requires, we are limiting awards to
    organizations in any one state to 15 percent of the total
    amount available, with the understanding that grants with
    multi-state impact are accounted for separately and are exempt
    from the limitation. As the legislation requires, we will
    provide a complete report to Congress on these distributions at
    the close of the fiscal year.
        In addition to our ArtsREACH program initiative, the
    Endowment is taking a number of other actions to assure broader
    distribution of grants. Merit review panelists are being
    actively recruited from under-represented states, and panel
    appointments are being monitored on a state-by-state basis to
    ensure all states are represented during the year. We have
    added ``geographic impact'' to. our grant review criteria. We
    created a new Folk Arts Infrastructure Initiative which will
    provide fiscal year 1998 grants in more than 30 states, and our
    fiscal year 1998 Millennium projects will be designed to serve
    all 50 states.
        One of the unique national roles of the Arts Endowment is
    to encourage the sharing of artistic resources across state
    lines through our multi-state grants. In 1998, we will award in
    excess of 300 multi-state grants totaling approximately $17
    million to arts institutions of all sizes located in most of
    the states. These multi-state grants support national
    broadcasts, dance and theater touring, and many other projects
    bringing benefits to Americans all over the country. For
    example, the National Dance Project, a $1 million Leadership
    Initiative awarded to the New England Foundation for the Arts
    based in Boston, Massachusetts, supported 117 dance
    performances in 32 states last year. We are currently
    developing a database that will enable us to do a better job of
    tracking these multi-state grants, and to keep you better
    apprised of the work we are supporting in your states.
        Second, regarding the National Council on the Arts: the
    reconstituted Council, complete with Members of Congress, met
    in late February, and I am happy to report that all six
    Congressional Members--Representatives Nita M. Lowey, John T.
    Doolittle, and Cass Ballenger; and Senators Richard J. Durbin,
    Susan M. Collins and Jeff Sessions--have now been appointed.
    Four of the members participated in the meeting. We appreciate
    having their advice and counsel, and we hope that their
    involvement in the agency's operations will lead to the
    development of constructive relationships between the agency
    and Congress.
        Third, within the administrative area of the agency: the
    appropriations legislation directed the Endowment to develop a
    proposed restructuring of the administrative budget. We have
    identified certain activities which directly support our
    interaction with the arts field and programmatic activities as
    ``Program Support.'' These include the costs of conducting
    review panels, National Council on the Arts meetings,
    application guidelines, programmatic research and accessibility
    activity.
        We are mindful of the concerns expressed by some in
    Congress about the Endowment's expenditures on salaries and
    expenses, and we have attempted to illustrate more clearly in
    the budget the activities conducted by the agency. As an
    independent Federal entity, the National Endowment for the Arts
    is subject to all of the operating procedures and regulations
    imposed on executive branch agencies to ensure the proper use,
    control and accountability of taxpayer dollars. The agency must
    retain sufficient professional staff to comply with the laws.
        Fourth, regarding the directive that the agency give
    priority to arts education and enrichment: the agency agrees
    that the investment in arts education and educational
    enrichment projects is a priority, and is requesting additional
    funds for that purpose. This year, we are spending $9.3 million
    through our Education and Access grant category. In addition,
    we will allocate nearly $2.5 million to the state arts
    agencies, over and above the 40 percent set-aside, to help make
    the arts basic in pre-K to 12 education. They match our funds
    with approximately $28 million. A recent survey shows that
    together we supported 7,800 projects, in more than 2,400
    communities, involving thousands of teachers and artists.
        Finally, the appropriations legislation gave the Endowment
    authority to ``solicit and invest'' funds. I am pleased to
    report that the agency has established a separate interest
    bearing account within the U.S. Treasury and continues to
    receive private sector funds for projects jointly sponsored by
    the Endowment and other organizations. In addition, agency
    staff are examining funding augmentation strategies, and
    evaluating the staff resources that would be required for
    putting such strategies in place.
        I wish to note for the record that the agency continues to
    hear expressions of concern from representatives of arts
    organizations about the prospect of the agency competing with
    their own fund-raising and development efforts. Arts
    organizations pay for their projects from a variety of funding
    sources, and they view the Endowment in its historical context
    as a source of assistance, rather than as a competitor. This
    continues to be a sensitive issue in the nonprofit arts funding
    field.
        In their entirety, the structural changes enacted in the
    fiscal 1998 appropriations legislation were quite substantial.
    When added to the changes imposed both administratively and by
    Congress throughout the 1995-1996 period, you can see that the
    NEA is a very different organization from just a few years ago.
        Mr. Chairman as you know, the National Endowment for the
    Arts was created by Congress to ensure that our national
    government would support the nation's culture in all its
    richness, in concert with the private sector, the states and
    communities across the land; investing in creativity and
    imagination; leading in arts research, arts education,
    convening and networking; and catalyzing private investment.
        I urge you to make the Federal government a stronger
    partner in this endeavor. With your help we will reach the
    under-represented communities, providing access to the arts for
    all citizens and encouraging creativity and artistic
    inspiration among the nation's youth; and we will take the lead
    in helping communities protect the nation's living cultural
    heritage for the benefit of future generations. This has been
    America's century after all, and we as a nation should take
    time to reflect upon our achievements in the arts, and
    celebrate America's cultural legacy at the turn of the
    millennium.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I hope I can
    count on your support. Again, I am pleased to have this
    opportunity to speak with you.
                                    ------

                 Biographical Sketch of Scott Shanklin-Peterson

        Scott Shanklin-Peterson has been named as the Senior Deputy
    Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and is
    currently in charge of day-to-day operations at the Endowment.
    She will act as Senior Deputy Chairman until a replacement for
    former Chairman Jane Alexander is nominated by the President
    and confirmed by the Senate. Ms. Shanklin-Peterson previously
    served as the National Endowment for the Arts Deputy Chairman
    for Grants and Partnership and was responsible for the agency's
    grants to organizations, artist fellowships, leadership
    initiatives, and partnership activities with state arts
    agencies, regional arts organizations, and other federal
    agencies. In addition, she worked closely with former Chairman
    Jane Alexander on the reorganization of the agency following
    Congressional budget cuts in 1996 and on the creation and
    implementation of the American Canvas Initiative throughout the
    past three years.
        Prior to her tenure at the Endowment, Ms. Shanklin-Peterson
    served as Executive Director of the South Carolina Arts
    Commission for 13 years where she planned, developed, and
    directed all program and administrative functions of the state
    arts agency. Under her leadership, the South Carolina Arts
    Commission received national recognition for their leadership
    in arts education, rural arts development, and media arts. She
    has also been the chairman of the Board of Directors of the
    Southern Arts Federation, and on the boards of the National
    Assembly of State Arts Agencies and the American Council for
    the Arts.
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson received her B.A. degree in Visual
    Arts from Columbia College and is a graduate of Harvard
    University's Institute of Arts Administration. She is married
    to Terry Peterson and has a son who is a professional musician
    in Los Angeles and a daughter who attends the College of
    Charleston.

                          national council on the arts

        Senator Gorton. I assume that you told those imaginative
    constituents of mine that regrettably the 15-percent rule
    disqualifies them? [Laughter.]
        Ms. Higgins. But we applaud their ingenuity.
        Senator Gorton. I wonder if each of you could tell me a
    little bit more about how the dynamics of the National Council
    has changed with both the reduction in the number of its
    members and with the six Members from the House and the Senate
    it now includes. Did all six of them attend that first meeting?
        Ms. Higgins. Actually four were able to attend for part of
    the first meeting. Senator Durbin and Senator Sessions were
    there. Senator Collins, unfortunately, was not. Congresswoman
    Nita Lowey and Congressman Cass Ballenger also participated.
        Frankly one of the concerns--I appreciate your question--
    that was raised by some of the current members of the Council
    was a problem that they saw in the reduction of size.
        First of all, I think that the addition of the
    congressional members is going to promote a very healthy dialog
    on both sides. I think it is fair to say the members learned
    some things in terms of how the Endowment operates that they
    were not aware of before. They had some very good
    recommendations about how we could make Congress more aware and
    members in particular more aware of what was going on in their
    districts, and I think we want to work more closely with you on
    that.
        One of the concerns that was raised about the reduction in
    size was that some of the disciplines that the Endowment has to
    deal with are now not represented on the Council. For example,
    dance, literature, and design are not currently represented.
    The Council is made up of people with a broad range of
    expertise, but they now see some holes in the Council
    membership. So, we were hoping that maybe we could take another
    look at expanding the Council a little bit to try and address
    some of that.
        Senator Gorton. My suggestion would be that that would be
    more likely to be found acceptable if the congressional members
    of the Council were to advocate it.
        Ms. Higgins. I think they were hearing that as well, but we
    should talk further about that.
        But again, I think the dialog was very constructive. There
    was a little nervousness on both sides to begin with, but as we
    have talked about it, I think there is a great benefit for
    demystifying, if you will, the work of the Endowment, since in
    fact, it has a very open process in the way that grants are
    selected. They have panels made up of people from all around
    the country who really go through a very thorough process. I
    think that was new to the Members of Congress. I think they
    appreciated that.

                         fifteen percent cap for states

        Senator Gorton. Now, the 15-percent rule from the point of
    view of reducing grants in a given area impacted only New York?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. New York had the largest percentage,
    of course, because so many of the grants that are awarded to
    New York are multistate grants that really serve many other
    States as well. So, when you are figuring that percentage that
    is taken into account. Of course, we are not yet at the end of
    our year for awarding grants.
        Senator Gorton. But you did not have any other States that
    were over 15 percent before that?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Before that? California might have
    been, but I do not think so.
        Senator Gorton. Now, what kind of impact will that have on
    New York and on New York arts agencies?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Well, when we get to the end of the
    year, we can answer the question a bit better, but as I was
    saying, many of the grants that are awarded to New York are
    multistate grants. So, those are automatically subtracted from
    the cap for New York. They are not counted in the 15 percent.
        Senator Gorton. You are going to have to be very careful
    with that in my view. How much even your people in South
    Carolina are going to be impressed by a grant that goes to New
    York, some of which ultimately finds itself to South Carolina,
    is in my view an open question. That was not an argument that
    impressed members when we were debating this whole issue last
    year.

                              artsreach initiative

        My own impression is that the way you have expanded your
    outreach and you are dealing especially with these 20 States
    that had fewer than 5 grants is something that can do nothing
    other than to strengthen support for the Endowment. But I
    believe you will get an awful lot more credit for one grant
    that goes directly to an entity in the State than one where
    even an equal number of dollars sort of trickle down from a New
    York or a California grantee to someplace in one of these
    smaller States.
        Ms. Higgins. As Tip O'Neill would say, all politics is
    local.
        I think it might be useful, Senator, to include in the
    record this chart which shows the States that are targeted for
    outreach.
        Senator Gorton. I think it would be very important to
    include that in the record and it will be so inserted.
        Ms. Higgins. It shows over the last 2 years those States
    who are essentially underfunded and where the concentration is
    going to be in terms of this new initiative.
        [The information follows:]

      Target States Eligible to Apply for ArtsREACH Grants in Fiscal Year
                                      1998

        Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South
    Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee,
    Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina,
    Delaware, and Rhode Island.

                               underserved states

        Senator Gorton. Now, a combination of that rule and of this
    new emphasis obviously has shifted I think the kind as well as
    the direction of your grants. Give me a brief summary of that.
    There is only so much money, and as you have pointed out, it is
    a relatively limited amount of money. If there is more outreach
    to these underserved States, is there also a change in
    direction as to the kind of grants there are, the elements
    within the arts at which they are aimed, and if so, who are
    losers in this process?
        Ms. Higgins. Scott will know this better than I, but my
    impression is that one of the objectives of ArtsREACH, probably
    the principal objective, is to get more organizations to apply.
    I think what we see in the States that are targeted for
    ArtsREACH is in fact a smaller number of organizations
    applying. So, the effort to go out and provide technical
    assistance and to meet with local groups is really to say to
    them, the funding has been cut but in fact there is money still
    available and that we really need to encourage you to apply.
        Senator Gorton. Make more work for yourselves.
        Ms. Higgins. One of the things that frankly I have been
    impressed by--we are talking about very small grants. I was
    looking, for example, at the grants that were just recently
    awarded in your State. We are talking about a variety of
    organizations, everything from native American folk projects to
    money going to Spokane for musical presentations there. But we
    are talking about very small grants in many cases. It is really
    money that is sort of a catalyst.
        So, you are right. The pie is much smaller but I think
    there is an effort----
        Senator Gorton. To be an imprimatur of being able to say
    NEA has helped us.
        Ms. Higgins. Well, it gives them a national recognition
    which it is my sense is very valued by these communities and
    these local projects. So, there is still a wide diversity of
    programs being funded.
        This ArtsREACH initiative is a pilot. I think we are trying
    some things this first year to see if we can stimulate some
    more activity and more interest.
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. One of the major problems we faced
    is, with the 40-percent reduction in our funding, many of the
    organizations that had been applying to the Arts Endowment
    primarily from the more rural States thought they would not be
    competitive.
        Senator Gorton. And so they just did not apply.
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. And so they did not apply, and so we
    really need to generate applications from----
        Senator Gorton. So, in a sense, you would rather have more
    grantees even though it means somewhat smaller amounts.

                                amount of grants

        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. This year we will be making more
    grants. They are smaller grants, but we will be making more
    grants to more organizations. And that is a very strategic
    move.
        Senator Gorton. Because the amounts going to the State
    agencies has increased, has it not?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. It also has increased. That is
    right.

                              state arts agencies

        Senator Gorton. Do you have any idea when the money goes to
    these State agencies, how they use it? Has that increase in
    support for the State agencies had a positive result?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. I think it has had a very positive
    result in that the States themselves are now allocating 12
    percent more in appropriations this year to support the arts,
    and we are working very closely with the State arts agencies in
    their planning and their reporting procedures. Also, we do know
    how their funds are spent in each of the States.
        Senator Gorton. Do many of the State agencies communicate
    with you with respect to applications from their own States? Is
    there any coordination between what you do, say, in Iowa and
    what the Iowa entity does?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. That is one of the things that we
    are looking at with ArtsREACH because we will be working with
    the State arts agencies when we visit those States. So, they
    will be hearing what it is that their constituents might be
    applying to the Endowment for at the same time that our staff
    is working with them as well.

                      fiscal year 1999 funding priorities

        Senator Gorton. As I said in my opening remarks, as much as
    you would like it and as much as some members of this committee
    might like it, the kind of increases in the President's budget
    just simply are not going to be possible.
        If you got, say, a $4, $5, or $6 million increase, what
    would your highest priorities be?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Our first priority would be
    ArtsREACH because we are stepping out there this year hoping
    that we will be generating more applications from these areas,
    and we want to be able to have the resources to support them.
    So, I think it is very necessary that we have additional funds
    to do that.

                        office of enterprise development

        Senator Gorton. I have here a note about the Enterprise
    Office. We have not seen anything with respect to that to find
    other methods of support. What is happening there?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. As you know, Jane Alexander had
    developed the Enterprise Office, and we do have one staff
    person that is working there. Our legislation this year gave us
    the authority to solicit and invest private funds, but we only
    have one staff person there. We are looking at opportunities.
    We have been looking at some of the things that the other
    agencies do, particularly the Smithsonian, which I think raises
    around $50 million a year, but they have 35 people in a
    development office, plus they have other development staff in
    each of the museums. So, it takes a lot of resources to raise
    those additional funds.
        Senator Gorton. Are you getting resistance from the arts
    community on the ground that if NEA went out to raise money, it
    would come out of the same pocket that would otherwise give
    money directly to----
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. They are very concerned about that
    and we are very concerned about that because what we need is
    for the net amount that is available to increase. We do not
    need to be taking money away from them. So, whatever we do in
    this area, we need to do together. This is something that
    hopefully----
        Senator Gorton. I think you do. You do not really believe
    that support for the arts in the United States as a whole is
    inflexible, do you, and if one group gets a dollar, another
    group is going to lose a dollar?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Hopefully together we will be able
    to increase the net amount that is available for the arts.
        Ms. Higgins. Senator, if I could comment as well. I think
    this is a priority for the administration. We have had some
    preliminary discussions on the best way to approach this. I
    know there are members of the Council who are very interested
    in helping to think this through. Bill Ivey has had
    conversations with the White House on this. I think this is one
    of those issues that is going to be a high priority for him as
    the new Chairman when he is confirmed. There is, as you have
    recognized, a sensitivity among some of the current grantees
    and those out there who rely on the NEA that--because our
    grants are so small, they do rely on many other sources of
    funding.
        But I think it is encouraging. Again, we are seeing
    increased support for the arts at the State level and we may
    want to make that part of the record as well. So, I agree with
    you. This is not a zero sum game and the question is how we can
    really create the kinds of partnerships that are going to
    expand the participation at all levels for the arts.
        Senator Gorton. What about Jane Alexander's comment last
    year with respect to the commercial entertainment industry and
    whether or not there was money available there? Has anything
    been done to followup on that suggestion?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. I think this is one of the areas
    that Bill Ivey will be interested in reviewing. This is an area
    that he has experience working with, coming from the Country
    Music Foundation. So, I think it is best to wait and see what
    suggestions he has in that particular area.

                         house appropriations hearings

        Senator Gorton. Now, you have had a hearing with the House
    subcommittee, which obviously has been more troubling to you in
    the past than this subcommittee has. Can you share with us--
    were you optimistic in comparison to last year with the
    reception you received there?
        Ms. Higgins. It was my first hearing for the Endowment. It
    was very, very cordial. Obviously, it was Sid Yates's last
    hearing, so it was a bit nostalgic.
        I think Congressman Regula was very supportive. I think
    there is still a question as to whether they are going to
    actually be able to report out an appropriation. He was a bit
    noncommittal on that.
        We had some very good questions from Congressman Miller
    from Florida who was concerned about what was going on in his
    district.
        Again, I think the participation of members on the
    Council--Congressman Ballenger in particular had some very
    constructive suggestions--will be a positive benefit as members
    look at the value of continuing this investment. So, I was
    encouraged, yes.
        Senator Gorton. Were you there?
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Yes; I was there as well and I was
    encouraged as well. I think in general the House committee has
    been supportive of the Arts Endowment, but of course, they face
    concerns from the leadership of the House about the National
    Endowment for the Arts. Whether they will be able to report out
    funding for us, I think, is a question at this point.
        Senator Gorton. Well, as you know, last year in the midst
    of that controversy, I individually polled every member of this
    subcommittee on the subject and found not a single member on
    either side who wanted to zero out the agency. I have not done
    that this year. I have not really seen the need to do it. The
    membership of the subcommittee is the same, and I rather
    suspect that the attitudes will be the same.
        We would be helped greatly, however, if the House came over
    with something other than a zero. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. We would be too.
        Senator Gorton. With that, we are joined now by Senator
    Cochran who has certainly been an eloquent supporter of the
    Endowment, and I will ask him if he has either a statement or a
    question for any of you. I am just about finished.

                        remarks of senator thad cochran

        Senator Cochran. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply
    want to encourage the administrators of the program to continue
    to be helpful to those of us who try to ensure that there are
    funds available for appropriate activities of the National
    Endowment for the Arts, to be aware of the role that the State
    and local agencies can play in this, and to keep an open line
    of communication with those who know the local interests well
    before making grants and selecting recipients for awards and
    the like by the Endowment.
        My experience is that in our State we have had some
    outstanding leadership, very thoughtful leadership in the arts.
    We are very proud of that and we would like to continue to see
    the right kind of attitude reflected toward government support
    for the arts.
        Having said that, there is no easy answer to some of the
    problems and dilemmas of the past. We regret so much the
    controversies that have swirled around the Endowment in the
    last several years, but we think that we are back on track now.
    With your continued sensitivity to the problems and how to deal
    with them, we will be able to see that there is appropriate
    support where it is needed.
        We appreciate your attention to education programs too in
    our State that involve arts education. I know that is not a
    principal responsibility of the Endowment, but nonetheless,
    there are some opportunities where you can enhance learning and
    enrich lives of students through appropriate program support
    and that is very important too. I think the former Chairman did
    an excellent job--Jane Alexander--in identifying some of those
    activities and by her presence in our State, she was able to
    illustrate how exciting learning can be through arts
    appreciation.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your thoughtful
    leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with you
    and trying to come up with the right level of funding and
    language, if needed, in our bill. Thank you.

                              artsreach initiative

        Ms. Higgins. Senator, if we could just comment. We were
    talking before about the two priorities for the request for
    increased funding are both ArtsREACH, which is an effort to do
    more in States where we have not had as many grants funded. I
    would point out that both Mississippi and Arkansas are two
    States where we are going to have a special emphasis as part of
    this initiative.
        Senator Gorton. Well, very good. You just anticipated my
    next question. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Higgins. And also arts education. Those are the two
    principal focuses of the request for increased funding.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. We are joined by Senator Bumpers on,
    regrettably, his last round on these areas, and I would love to
    hear from him.

                        remarks of senator dale bumpers

        Senator Bumpers. Not so regrettable to me. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Higgins, let me just echo what Senator Cochran said
    about Jane Alexander. She was a superb person for this job and
    she did, in my opinion, an excellent job in the face of a lot
    of hostility from certain quarters in the Congress about the
    National Endowment for the Arts. Based on what I know about
    you, I am sure you will do an excellent job.
        I really came by this morning, Mr. Chairman, not to delay
    the hearing any but to show my strong support for both the
    humanities and the arts. I am a great believer. There are very
    few nations who spend such a minuscule portion of their budget
    on arts and humanities.
        In my first trip to the Soviet Union in 1971, I was
    absolutely amazed by the extent of the government's involvement
    in the arts. Of course, everything there was state funded, but
    it was amazing how much of their budget they did put into the
    arts, the restoration of their historical places and so on.
    That is really the first brush I had with government being
    involved in that kind of thing.
        It is really a tragic thing that one person named
    Mapplethorpe caused as much trouble for the Nation as he did
    and for the programs that I really hold dear. I am a former
    bandsman, glee club member, star in the senior-class play, all
    those things. [Laughter.]
        Senator Cochran and Senator Gorton have heard this speech
    many times, but it is always worth repeating. When I was
    Governor and went to the prisons, to visit with the inmates, I
    never found anybody down there with a college education, nobody
    that was a homeowner, nobody that played in the high school
    band, and nobody that ever had any brush with drama. I am just
    telling you that was a personal experience. Everybody does not
    have that experience, but to me that spoke volumes. That is
    really all I need to know about the value of those particular
    things, education, the arts, and so on.
        So, I would be willing to take some of the $10 billion
    surplus--like one-half of it--and put it into the arts and
    humanities. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Shanklin-Peterson. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. You are very popular with this crowd today,
    Senator Bumpers.
        Well, I thank you both for being here. I join with you in
    hoping that the authorizing committee will act promptly on Bill
    Ivey's nomination and that we will have someone in charge.
        As I told you at the beginning, we face the same
    difficulties with the total amount of money the subcommittee
    will have this year that we have had in the past. But we do
    appreciate the NEA's prompt response to the concerns which
    Congress showed in that bill last year. I think the value of
    having Members of Congress on the Council is going to be
    immeasurable from the point of view of the support that you get
    here.
        With that, I thank both of you. We will dismiss you and we
    will call the humanities people up.
                     NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. FERRIS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
                ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
        Senator Gorton. We are now with the National Endowment for
    the Humanities that has a newly appointed Chairman, Bill
    Ferris, whom I met yesterday and who told me of his long
    association with you, Senator Cochran. I wonder if you would
    like to say a few remarks in introducing him to us.
        Senator Cochran. That is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am delighted to welcome my good friend, Bill Ferris, to
    his first hearing as Chairman of the National Endowment for the
    Humanities. It is a happy moment for all of us in Mississippi
    to contemplate his elevation to this position of responsibility
    and nationwide trust for guiding a very important activity,
    important to everyone in America. He has some great ideas. We
    have heard some of them and I am sure he will talk about them
    in more detail this morning.
        But he is so well qualified and such a good choice for this
    important job at this moment, and we are delighted that he is
    here and wish him every possible success and every degree of
    satisfaction that is possible in carrying out the duties as
    Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. We are
    all honored by his acceptance of this position.
        Senator Gorton. He has more money and less controversy than
    his immediate predecessors here at this hearing, but still some
    very serious challenges facing him.
        So the first time around, Mr. Chairman, we would like to
    hear from you.

                     summary statement of william r. ferris

        Mr. Ferris. Thank you, Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator
    Cochran.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    I am honored to come before you today as the new Chairman of
    the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am very excited
    because I feel this is a time of great opportunity for the
    humanities, and we have much to offer at the Endowment.
        Our lessons that we draw from literature, from history,
    philosophy, archaeology, and folklore have much to teach us
    about the world and about our place in it. We cannot help but
    be inspired by ``Baseball,'' by ``The Civil War,'' by ``The
    West,'' topics that every American loves, and these are but
    three of the great stories that the NEH has shared with the
    Nation through the magic of filmmaker Ken Burns and through the
    generosity of Congress. These films will be played over and
    over again in American classrooms and will continue to have
    unlimited educational value. As we enjoy these films and learn
    from them, it is important to remember that they are the
    results of years of scholarship and of preservation, all of
    which is supported by NEH.
        As we move toward the millennium, NEH hopes to reconnect
    the humanities with the life of every American through their
    family history, their stories, their regional worlds. We want
    to bring the humanities back home. This is what I have done for
    over 30 years as a folklorist and this is what I will continue
    to do as Chairman of the NEH.
        As Director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture
    at the University of Mississippi, I learned firsthand the
    importance of preserving the stories of a region so that her
    people do not forget their roots, and I also know the
    overwhelming interest that people throughout the country have
    in learning about their own regions.
        As part of our rediscovering America initiative, we plan to
    create 10 vital humanities centers that will be located in each
    region of the Nation, providing a direct link between NEH and
    every American. These centers will support teaching, research,
    and public programs in their region. Some $5 million of our
    total budget of $136 million will be used to create these
    centers. These dollars will prime the pump for what I envision
    as a strong public/private partnership.
        I have seen how this can work. The Center for the Study of
    Southern Culture, which began 21 years ago, would not have
    happened without NEH support. With your support, you can ensure
    that the same story will be told in every region of our
    country.
        This ``Encyclopedia of Southern Culture'' is a concrete
    example of how we helped preserve the culture of one region.
    After seeing over 100,000 copies sold, I cannot begin to
    express the importance this book has in the hearts of
    southerners and of all Americans.
        Through this initiative, NEH will seek proposals from our
    Nation's strong cultural institutions, museums, colleges,
    universities, and libraries, that will become clearinghouses
    for projects like encyclopedias, public programs for children
    and the elderly, and cultural tourism opportunities.
        There are other important initiatives described in our
    budget that I would like to highlight. NEH will continue to
    focus on education and technology. This last fall NEH, along
    with MCI and the Council of Great City Schools, established
    EDSITEment, a new website that identifies the 22 best
    educational websites in literature, history, and other
    humanities subjects. As you can see, you can quickly click on
    an individual website and teachers and students can immediately
    access the very best resources along with teaching guides and
    curriculum resources that the Endowment has now made possible.
    This is a project that will continue to grow in the coming
    years and benefit teachers and students throughout the Nation.
    Teachers are thirsty for this information and this site serves
    over 20,000 users each month.
        Another project of our Teaching With Technology Program
    supports software projects on topics that range from the Civil
    War to the Supreme Court to Ancient Greece and Rome that are
    being used extensively in the classrooms and CD-ROM's like this
    one on the ``Valley of the Shadow,'' which are accessible both
    in CD form and on the website, introduce students to the Civil
    War in a way that was never before possible.
        Because teachers need to be trained in how to handle this
    technology, our schools for a new millennium will help K
    through 12 teachers use CD-ROM's and the Internet in their
    classes, as well as videos like this wonderful new video on
    ``Liberty'' that focuses on the American Revolution and the
    roots of our experience as Americans.

                               prepared statement

        All of these projects are based on the scholarship that NEH
    has supported for the last three decades. This is great work
    and with your support we can continue to do it.
        I am honored to be a part of this process and to be before
    you today, and I want you to know that I look forward to
    working personally and closely with you and all of your
    colleagues.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. William R. Ferris

        Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I am deeply honored to
    appear before this distinguished Committee as the Chairman of
    the National Endowment for the Humanities. I can assure you
    that I share this Committee's abiding interest in the
    Endowment's important mission, and I look forward to working
    with you over the coming months and years to add to NEH's
    remarkable record of achievement and service to the American
    people.
        I come before you today to testify on behalf of the
    Endowment's fiscal year 1999 budget request. We at the
    Endowment are, of course, greatly pleased that President
    Clinton has demonstrated his continuing commitment to the
    agency by requesting an appropriation of $136 million for NEH
    for the coming fiscal year. Although this is an amount that
    would increase our funding substantially over the current
    year's budget of $110.7 million, it is a sum that would still
    be significantly lower than the $172 million appropriated for
    fiscal year 1995. Before turning to a discussion of specific
    aspects of our budget request, however, I would like briefly to
    discuss with you some of my plans and visions for the
    Endowment.
        Throughout my entire professional career as a teacher,
    scholar, and administrator, I have been a strong supporter of
    NEH, an institution that I am convinced makes immense
    contributions to the educational and cultural life of our
    nation. To a certain extent, my career also illustrates the
    important role the Endowment plays in nurturing scholarship,
    education, preservation, and public programming in the
    humanities across the country. Please allow me a moment to
    explain.
        Over the years, I have applied to virtually every NEH grant
    division, and I have been fortunate to win grants from a number
    of them. As a young scholar and teacher fresh from my doctoral
    studies in folklore at the University of Pennsylvania and as a
    professor, first at Jackson State College in Mississippi, then
    at Yale University, and finally at the University of
    Mississippi, grants from NEH helped me focus and deepen my
    teaching and research interests in the culture and folkways of
    the American South. Later, along with my colleagues at the
    University of Mississippi, I was successful in winning funding
    from the Endowment to help establish the Center for the Study
    of Southern Culture and then to use the Center to administer a
    broad range of humanities programs concerned with the history
    and culture of the South. With NEH funding, the Center was able
    to establish an undergraduate degree program in Southern
    Studies, to research and publish the Encyclopedia of Southern
    Culture, to conduct seminars for teachers on the literature of
    William Faulkner, to renovate an ante-bellum observatory on the
    Ole Miss campus to use as the Center's main facility, and to
    sponsor humanities programs for general audiences. Moreover,
    because NEH's peer review system of assessing the quality of
    grant applications is nationally recognized and respected, the
    Endowment's grants also acted as a ``seal of approval'' that
    helped us to attract additional money from corporations,
    foundations, and other funders.
        Over my career, I have also had the pleasure of working
    with several of the state humanities councils--which, as you
    know, work in tandem with NEH to bring the humanities to all
    Americans. I have a deep appreciation of the important cultural
    and educational role the state councils play, and I look
    forward to continuing my close association with them during my
    chairmanship.
        The Center for the Study of Southern Culture is a dream
    that has been realized, and it could not have been realized
    without the support of NEH. Make no mistake: The Endowment was
    absolutely crucial in helping an institution from a
    predominantly rural state such as Mississippi build enduring
    world-class humanities programs that reach a broad spectrum of
    citizens--students, scholars, and the public alike. This is a
    story that I intend to tell repeatedly during my tenure as
    Chairman, and it is an outcome I will try to replicate
    elsewhere in the nation as much as possible.
        Now, as the Chairman of NEH, I would like to draw on my
    nearly two decades of experience as director of a center
    concerned with the study of the South to assist colleagues at
    other institutions throughout the nation in developing
    comprehensive humanities programs focused on the culture and
    heritage of their regions. I have found that people everywhere
    define themselves, at least in part, through the places where
    they are born, where they grow up, and where they live. It is
    this relationship--which the writer Eudora Welty calls ``sense
    of place''--that shapes each of us in deep and lasting ways. As
    President Clinton also reminded the nation recently in his
    State of the Union address: ``Our culture lives in every
    community, and every community has places of historic value
    that tell our stories as Americans.''
        The Endowment will help the people of the United States
    learn more about the special heritage of where they live and to
    reaffirm their common bonds as Americans by setting in motion a
    new, broad-based initiative--called Rediscovering America
    Through the Humanities. As we discussed in our budget
    submission, this initiative will employ a variety of formats
    and will involve all programming areas of NEH. Its primary
    component, for which we are requesting $5 million in start-up
    funds in fiscal year 1999, is a special grant competition for
    projects to establish regional humanities centers around the
    country. Each of these centers will be encouraged to support a
    wide array of activities--education, research, programs for
    public audiences, preservation--that bring the disciplines of
    the humanities to bear in exploring the region's distinctive
    culture. In developing their programs and resources, centers
    will also be expected to place special emphasis on technology
    to assure maximum access and impact. We hope that each center
    that is established will ultimately serve as a kind of
    ``cultural hub'' for its region; in this way, the center will
    help to broaden citizens' awareness of, access to, and
    participation in the humanities--overarching goals that I
    particularly wish to pursue during my tenure as NEH Chairman.
        In framing this initiative, I have sought the advice of
    many people within the humanities community, including, most
    importantly, the National Council on the Humanities, the state
    humanities councils, and the superb staff of the Endowment. In
    addition, I plan to convene a small group of scholars who have
    studied this subject closely to share their knowledge with us.
    I also would greatly appreciate any suggestions the members of
    this Committee have that will help the Endowment's new
    initiative to prosper.
        We realize, of course, that NEH cannot and should not be
    the sole source of support for such an ambitious effort. This
    is why I am insisting that the initiative move forward as a
    public- private partnership. We plan to work in close
    partnership with the state humanities councils, as well as with
    public and nonprofit institutions and foundations, and with the
    private sector to create a network of vibrant humanities
    centers in every region of the nation.
        In addition to establishing regional humanities centers,
    there are a number of other special program activities that
    will be a part of Rediscovering America Through the Humanities.
    The objective of all the initiative's activities is to
    encourage Americans to observe the dawning of a new millennium
    by rediscovering the nation's history and culture and by
    preserving this rich heritage for the benefit of future
    generations. Among the program emphases planned for fiscal year
    1999 that I would like to call to your attention are:
      --American Legacy Editions.--A special effort in our Research and
            Education division that will ensure the survival of scholarly
            projects that are preparing documentary editions of the papers
            and writings of a number of the nation's Presidents as well as
            other important historical and literary figures. Because of
            drastic cuts in funding for NEH over the last three years, the
            agency was forced to deny grants to many worthy editions
            projects. American Legacy Editions is designed to double the
            amount of funding we are currently able to provide for such
            projects;
      --Schools for a New Millennium.--A special grant competition in our
            Education Development and Demonstration program that will help
            schools and their teachers become more competent in
            incorporating new electronic humanities materials and
            technologies into their classrooms;
      --My History is America's History.--A special project that will
            encourage Americans of all ages to commemorate the turning of a
            new century and a new millennium by rediscovering their
            family's history and linking this history to the broader sweep
            of events and trends in American and world history;
      --Great Books in the Humanities.--A special emphasis in our Public
            Programs and Enterprise division that will support a high
            quality, ongoing series of programs on public television
            featuring great works of literature. NEH-funded reading and
            discussion programs in libraries would be supported to
            complement the television broadcasts; and
      --A special emphasis in the Endowment's Preservation and Access
            division in support of projects to digitize important materials
            held by the nation's museums, libraries, archives, and
            historical organizations.
        These special Rediscovering America programming emphases will
    complement our regular programs and operations. I am absolutely
    committed to sustaining and increasing support for NEH's core
    humanities programs. Indeed, the Endowment's $136 million budget
    request is designed to begin the process of breathing some vital new
    fiscal life into these important federal programs, which have not
    recovered from the devastating reductions that were inflicted on them
    three years ago.
        While I have always been aware of the range of NEH's grant
    programs, since becoming Chairman I have had the opportunity to observe
    the work of these programs from a different perspective and to see
    firsthand the remarkable breadth and depth of the projects they
    support. As this Committee is well-aware, NEH's core grant programs are
    time-tested vehicles for enabling high quality humanities projects to
    take place across the nation, projects that enrich our educational and
    cultural life and that benefit citizens in every state of the union.
    Noteworthy humanities projects that annual Congressional appropriations
    for the Endowment make possible include:
      --Public education projects and programs sponsored by the 56 state
            humanities councils that annually reach millions of Americans
            from all walks of life in school auditoriums; museums and
            libraries; community centers and court houses; church and
            grange halls; and on college campuses. Appropriations for NEH's
            Federal/State Partnership with the state humanities councils
            have also recently supported a number of innovative state
            council projects to develop reading and discussion programs for
            newly literate adults and their children;
      --Opportunities for school teachers and college teachers to improve
            their instruction in the humanities, such as a major project
            for teachers of grades four through eight in West Virginia that
            is developing a CD-ROM, teachers' guide, and other curricular
            materials on the history of coal mining in the state.
            Approximately 70 teachers from across the state are
            participating in this two-year project. Another recent project,
            in Browning, Montana, is helping elementary and secondary
            school teachers on the Blackfeet Indian reservation deepen
            their understanding of Native American literature and learn how
            to teach this subject matter more effectively to their
            students. The hundreds of school teachers and college teachers
            who participate in NEH seminars and institutes each year reach
            hundreds of thousands of American students each year in rural,
            inner-city, and other classrooms throughout the nation. The
            summer of 1998 will mark the 25th anniversary of NEH's
            pathbreaking summer seminars for college teachers program and
            the 15th anniversary of the summer seminars for school teachers
            program, both of which have had an enduring impact on the
            quality of humanities education offered to the nation's
            students;
      --Collected editions of the papers, writings, and other materials of
            historically significant figures and events important to our
            cultural heritage. In fiscal year 1997, NEH funds supported the
            preparation of editions of the papers of George Washington, the
            Adams Family(which include the papers of ``First Lady'' Abigail
            Adams), Andrew Jackson, and Dwight Eisenhower. Recent NEH
            funding has also made possible the preparation of editions of
            the papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the
            journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the history of the
            First Federal Congress (1789-1791), and four volumes of the
            Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts. (As noted previously, because of
            major budget cuts for NEH, we are no longer able to support a
            number of these editions. We have also been forced to reduce
            the amount of awards to projects we are able to fund, which has
            caused many grantees to cut back their editorial staff and to
            slow significantly their project production schedule. Our $136
            million fiscal year 1999 budget request will permit us to
            implement a special initiative--American Legacy Editions--that
            will increase the funding we are now able to provide and ensure
            the continuation and speedy progress of these important
            projects.)
      --Educational television documentaries that reach millions of
            Americans of diverse social, cultural, and economic backgrounds
            in all areas of the nation, such as last fall's highly
            acclaimed six-part PBS series, Liberty!: The American
            Revolution, which traced the birth of our nation from the
            growing tensions and eventual break with Great Britain to the
            drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The Endowment
            also was chiefly responsible for the ``The Presidents'' series
            on PBS's popular ``The American Experience'' program, which
            recently rebroadcast twelve thought-provoking documentaries on
            notable American Presidents. Liberty and ``The Presidents''
            join other illustrious media presentations NEH has made
            possible over the years, ranging from Ken Burns's epics, The
            Civil War and Baseball, to portraits of such important
            Americans as Frederick Douglass, Andrew Carnegie, Charles
            Lindbergh, and George C. Marshall;
      --Projects to preserve and increase the availability of important
            cultural and intellectual resources held by the nation's
            libraries, museums, and archives, such as fiscal year 1997
            funding that was provided to the Southeastern Library Network
            (SOLINET) in Atlanta in support of a major cooperative brittle
            book microfilming project involving 14 university libraries
            (East Carolina, Emory, Kentucky, North Carolina Central, North
            Carolina State, Tulane, Florida, Georgia, Maryland Eastern
            Shore, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Florida, and the
            University of the South), the Georgia Department of Archives
            and History, and the State Library of Florida. In 1997, the
            Endowment also provided major support for a project at the
            University of Southern Mississippi that is cataloging the
            manuscript collections of 150 women authors and illustrators of
            19th- and 20th-century children's literature. Over the years,
            NEH-supported preservation and access projects have microfilmed
            more than 773,000 embrittled volumes and 57 million pages of
            historically significant newspapers and have stabilized the
            condition of over 28 million objects of archaeological,
            ethnographic, and historical importance;
      --Innovative humanities projects employing the new electronic
            information technologies, such as the new EDSITEment website,
            which the Endowment launched last fall in partnership with the
            MCI Corporation and the Council of Great City Schools, that is
            providing teachers, students, and parents with immediate
            electronic access to the best humanities education materials on
            the World Wide Web. NEH is also helping educators introduce
            into the nation's classrooms high quality websites and CD-ROMs
            on diverse humanities subjects such as a project at
            Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, to develop a
            multimedia database on the history of the Supreme Court and a
            project at the University of Virginia on the history of the
            American Civil War. Another recent NEH grant, to the Denver
            Public Library, is helping to catalog and digitize thousands of
            important photographs on the history of the American West;
      --Educational museum exhibitions for broad public audiences that
            examine significant themes and ideas in the humanities, such as
            the recent opening at the Oakland Museum of California of Gold
            Fever! The Lure and Legacy of the California Gold Rush and the
            major traveling exhibition, Barn Again: Celebrating an American
            Icon, which examines the forces that have shaped the American
            farmstead and the relationship between country and city. With
            major funding from NEH and spearheaded by the Utah Humanities
            Council in cooperation with a number of humanities councils in
            the Northwest, Midwest, and the South, Barn Again is being
            presented at thirty-two small rural museums in Alabama,
            Georgia, Oregon, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Utah, and
            Missouri. In fiscal year 1997, NEH also supported the efforts
            of the Anchorage History and Fine Arts Museum in Alaska to plan
            a traveling exhibition, catalog, and educational programs
            examining the early period of Russian exploration in the North
            Pacific, 1728-1848;
      --Research and scholarship that expand our knowledge and
            understanding of the past,such as Stanford University professor
            Jack Rakove's recent book, Original Meanings: Politics and
            Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the 1997
            Pulitzer Prize in history; and the research that led to
            discovery by an NEH-supported team of archaeologists of the
            remains of the early seventeenth-century fort at Jamestown,
            Virginia--the first permanent English settlement in America;
            and
      --Stimulation of private donations to humanities projects and
            institutions, such as a recent $325,000 Challenge Grant to
            Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, to endow a
            professorship in classics and an annual classics lecture series
            and a Challenge Grant to the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage
            in Zuni, New Mexico, that is helping to endow humanities
            research and programming at this Zuni tribal museum. In fiscal
            year 1997, NEH Challenge funds also helped the New Hampshire
            Historical Society in Concord raise nonfederal funds to
            renovate and equip its library for expanded public service.
            Over the years, NEH Challenge Grants, which require $3 or $4 in
            donations for every dollar awarded to a humanities institution,
            have attracted more than $1.2 billion in private gifts; another
            $343 million has been raised in one-to-one matches for specific
            humanities projects supported by our other grant programs.
        I am proud to be associated now with projects of such substance and
    significance as these, and I pledge that in fiscal 1999 and in the
    years ahead the Endowment will strive to add to this distinguished
    record of achievement and service to the nation. We will work
    particularly hard to encourage projects and programs that have the
    capacity to reach people in towns, communities, and other areas of the
    country who currently may have limited access to quality humanities
    programming. Expanding the geographic and demographic breadth of NEH's
    grants will be a central theme of our efforts.
        In closing, I would like to return once again to my vision of the
    future for both the Endowment and the humanities. Briefly put, I hope
    that when I finish my work at NEH ``the humanities'' will have become
    an everyday word to millions of Americans, that every American will
    know about the work of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
    that they will feel that they are better off for having this important
    agency of the federal government working on their behalf to advance the
    nation's educational and cultural well-being. Our plans for the coming
    fiscal year--the regional humanities centers, the Rediscovering America
    program emphases, the strengthening of our core grant programs--are the
    first steps in making these visions a reality.
        But I need your help. And so, I must also return to the issue of
    money. As you know, as small as NEH's budget is, it is still the single
    largest source of funding for the humanities in the United States.
    While I plan to work actively to secure private and non-federal support
    for our plans and initiatives, we must not underestimate the critical
    nature of the federal role in helping the humanities to grow and thrive
    throughout the United States. It continues to be very much worth the
    nation's investment to keep this federal effort going at as high a
    level as possible.

                          public/private partnerships

        Senator Gorton. Thank you. That was a fine and
    comprehensive opening statement.
        Again, Senator Cochran, I will defer to you first if you
    have anything that you would like to say, add, or ask.
        Senator Cochran. Well, you are very kind, Mr. Chairman.
        I think one thing needs to be emphasized and that is the
    interest that the Chairman has shown in using the private
    sector to supplement the effort made by government agencies,
    whether they are national, State, or local agencies, because
    the expense of some of these undertakings, like the Center for
    the Study of Southern Culture, are too great for the National
    Endowment for the Humanities to fund all by itself or for the
    University of Mississippi to support by itself or for the State
    budget to support. There are too many competing programs and
    requirements of the governments' appropriations.
        So, I would like for the Chairman to tell us how he sees
    his role in trying to facilitate private sector support for
    some of these ideas that he has about how to expand the
    influence and benefits of a national humanities program based
    on your experience with the Center for the Study of Southern
    Culture.
        Mr. Ferris. Well, thank you, Senator Cochran. My career as
    an administrator and scholar has been entrepreneurial. As
    Director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, I
    have aggressively sought and raised over $10 million that
    matched NEH funding for projects like the encyclopedia, the
    renovation of an antebellum observatory, and for an
    undergraduate curriculum on southern studies.
        The funds that we are requesting for the new initiative are
    challenge grant in nature that will be matched at least three
    and four to one by private dollars. Toward that end, I have
    been already contacting and working with potential donor
    groups. I met 2 weeks ago in New York at the Mellon Foundation
    with the heads of all the major foundations in New York City
    who have expressed great interest in becoming much more
    involved in providing support for humanities projects.
        This spring I will speak to the Council on Foundations here
    in Washington.
        We are also aggressively moving through our Enterprise
    Office to build a coalition of private, corporate, and
    individual donors who will be ongoing partners in what we plan
    in the future.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Bumpers.

                         summer seminars and institutes

        Senator Bumpers. Mr. Ferris, in visiting with you
    yesterday, I forgot one thing. We talked a little bit about the
    summer institutes, but I forgot to ask you what the status of
    those programs is and how many of them you have going. How many
    did you have last summer? How many do you anticipate this
    summer?
        Mr. Ferris. We have 70 seminars and institutes coming up in
    1999, which will involve 1,305 teachers, and they in turn will
    be able to serve 196,000 students. That is 54,000 more students
    than we were able to serve the previous year.
        As I mentioned to you, I have personally taught in these
    summer institutes with college teachers on three occasions. I
    am absolutely committed to seminars and institutes on both the
    secondary and college levels. I see this as maximizing the use
    of funding because for every teacher we bring into an
    institute, we are impacting classes of students for the rest of
    their career. This is a way of rebuilding the quality of
    education from the ground up, and I think that is where we have
    to begin with K through 12 and with education at the college
    level as well. That will be one of my highest priorities at the
    Endowment.
        Senator Bumpers. Well, of course, I am very pleased to know
    of your commitment to this program. Mr. Ferris, as you know,
    when I first discovered these summer institutes 12 years ago,
    they were being privately funded by the Carnegie Foundation. In
    my opinion whatever the educational shortfall in this country,
    the summer institutes are the fastest and best way to rectify
    it that I can think of, and yet we are really putting peanuts
    into this program.
        I can tell you that high school teachers in my little
    hometown, population 2,500, would give anything in the world to
    be able to attend one of those summer institutes. Yet, the
    demand for them is probably 500 times greater than the
    availability. As I told you, the first time I heard about that
    was in a story in Time magazine where 4,400 teachers had
    applied for roughly 225 positions at a summer institute at the
    University of Texas. Teachers want mightily to upgrade their
    skills, but very few of them without a stipend can afford to
    take off and go to summer school to take some of the courses or
    to study a particular subject that they can then pass off to
    their students whether it is in their discipline or not. I
    mean, it may be a math teacher studying Greek culture for that
    matter. It might be an English teacher studying the
    Constitution. But those things all mightily enhance the
    teaching skills of teachers.
        How much money are you putting into that program this year
    in 1998, do you know?
        Mr. Ferris. I will have to get those figures for you. Let
    me say that we plan to work closely with the State humanities
    councils and the new regional humanities centers to build a
    common initiative to expand dramatically these summer seminars
    and institutes. When teachers are out of the classroom, they
    can effectively use that time to upgrade their classroom
    skills. We are currently putting in $6 million into the
    Seminars and Institutes Program. That is not enough, obviously.
        Senator Bumpers. No; it is not nearly enough. I believe
    that is a little improvement over what it has been in the past.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Clerk's note.--The information was provided in Mr. Ferris'
    answer to Senator Bumpers' question.]

                      remarks of senator robert f. bennett

        Senator Gorton. We have now been joined by Senator Bennett
    and by Senator Gregg. The NEA portion of the hearing is
    concluded and we are on NEH. But if either or both of you have
    any statements that you would like to make orally or include in
    the record, they will be included and you are free to question
    our new NEH Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Do they have to be in iambic pentameter?
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Gorton. They will get more attention if they are.
        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
    for not having been here earlier. I was listening to Senator
    Cochran wax eloquent about the Army Corps of Engineers and then
    stayed in that hearing long enough to say a few well-chosen
    things myself about this particular budget and the OMB and the
    way it has, in my view, done serious damage to the Department
    of the Interior's ability to do its job.
        But I have to be on my way to a Banking hearing. I did want
    to simply show up even though I am too late for the NEA
    portion. The NEA and the NEH are sufficiently well-linked that
    I can just say here once again that I support both of these
    Endowments. I think it is important that we have a Federal
    statement in the area of support for the arts as well as
    support for the humanities. I did not want my absence to be
    misread by anyone that my support had waned as I get closer to
    election time. [Laughter.]
        I want to make it clear that even though there are those in
    my home State who disagree with me on this one, I feel strongly
    enough that, even in an election year when I am up, I will show
    up simply to demonstrate that support. So, that is my purpose
    in being here and I am on my way to Banking.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Gregg.

                         remarks of senator judd gregg

        Senator Gregg. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to listen
    also to the testimony and I commend the chairman for his strong
    support for both these Endowments, which I join him in. And
    just keep sending money to Ken Burns. [Laughter.]
        He funds an entire town in New Hampshire. [Laughter.]

                     funding of regional humanities centers

        Senator Gorton. Let me ask you about the regional
    humanities centers. If you do not get all or substantially all
    of the additional requested budget, do they go by the board?
        Mr. Ferris. No; but we would have to see how we would
    allocate, given what Congress appropriates, those moneys. This
    is a priority. It is prioritized partly because it is designed
    to bring private support in a significant way to the
    humanities.
        Senator Gregg mentioned Ken Burns. He is one of our stars
    obviously, and his great films have not only been loved by
    every American viewer, but they have brought back to the
    Endowment reimbursement of his grants, which we were then able
    to use for other projects.
        The overall picture of the humanities in this Nation is
    that without the Endowment and the Mellon Foundation, there
    would be virtually no national funding. I am going to change
    that during my tenure at the Endowment. I have to have
    congressional help because the public sector has never been
    asked to help in this initiative.
        I am going forth in an aggressive and convincing way to
    corporate heads, foundation heads, and the message they have
    responded with in the last 2 months is that ``we want to be
    involved; we want to know how to help,'' and I am showing them
    a list of our priorities. But we have to have congressional
    support that indicates that our Nation is also going to be a
    partner. You will be helping a federally assisted rather than
    federally funded agency because we are going to use your
    support to build in a way that will have impact on every
    American in every one of your districts.

                  relationship with state humanities councils

        Senator Gorton. Describe the relationship between the
    National Endowment and the various State councils. Do they
    support these regional centers? Do they play the same role in
    the States that you play in the Nation as a whole? Does every
    State have a council for the humanities?
        Mr. Ferris. Every State has a State humanities council, and
    during my tenure at the University of Mississippi, I worked
    very closely with the State council there. They unanimously
    endorsed my nomination last fall because they know that as a
    folklorist and someone who has worked closely with my own
    council, I understand their needs in special ways.
        They complement the National Endowment. They are a vital
    grassroots presence in every State. I recently met with all the
    New England council heads when I was in Cambridge. I will be
    meeting tomorrow in California with that council, and I will be
    increasingly visiting in each State, in Arizona, Louisiana,
    Maine, New Hampshire, and others during the coming months. I
    want to work as closely as possible to strengthen each of those
    councils and to wed them in ways that are appropriate with the
    National Endowment and with the regional initiative as well.
    This is a partnership. It is a kind of troika of three
    different but absolutely vital relationships that the
    humanities will bring to America in the future.
        Senator Gorton. My notes for this hearing say that the
    State councils, at least taken as a whole, are able to fund
    just about one-half of the applications they have and the
    National Endowment is way, way less than that. Is that because
    they are less well-known or better funded? Why that tremendous
    difference?
        Mr. Ferris. Well, we at the National Endowment are the
    source of support for figures like Ken Burns and for major
    scholarly projects like ``Encyclopedia of Southern Culture.''
    There are many, many projects that only can be dealt with at
    the national level.
        Senator Gorton. So, the larger ones come to you.
        Mr. Ferris. The larger ones and many others like teacher
    institutes, summer seminars. I think the best comparison for
    the National Endowment for the Humanities would be the National
    Science Foundation. We operate on so many levels, on so many
    fronts that are truly national and in many cases international,
    and the scale of need at the national level far exceeds and
    outstrips our ability to fund adequately and deal with those
    projects, many of which would be fully fundable if we had the
    resources.

                      geographical distribution of grants

        Senator Gorton. You heard some of the discussion earlier
    this morning about NEA and the concentration of its grants in
    New York and in a few other States. In fact, in the debate over
    NEA last year in Congress, we literally took congressional
    action to try to spread those grants more equitably across the
    country.
        Does that same challenge face NEH? Is there a
    concentration? Is there a feeling that smaller and more rural
    States are not getting an appropriate share of the grants? You
    come from a relatively rural State. Do you intend any changes
    in that connection, or do you think NEH has been doing a good
    job there already?
        Mr. Ferris. Well, as you point out, I do come from a small
    rural State, and I understand those concerns. But I am
    delighted that the Endowment currently has a very fair
    geographical distribution. The highest percentage of our grant
    funds awarded to any State last year was 12 percent. Our
    regional initiative and our support of State councils are
    designed to deliver in an equitable and focused way not simply
    dollars but actual products that will be permanent, enduring
    resources for all of our States that will make a difference in
    the life of the average American wherever they may be.
        I think the Endowment is in good shape on this question. We
    are going to be in a lot better shape with your support in the
    next few years because I am going to see that that happens.
        Senator Gorton. I thank you. We want to welcome you on
    board and wish you every success. We will try to provide you
    with adequate support.
        Mr. Ferris. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                              subcommittee recess

        The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 1, when we will receive testimony from the
    Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
        [Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 1.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Cochran, Campbell,
    Bennett, Domenici, Byrd, and Bumpers.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY

                                 budget request

                       OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR GORTON

        Senator Gorton. The hearing will come to order.
        We are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Secretary. I
    think this is your fourth appearance before the subcommittee
    during my tenure as chairman. This year's hearing is likely to
    be popular with the members of the subcommittee, but perhaps
    less so than in previous times because those of us who are
    members of the Commerce Committee--and there are several on
    this subcommittee--are due in the Commerce Committee markup on
    tobacco legislation. There are also a number of other
    appropriations subcommittee hearings taking place. So I will
    have to leave, and leave this with someone else, after my own
    set of questions. I apologize for that.
        We scheduled you here before that tobacco hearing was set.
    Nonetheless, it is a matter of great public interest.
        Last year, the budget agreement, and Senator Stevens'
    willingness to abide by the budget agreement, allowed us to
    provide a substantial increase for Department of the Interior
    programs. This included full funding for Everglades
    restoration, a huge increase for land acquisition, and
    increases over the budget request for operation of our parks
    and refugees.
        While the budget agreement will continue to lend general
    support to natural resource programs in fiscal year 1999, there
    are no specific protections for departmental priorities as
    there were last year. More importantly, the overall amount of
    discretionary spending available to the Appropriations
    Committees will not increase as it did in fiscal year 1998.
        In fact, the total amount of nondefense discretionary
    funding available for the entire appropriations committee is
    below a freeze level. The President has dodged the statutory
    spending caps in his budget by establishing special funds,
    proposing new revenue streams, and reclassifying certain
    discretionary spending as mandatory. By virtue of these
    bookkeeping maneuvers, the request blesses programs under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee with a $1 billion increase
    over 1998. Programs within your Department get almost half of
    that. I think that that is wishful thinking.
        Though I hope to persuade Senator Stevens, who is here with
    us, to provide the subcommittee with an allocation that is
    something better than a freeze, there is virtually zero chance
    we will receive an increase in our allocation anything like $1
    billion. What is more, there will be fierce competition for any
    increase that we do receive.
        If we do not sell oil from the strategic petroleum
    reserve--and there is little sentiment to do so with oil prices
    so low--we will need to find $160 million that was not in our
    base last year at all. We will also have to grapple with the
    pressing needs of the Indian Health Service, which is
    inexplicably the only major agency in this bill that did not
    receive a significant increase in the budget request. The
    administration has chosen to justify this, in part, by relying
    on estimates of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements that are
    fully double the estimates made by the Indian Health Service
    itself.
        There are a number of other fanciful scorekeeping estimates
    in the budget request that the Congressional Budget Office
    tells us it does not agree with. These will cost us additional
    tens of millions of dollars.
        Lest you feel slighted, Mr. Secretary, I am laying these
    cards on the table as much for my colleagues, benefit as for
    your own. Just as I will plead with them to be reasonable in
    their requests of me, so I will plead with you to reevaluate
    your budget request and engage my staff and me in a serious
    discussion over the coming months about the real priorities of
    the Department of the Interior. We need your candor and
    cooperation in this process to make wise choices.
        On a final note, I want to let you know in advance that
    tomorrow, or perhaps even this evening, I will be introducing
    legislation on the subject of the Elwha dams, a matter that we
    have discussed on countless prior occasions. I will not dwell
    particularly on the subject at this time, as you already know
    its outline. But I hope you will take a close look at the bill
    and give it careful and thoughtful consideration.
        I may say also, in consulting with my staff, we have moved
    very slowly on the money in the land and water conservation
    fund, partly at least because of reluctance of the members of
    the comparable subcommittee in the House in dealing with it and
    partly because obviously there are far more demands on it than
    there is money in it. That will have a relationship with the
    Elwha removal.
        For example, I believe it is perfectly appropriate, and
    will have as a high priority, to use that money for the
    acquisition of the Elwha dams. I have serious questions about
    the validity of using it for a capital expense in connection
    with taking those dams down. So we are going to have to figure
    out a way, if this Elwha legislation passes, to fund it.
    Because as I have come to what I think is a middle-line
    agreement on it. There is no point in doing it unless we have
    the money to carry out the job.
        So your help on that, your prompt response to it, will be
    greatly appreciated.
        And with that, I will turn to my friend and colleague,
    Senator Byrd.

                   opening remarks of senator robert c. byrd

        Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I join Senator Gorton in providing a warm welcome to you,
    Mr. Secretary, as you appear before the subcommittee to discuss
    the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of the
    Interior. Your job is a difficult one, and you are to be
    commended for your extraordinary efforts to balance the
    competing interests within the Department.
        We will be seeking your assistance, Mr. Secretary, as in
    prior years, in identifying priorities among the various
    initiatives proposed for the Department. Your budget is a
    fairly healthy one for fiscal year 1999, but I would be remiss
    if I did not point out that some of the increases may have been
    made possible by troubling reductions elsewhere in the
    President's budget.
        I find it difficult to believe that the Congress will stand
    idly by and accept such things as the President's proposed
    reduction of nearly 50 percent for the Army Corps of Engineers.
    Thus, it is unlikely that the subcommittee will receive an
    allocation that will accommodate all of your proposed increases
    for fiscal year 1999.
        I take it, Mr. Chairman, we are not asking questions at
    this point.
        Senator Gorton. No.
        Senator Byrd. OK.
        Well, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, to
    identify the most critical programs.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Stevens.
        And if you do not mind, Senator Byrd, I will let Senator
    Stevens make both an opening statement and submit any questions
    he has now. He is a Commerce Committee member, and he needs to
    be at that markup as soon as he possibly can.

                     opening remarks of senator ted stevens

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. And I hope
    Senator Byrd will understand.
        I also have to open the defense appropriations subcommittee
    hearing and get back with you to markup the tobacco bill.
        I am here, Mr. Secretary, to--I do have two questions, but
    I do want to thank you again publicly for your cooperation with
    us in this past year on the subsistence issue that is really
    perplexing for Alaskans, since before statehood, we have prided
    ourselves, as you know, in our ability to provide sound care
    and management for our fish and wildlife resources. And,
    really, statehood was really about whether we were capable of
    doing just that, whether we were capable of providing sound
    management for fish and wildlife resources across the whole
    State.
        There have been years of uncertainty now. Actually, in
    1980, Congress asserted this constitutional power over the
    public lands, and created or expanded two national forests, 10
    park units and 16 refuges. And at that time, it also set into
    law a preference for those who use these lands for subsistence
    purposes. In 1989, that subsistence preference was found by our
    State supreme court to be at odds with our State constitution.
    But last spring, a task force was formed, of Alaskans, to try
    and come up with a way to reconcile the Federal subsistence law
    with our State supreme court's holding.
        Incidently, the ratio of that task force, despite the fact
    that our Governor is a Democrat, was 4 to 3, Republicans to
    Democrats. We had the Republican House Speaker and Senate
    President, as well as former Governor Hammond and Attorney
    General Cole, also both Republicans.
        And, Mr. Secretary, at that juncture last summer, you came
    to Alaska and met in Senator Murkowski's house with the
    subsistence task force, our complete congressional delegation
    and members of the Governor's staff, and the Governor. We
    discussed the subsistence deadlock, and you said you would
    help. And you have kept that promise. You have helped. With
    that help, we modified the 1980 Federal law, as the bipartisan
    task force recommended, in the last part of last year's
    Congress. And our common hope was that the Alaska Legislature
    would make the changes in the Alaska Constitution and the
    Alaska laws needed to restore comprehensive management.
        Now, I have two questions for you this morning, Mr.
    Secretary. And I thank the chairman for allowing me to ask them
    now.
        Will you help us again, and direct at the very highest
    level of the Interior Department, the review and comment on the
    proposals that are now before the Alaska State Legislature?
        And, second, as the person vested with implementing the
    Federal subsistence law, will you also tell us your thoughts on
    the draft bills that are now before the State House of
    Representatives Judiciary Committee? That is the latest
    version, known as the Green version, named after the chairman
    of that judiciary committee. And we are very interested that
    the Alaskan people would know your thoughts at this time on
    that draft.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be very happy to do
    that. I share your feeling that we have come a remarkable
    distance in the last year in bringing very disparate groups
    together toward some common ground on this issue. And of
    course, now that we are down on the 10-yard line, it seems to
    me even more important that we work together to try to get this
    issue resolved.
        Now, I would point out just two things. We are working on
    these subsistence regulations. Because if we cannot get this
    resolved, I think we have a clear legal obligation, in due
    course, by the end of this year, to take steps to put those
    regulations into effect.
        In the meantime, it would be much preferable to get an
    acceptable result through the Alaska Legislature, out to the
    ballot, and get this issue resolved.
        I think that any proposal that involves major revisions to
    ANILCA is not going to fly, and that we must look at all of
    these proposals with an open mind, but against a background
    which says major revisions of ANILCA are not in the cards. The
    Governor's proposals, which involve significant concessions to
    the State of Alaska, are the appropriate framework in which to
    discuss this issue.
        And in that context, I am ready and willing to respond by
    return mail to the Alaska Legislature and the Governor with
    respect to any proposals. Because I want to be a part of the
    solution.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young and I have told our
    legislature that we are prepared to review those drafts also,
    once the Governor and the legislature concurs in what they
    seek, in terms of modifications to ANILCA, if they seek any
    modifications. I would prefer that they proceed now on the task
    force recommendations.
        But my two colleagues, who are each chairman of the
    committees involved, have indicated they will hold hearings if
    it is necessary. But your concurrence is absolutely essential,
    as we all realize, because you are the person that is going to
    recommend to the President whether he signs a bill that would
    effect some changes in ANILCA. So we all hope that the Governor
    and the legislature will be guided by the comments you have
    just made.
        I thank you for them again.
        And I thank you, too, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to do
    this, so we can get your position back to Alaskans today. Thank
    you.
        Senator Gorton. With that exception because of commerce, we
    are still just on opening statements.
        Senator Campbell.

               OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I know we have all
    got busy mornings. Let me make mine very brief.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We may not get time to ask some
    questions, because this may be a very short hearing. But I hope
    perhaps that you can address the question of the BLM. They are
    trying to reinventory more land, and the possibility of it
    being designated as a wilderness area. That is becoming a very
    hot issue in Colorado, and I know in my colleague's State of
    Utah, too.
        Our State legislature, in fact, is trying to address this
    issue by passing a joint resolution, requesting Congress to
    clarify whether the BLM has the authority to reinventory the
    land managed by the agency, and ask them to continue to allow
    multiple uses on that land.
        In 1991, it was recommended in the last inventory that
    400,000 of the 800,000 acres that was looked at in Colorado be
    recommended for wilderness. And I am interested in knowing what
    has changed since then that they would want to reinventory that
    much land.
        In addition, I would hope perhaps you could address--or if
    you do not I will submit questions if I cannot ask them--the
    lack of increase in PILT money. Although you are asking for
    over $490 million of additional money, the PILT money seems to
    remain the same. And if you could deal with that, I would
    appreciate it, too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Bennett.

                  OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the hearing held today. I welcome the
    Secretary. He has administrative responsibility for close to 30
    million acres in the State of Utah. So he and I have become
    good friends over the years, as we have discussed--not always
    agreed--on issues relating to those acres.

                     reinventorying of lands for wilderness

        The areas that I would hope we could get into today--
    echoing the comment of my good friend from Colorado--dealing
    with re-inventorying of lands for wilderness. We had an
    inventory in Utah. It was done during the Carter
    administration, I remind everyone who likes to say this was
    done under the heartless Republicans. And now there has been an
    attempt on the part of the Department to go back and
    reinventory, non-WSA areas.
        The reinventory was struck down by the court as being
    beyond the Department's authority. Interior appealed. Now the
    tenth circuit court has agreed with the Department. There
    undoubtedly will be another appeal. I would like to know what
    the Secretary plans to do about this in the present muddled
    legal situation.
        I think if the Department is intent on finding 5.7 million
    acres of wilderness in Utah, which has become the rallying cry,
    they ought to do it in the proper way, using the BLM wilderness
    manual, and inventorying all public lands, including the
    current wilderness study areas. They might find that certain
    existing wilderness study areas now do not meet the criteria of
    the manual.
        But there are groups out there doing their own inventorying
    right now. They come to see me, and say we have interns from
    the universities that are falling in love with the land.
    Taxpayers have already spent millions and millions of dollars
    in the standard procedure to do this. And why we have to do it
    all over again escapes me. But I would like the Secretary to
    address that.

                        san raphael swell heritage area

        I would be interested in the Secretary's reaction to the
    Emory County proposal to create the San Raphael Swell National
    Heritage Area. And there are people, including the Director of
    the BLM, who will be in Utah this weekend to physically visit
    that area. I would like to invite the Secretary to join them.
    And if he does, I will cancel my schedule to join him.

                  grand staircase escalante national monument

        Then, of course, we still have the Grand Staircase
    Escalante National Monument. I have introduced legislation to
    codify the President's promises relating to this monument into
    law, so that we will not have to depend on the memory of some
    administration official in some future time. And I am willing
    to be as patient about that as it takes, to see to it that
    those promises are codified. The Secretary and I have had a
    conversation about that. But I would hope he could respond,
    either here or later.
        I am concerned about the lack of movement of the Department
    with respect to a land exchange on school trust lands. The
    trust in Utah has put together what at first look appears to me
    to be a reasonable proposal. I hope that we can move forward on
    that. I know there are some environmental groups who do not
    want to exchange school trust lands. They want to keep those
    trust lands locked up in the monument, where, if they are
    completely surrounded by Federal lands, have no economic value.
        But it is a violation of the trust that is given to Utah
    school children that says those lands belong to Utah school
    children. If they cannot be operated and used inside the
    monument, they must be swapped for land of equal value outside
    the monument so that the school children are not shortchanged.
        Everybody agrees with that, but nothing ever seems to
    happen about that.
        I remember my father worrying about school trust lands 40
    years ago, and getting promises that, oh, we will work out an
    exchange. The President specifically promised that when he
    created the Grand Staircase Monument. That is moving much too
    slowly for me.
        Then we have to address the management issue with respect
    to the monument. It would not serve this administration or this
    Congress well to spend $20 million or so over the next 5 years
    on a management plan that does not work on making the monument
    a tourist attraction. That is what monuments are. And again,
    there are environmental groups, particularly in Utah, who get
    horrified at the idea that we need to appropriate some money to
    build some rest rooms and pave some roads so that the tourists
    can enjoy the monument. They seem to think that the monument
    somehow is automatic wilderness.
        The President, whatever his powers, cannot create
    wilderness by fiat. Wilderness is created by the Congress. And
    the Congress has not created this land as wilderness. We want
    to be sure that it is not managed as if it were wilderness by
    an executive branch that wants to override congressional
    opinion.
        I know that none of these issues comes as a surprise to the
    Secretary. He and I have had a number of conversations about
    them. But I would not be true to my trust if I did not raise
    them in this arena and every other until we get them moved
    towards the direction of resolution.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                    summary statement of hon. bruce babbitt

        Now, Mr. Secretary, we will be delighted to hear from you.
        Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be
    back. I guess this is the fourth appearance with you in the
    chair, stacked on top of several appearances with Senator Byrd
    in the chair. And I just want to acknowledge at the outset that
    I think we have had an exceptionally productive working
    relationship. And I am very grateful to all of the members. I
    recognize from time to time we have differences, that from time
    to time the public might draw the impression that we are bitter
    adversaries, instead of the truth, which is that we have
    established I think a really good record of collaboration on
    progress. I am very grateful for that.
        I understand that there are budget issues this year. And
    obviously I am ready and willing to work with you to address
    these priorities issues. But I cannot pass this up without
    making a plea to the chairman of the Appropriations, Senator
    Stevens, to be a bit more generous. It seems to me that now
    that we have reached a balanced budget and now that this body
    has authorized the expenditure of, I believe, an additional $5
    billion a year in discretionary funding for highways, we ought
    to be able to find a----
        Senator Gorton. That is more a tribute to the skills of
    Senator Byrd. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I think my point is made.
        What we are talking about here is a minuscule piece to
    protect the resource base that these extra $30 billion are
    being authorized to do--to pave roads, to put people in touch
    with this country of ours in every single State.
        Senator, I appreciate the progress we have made on the
    Elwha Dam issue. I just want to say that I realize that this is
    still a hot topic. There are still lots of differing views. But
    it is my sense that we have come a long distance. And I simply
    pledge to you that I am ready and willing to discuss this
    issue, be flexible and pragmatic, and see if we can define both
    objective timetables and address fiscal issues that obviously
    are a significant part of this.
        What I would like to do, and I will try to work through
    this rapidly, is talk about some of the large issues in the
    budget. First, I would like to step back and say a word about
    construction and maintenance on public lands throughout the
    entire system of refuges, BLM lands, and park lands. Working
    with this committee staff and with the House committee, I think
    we are really starting to nail this issue down.
        Our construction and maintenance request this year will be
    submitted in the context of a rigorous ranking system and set
    of criteria that Mr. Berry has very ably developed, which say
    the No. 1 priority is health and safety. No. 2, we obviously
    have to finish up existing projects. No. 3 are critical
    resource needs. That results in a shift in the construction and
    maintenance budget toward an additional $82 million for
    maintenance and a decrease of about $14 million in the
    construction budget.
        Let me say that I would like very much to work with both
    committees to see if we can keep the wheels on this wagon and
    not load it down with too many other construction starts. And I
    am ready to engage in that process.
        The National Park Service has been scrutinizing its
    procedures with respect to construction because of some press
    relating to cost overruns on a number of projects around the
    country. The issue here is the Denver Service Center. We have
    commissioned a study by the National Academy of Public
    Administration. We will share those results with you and your
    staff.
        I think they are going to call for a significant change in
    the concept and organization of the Denver Service Center and
    the way in which it has inadvertently divided accountability
    between park superintendents and the Service Center, with the
    result that an awful lot of decisions and management oversight
    tends to get lost in the gap between the two.
        The budget this year continues work on the forest plan in
    the Pacific Northwest. I believe that is all moving. We are
    working very closely to get a 4(d) rule out to small private
    landowners. The Bureau of Land Management has met its timber
    targets both last year and again this year.
        The Everglades issues are represented in a total request
    for $144 million, spread among agencies, spread among areas and
    projects and land acquisition, all of which I believe is
    proceeding very, very well.
        The California Bay delta project is now emerging, I think,
    as a very important emerging success. What it illustrates is
    the importance of dealing with water issues comprehensively. In
    this case, virtually on a statewide basis, with the entire
    central valley--the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The
    process that we are using, a partnership between the State, the
    Federal Government, and localities, has already resulted in the
    so-called bay delta accords, establishing a base of standards,
    environmental standards, in the delta system, to which the
    restoration efforts are directed.
        And I think we are really within striking distance of a
    comprehensive, complete resolution of 30 years of warfare
    between northern California, southern California,
    environmentalists, agriculture, and urban areas. We are, again,
    about down to the 10-yard line. And I would call your attention
    to that issue.
        The Columbia basin I am going to pass by, because I suspect
    Senator Gorton will bring me back to it. I would just say that
    this is admittedly and concededly a large and ambitious effort
    to try to use the same principles to integrate our priorities
    and management decisions across a landscape. It has not picked
    up many fans and supporters so far, unlike Florida and
    California. This one is in danger of becoming an orphan.
        Now, my response to the critics is: What are the
    alternatives?
        The alternatives, as I see them, are all worse. And I would
    encourage the committee's attention to that. And I am ready and
    willing to work. But I think that abandoning this project would
    be a mistake; that we will collapse back into a long track of
    litigation.
        We are behind the curve in the Southwest. This is Arizona
    and New Mexico, particularly. But it is lapping over into
    southern Utah and Nevada. And I just want to note that. There
    are budget ramifications from that, in the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, BLM, and the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. So I would
    just say we are slightly behind the curve there, and it is my
    intention, in the coming year, to get ahead of the curve.
        I would call your attention to two or three science issues
    that I think are important. The first is a $15 million request
    for bringing up a disaster information center in Reston on an
    interagency basis. What that is about is simply this.
        We have learned, in the last 4 or 5 years, an enormous
    amount about good emergency prediction, management, and
    followup. I believe it is one of the great successes of this
    administration, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    We are learning as we move along that we are still not
    utilizing all of the advance information that we can get to
    predict emergencies, disasters, and to deploy resources to
    minimize damages.
        We had some important experience out in California this
    year. It comes back to one gap in the process. And that is our
    ability to take satellite information, both classified and
    unclassified, GIS information from scores of sources, agency
    information, integrate it together, do the necessary
    declassification and be, in a real-time basis, out with the
    information. Not because we manage disasters, but because this
    is the right information point.
        The USGS budget has a variety of lines relating to water
    research. And I would just flag this as a concept. We used to
    think of the water problem as Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico--
    maybe Nevada and a little bit in California. It is now a
    nationwide issue, in terms of contamination of groundwater
    supplies, in terms of bacterial problems, like the pfisteria
    outbreaks that we are now seeing along the Atlantic Coast, and
    interestingly enough, increasing supply problems east of the
    Mississippi, as well as in the more traditional areas.
        The last science issue I would flag is the issue of fire
    ecology. In the BLM budget and, to some degree, in the GS
    budget, there are line items that relate to our increasing
    confidence in our ability to manage prescribed fires as a
    restoration tool, and to deal with the interface between fire,
    selective thinning, mechanical thinning, and overall forest
    health issues.
        Last, a brief word about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
    have a very important $25 million increase for law enforcement
    services, criminal investigation, uniformed officers, and
    several other items. It is a critical issue. It is the No. 1
    issue in Indian country. It is matched by a request of about
    $80 million from the Department of Justice, to see if together
    we can deploy some more resources.
        I believe that we have the Indian trust accounts issue
    under control and a tortuous, long-term path toward resolution
    of what is surely the most complex and frustrating management,
    record assembly, litigation, information system design that I
    have ever come near in my life. We have an increase in the
    budget for that. And I believe that we are now ahead of this
    one.

                               prepared statement

        With that, again, I would simply say it has been a great
    experience working with you. As frustrated as we sometimes get
    in authorization fights with the authorization committees, I
    have got to say that this relationship has been very different
    and very productive.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt
        I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies to present the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
    Department of the Interior.
        This budget is a significant one for the Department. It will mark
    and celebrate the Department's 150th year. It will also set the course
    for the Department's entry into the 21st Century.
        The history of the Department of the Interior has been one of
    change. In 1849, the Department was established to be the country's
    Home Department--a miscellaneous collection of domestic agencies,
    including the Patent Office and the Census Bureau. The largest, and
    most expensive, agency was the Pension Bureau. As the country developed
    and the needs of the American people changed, the Department assumed
    new functions and shed others. At least seven of the current Cabinet
    departments can trace their lineage, in whole or significant part, to
    functions at one time conducted by the Department of the Interior.
        Today the principal missions of the Department are the conservation
    and management of America's natural and cultural resources, the
    protection and encouragement of Indian self-determination, and the
    fulfillment of Federal trust responsibilities to American Indians.
    These missions originate with two of the Department's original
    components--the General Land Office and the Indian Office. However,
    they have evolved dramatically since 1849.
        Frederick Jackson Turner declared the frontier closed in 1893 and
    the last great wave of homesteading ended by 1920. The automobile, and
    later the Interstate highway system, have brought increasing numbers of
    visitors to parks, refuges and public lands. Development has pushed
    right up to the boundaries of many reserves and the interrelationship
    of the components of ecosystems that John Wesley Powell identified a
    century ago have become increasingly obvious. The land management
    challenges we face today are far different and more complex than those
    of 1949, let alone 1849. When Chester Lindsley was appointed as
    Superintendent after the establishment of the National Park Service in
    1916, Yellowstone may have been the uncomplicated place pictured in
    Northern Pacific Railroad tourist posters. The Yellowstone of today
    receives nearly three million visitors annually, six times the number
    who visited the entire National Park system in 1916. The Park has an
    aging infrastructure and is profoundly affected by developments
    throughout the 11.7 million-acre Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
        The evolution of Indian programs has been equally dramatic. The
    Indian Reorganization Act of the 1930's and the Indian Self-
    Determination Act of the early 1970's have given Tribes their rightful
    role in the management of Federal Indian affairs. Our challenge today
    is to deliver services and operate trust activities within the context
    of a program that promotes self-determination and protects tribal
    sovereignty.
        The budget that I present today reflects the continuing evolution
    of the Department's mission. As have each of President Clinton's
    budgets, the 1999 budget protects base operating funds for the
    Department's programs, including parks, refuges and public lands,
    natural resource science, reclamation programs, and Native American
    programs, while providing the funding needed to meet increasingly
    complex challenges. The budget:
      --Continues funding for landscape scale restoration partnerships and
            includes increases to help States and local communities restore
            watersheds and fisheries.
      --Adds funds to build on our successful efforts to make the
            Endangered Species Act work.
      --Begins a five-year program to fund critical maintenance and
            construction needs.
      --Funds an initiative to strengthen law enforcement functions in
            Indian country and continues our progress on trust management
            reform.
        Budget overview.--The President has proposed a balanced budget for
    1999, three years earlier than agreed to in last year's Bipartisan
    Budget Agreement. Within the framework of the balanced budget, the
    President's request seeks a total of $8.1 billion for the Department in
    funds subject to annual appropriation by the Congress. An estimated
    $2.4 billion will be provided by permanent appropriations.
        For Department programs under the jurisdiction of this
    Subcommittee, the request for annual appropriations is $7.1 billion for
    1999. This is a decrease of $71 million in current budget authority
    from total appropriations provided in the 1998 Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act. It is an increase of $461 million in
    current authority if the Department's $532 million share of the special
    1998 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation is excluded. More
    than 20 percent of this increase will go for pay and other
    uncontrollable cost increases.
        Our ability to propose a budget that includes programmatic
    increases is due to the President's commitment to the environment and
    programs for Native Americans and to our aggressive efforts over the
    last five years to streamline the Department, reducing headquarters
    staffs and management layers, and to reengineer our processes and
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our customer services. As
    of the end of fiscal year 1997, we had reduced our overall employment
    level by over 15 percent below the 1993 baseline.
        Landscape focus.--The President's Northwest Forest Summit in April
    1993 opened a new chapter in conservation and resource history. For 150
    years, the Nation has been caught between two polar visions. One vision
    was of the great natural resources of our country as commodities to be
    exploited for economic gain. The other vision was of a deep ethical
    obligation to preserve and care for nature's creations. The new vision
    that crystallized in Portland in 1993 serves both nature and our
    economic future. By understanding that landscapes are complex, living
    and integrated systems, we can find better ways of living on, and
    prospering from, the land, while at the same time protecting species
    and preserving nature's special places.
        We learned three lessons in developing the Forest Plan. We cannot
    solve pressing natural resource problems by focusing on postage stamp
    size management units. We must treat them on a landscape scale. Second,
    in seeking solutions we must look across, and beyond, agency
    boundaries. We need to involve all the relevant Federal agencies, as
    well as States, local and tribal governments, industry, non-profit
    groups, and concerned ordinary citizens in efforts to move from
    conflict to cooperation. Third, our goal should be restoration, so as
    to ensure the long term ecological and economic health of communities.
        The 1999 budget continues support for the Forest Plan, as well as
    for the landscape scale restoration of the Everglades.
        Our request for the Forest Plan is $68 million. That this is a
    slight decrease from 1998 reflects the success of the Forest Plan. We
    have in place the structure to maintain and restore late successional
    and old-growth forests, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat,
    while allowing a sustained timber harvest of 1.1 billion board feet per
    year. An aquatic conservation strategy has been implemented to maintain
    the health of watersheds. We are working with non-federal land owners
    to balance species protection through habitat conservation plans and
    planned implementation of the 4(d) rule.
        For the Everglades, we propose an appropriation of $144 million,
    including $12 million for scientific research, $14 million for the
    Modified Water Delivery System, and $81 million for land acquisition.
    This request is an increase of $8 million over 1998. Total Federal
    funding requested for the Everglades is $282 million, an increase of
    $54 million. This funding, together with the contributions of the State
    of Florida, will keep us on track to solutions that restore the
    Everglades in ways that recognize the inextricable link between the
    health of the natural watershed and the growth and continued prosperity
    of Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and all of the cities of the coastal ridge.
        Based on lessons learned in the Pacific Northwest, South Florida
    and California, the budget for the Interior and Related Agencies bill
    also contains modest increases to address landscape scale issues in two
    other areas of the country.
        At the 1993 Forest Summit, the President directed BLM and the
    Forest Service to develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based
    management strategy for Federal lands east of the Cascades in the
    Columbia River Basin, the upper Klamath Basin and the northern Great
    Basin. Two EISs and preferred management alternatives are nearing
    completion. To begin to implement whichever management alternative is
    selected to restore the long-term ecological integrity of the Federal
    land within the 144 million acre region, we are asking for increases of
    $7 million in BLM and $1.5 million in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    The BLM increases will support implementation of integrated weed
    management plans, fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects, and
    use of prescribed fire to restore range and forest land, among other
    projects. The FWS increase will support streamlined ESA consultations
    on the model of the Forest Plan.
        In the desert Southwest, increases totaling $4 million in BLM and
    FWS will support efforts to unsnarl the tangle of litigation
    surrounding conflicts between traditional industries such as logging
    and grazing, the resource demands of explosive urban and suburban
    growth, and the survival of a number of species, including the Mexican
    spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, and cactus pygmy owl. This
    funding is critical to preempting gridlock that will benefit neither
    the species or the economy of the region.
        The budget for the Energy and Water Development bill contains a
    request of $144 million for California Bay-Delta restoration
    activities, the full amount authorized by the California Bay-Delta
    Environmental Enhancement Act.
        Watershed restoration.--It is not a coincidence that the
    restoration projects I have discussed revolve around watersheds. Water
    connects the landscape. Rivers link upland forests and meadows to river
    valleys and lowlands. The water reveals everything, right or wrong,
    that we do within the entire watershed. The health of the headwaters
    affects the biological and economic health of communities below.
        In celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the
    Vice President is leading an effort to fulfill the Act's commitment to
    protect and restore the Nation's waters. The effort is grounded in a
    powerful new concept. Communities have begun to see that their river is
    not just a little slice of reality at the end of town, but that the
    river reflects everything that happens in the entire watershed; is a
    communicator, if you will, of actions taken hundreds of miles away.
    Many of these communities have begun to recapture their history and
    heritage--and secure their economic future--through rebuilding of
    abandoned waterfronts and restoration of fisheries, whether salmon,
    shad, or striped bass. On the Stonycreek River in Pennsylvania, the
    efforts of local citizens, working with State and Federal agencies to
    address acid mine drainage, are credited with the first reported
    holdover trout fishery in the river in 80 to 90 years.
        In support of the Vice President's initiative, the 1999 budget
    contains increases in several of our bureaus. If I can generally
    characterize these increases, they involve helping local communities
    and watershed councils to find solutions to watershed restoration.
        Specific program increases totaling $16.5 million in USGS will
    focus on enhancing the understanding and data available to Federal
    agencies, States, Tribes, local governments and private citizens that
    will be working together to improve watershed conditions throughout the
    Nation. Improved availability of landscape information coupled with
    hydrologic and biological data are critical to the success of a
    watershed-based approach of water restoration. Among other projects,
    USGS will develop new data handling and serving capabilities including
    the use of geographic information systems for decision support;
    evaluate the impacts of pollution sources and non-point pollution
    management practices in critical watersheds; provide information to
    assist remediation of acid mine drainage; conduct research on hypoxia
    in the Gulf of Mexico and pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay; and
    encourage research oriented toward restoring aquatic system health in
    degraded watersheds through competitive grants to Water Resources
    Research Institutes. The National Water Quality Program will begin work
    in two new study units and USGS will conduct cooperative research for
    the Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, BLM and other Federal agencies.
        In BLM, OSM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, we are requesting
    new funding for partnerships and restoration projects. A proposed
    increase of $16 million in BLM includes funding for cleanup of drainage
    from abandoned hardrock mine sites in partnership with Colorado,
    Montana and other western States and additional funding for riparian
    restoration projects throughout the West. For OSM, we propose to
    increase the very successful Clean Streams initiative to $7 million. At
    this level, OSM will provide seed money for approximately 23 more
    partnerships to clean up rivers and streams polluted by contaminated
    runoff from abandoned coal mines. OSM will also use a small amount of
    funding to transfer the lessons that it has learned in the East to
    hardrock acid mine drainage projects in the West. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service will implement additional voluntary watershed health projects
    with private landowners with a $2.5 million increase in the Partners
    for Fish and Wildlife Program and a $3 million increase in the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund.
        Fisheries restoration.--A key to the puzzle in many watersheds is
    private hydro-power dams built in an era when the native fish supply
    was assumed to be indestructible. Over the next 15 years, one quarter
    of the private hydro-power dams in America will come up for Federal
    relicensing. This presents an unparalleled opportunity for communities
    to work with industry to develop innovative solutions to fish passage.
    A model for these efforts is the Menominee River, which forms the
    border of Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula north of Lake
    Michigan. For decades the river and its tributaries have generated
    electricity through more than 13 dams, but those same dams have
    disrupted fish migration and spawning runs, degrading the river
    experience for white water enthusiasts and fishermen alike. The people
    of Florence and Marinette Counties in Wisconsin and Iron, Dickinson and
    Menominee Counties in Michigan saw that the strength of their river was
    more than the sum of its kilowatt hours. It could draw boaters and
    anglers to broaden and stabilize the tax base. As the deadline for
    relicensing the dams approached, citizens and elected officials came
    together with industry to hammer out a landmark plan to balance
    watershed values of a wilder, more natural river with continued
    electric power generation.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has a critical, supportive role in
    these locally based efforts. On the Menominee, the Service showed how
    and where the most cost-effective fish barriers could be installed,
    protecting not only bass and northern pike, but the hydro projects
    themselves. For 1999, we propose modest, but important, increases
    totaling $2 million for the Service to hire additional biologists and
    hydrological engineers and to demonstrate fish passage restoration
    techniques.
        Endangered Species Act.--Just as we have learned better ways to
    work with natural systems, we have also learned better ways to work
    with the Endangered Species Act. Five years ago, there was a national
    perception that the Act was broken. There was a complete impasse in the
    old growth forests of the Northwest, an impending crisis threatening to
    shut down home-building in southern California, and another timber
    industry standoff looming in the longleaf pine forests of the South.
        We dusted off the Act and found that it contains much flexibility
    and potential for innovation. For five years, we have been out on the
    landscape, working with States, Tribes, communities and private
    landowners. Habitat conservation plans covering approximately 7.3
    million acres have been put in place or are under development. We have
    developed the ``No Surprises'' policy and have negotiated ``Safe
    Harbor'' agreements with private landowners to encourage them to
    enhance or improve habitat by providing assurances that their voluntary
    conservation actions will not result in imposition of additional
    restrictions.
        We have found that these tools can both protect species and permit
    sound economic development. Why? Because they provide: incentives for
    landowners to protect and even attract rare native species on their
    property; certainty for businesses to move ahead; and ways to restore
    rare and declining species in time to keep them off the endangered
    list.
        I hope that 1998 will see enactment of ESA reauthorization that
    builds on the lessons that we have learned. For 1999, the President
    proposes a $39 million ESA increase to expand our use of these tools to
    more effectively and efficiently implement the ESA and to position the
    FWS to comply with a reauthorized ESA, should that happen.
        Among other things, the increased funding will be used to implement
    additional candidate conservation agreements to protect 80 species and
    keep 20 species from being listed; to implement more than 100
    additional Habitat Conservation Plans; enter into 100 to 150 safe
    harbor agreements; and implement an additional 75 recovery plans. Even
    in the absence of reauthorization, we will need to do these things, as
    well as to address a growing consultation workload; consider up to 30
    additional species reclassifications or delisting actions; and provide
    support to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, the
    Southwest Ecosystem initiative; consultation efforts with Indian
    tribes; and conservation of threatened and endangered species in the
    Platte River basin.
        Science.--The initiatives that I have discussed today all have
    science as an integral component, as do many other aspects of the
    ongoing operations of the land management agencies. Whether it is
    improving our knowledge of the hydrology of the Everglades or
    developing a scientific understanding of the biological, chemical,
    physical and historical factors leading to avian and fish mortality in
    the Salton Sea, the work of the U.S. Geological Survey is critical to
    sound resource management decisions.
        The 1999 request for USGS includes a net increase of $49 million
    over 1998. The request includes the increases supporting the Clean
    Water initiative that I mentioned earlier, as well as an additional $7
    million for greater public access to water quality information, $11
    million for species and habitat research and $2.5 million to expand the
    EROS Data Center's archiving capacity. I am pleased to report that
    these increases reflect improved orientation of USGS to the research
    and data needs of land managing agencies, as well as of other Federal,
    state and local agencies and the public, and expanded synergy between
    the biological and earth sciences in the ``new'' USGS.
        One increase that I want to discuss specifically is a $15 million
    request in our budget to implement a Disaster Information Network. The
    USGS is the national leader in both managing and disseminating spatial
    data and earth-science information and in monitoring natural hazards
    such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and coastal
    erosion. This new network will be built on existing resources by a
    multi-agency Integrated Program Office hosted by USGS. The network will
    ensure that the timely, reliable information is available to a wide
    range of users so that losses due to natural disasters can be
    minimized. The network will take full advantage of new communications
    technologies and the rapidly growing capabilities of the information
    superhighway to help communities become more resilient to natural
    disasters.
        Safe visits.--The Department manages an extensive infrastructure in
    parks and refuges and on public lands and Indian reservations. Many of
    our facilities are over 100 years old; some were built by the Civilian
    Conservation Corps in the 1930's; and some were erected in the 1950's
    and 1960's as part of the Mission 66 program. As use and visitation
    increases, these aging facilities present serious rehabilitation and
    repair needs.
        To meet these needs, the 1999 budget proposes the first year of a
    five-year program to address critical health and safety needs in
    maintenance and construction, as well as needs for ongoing natural and
    cultural resource protection. This funding will help ensure safe visits
    for visitors to parks, refuges and public lands. It will also make sure
    that the 45,000 employees who work daily in NPS, BLM, FWS and BIA
    facilities have safe work environments and that the 53,000 students who
    attend BIA schools have safe school environments.
        The 1999 budgets for maintenance and construction will total $849
    million, which represents a net increase of $68 million over the 1998
    enacted level. For maintenance programs, it represents an increase of
    $82 million, or 18 percent, over 1998 to tackle the most pressing
    deferred maintenance needs. For construction there will be a decrease
    of $14 million to better focus efforts during the first year of the
    five year program. Construction funding will increase in the outyears.
    Over five years, we will propose maintenance and construction increases
    that will total $700 million over a straight-lined 1998 base. These
    amounts will be supplemented by fee revenues. Under the current Fee
    Demonstration program, NPS will be able to keep $136 million in fee
    receipts in 1999. The budget proposes to build on this success by
    permanently authorizing a new fee program. The budget also proposes
    park concessions reform legislation that will allow NPS to enhance
    performance and use franchise fee receipts for park improvements.
        As the first step of the five year program, we have developed
    uniform criteria and prioritized lists of critical health and safety
    and resource projects for 1999. Our goal is to fund the projects posing
    the greatest risks to the public and employees.
        As the next step, the Department will begin to develop a five-year
    plan to meet maintenance and resource needs to be used to formulate the
    2000 budget request. Using agreed upon definitions, we will better
    identify and categorize our deferred maintenance needs and begin to
    schedule and fund the highest priority needs. We will also be looking
    at the appropriate funding levels for routine and cyclic maintenance to
    ensure that the inventory of deferred maintenance does not continue to
    grow.
        Law enforcement in Indian country.--The 1999 budget for the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs is $1.84 billion, an increase of $142 million above
    the 1998 enacted level. Included within the increase are funds to pay
    the costs of increasing school enrollment, to replace three schools,
    and to support various self-determination programs. Of great importance
    is a $25 million increase to strengthen core law enforcement functions
    in Indian country by increasing the number of uniformed police officers
    and criminal investigators and by strengthening basic detention center
    services. This initiative responds to the current public safety crisis
    in Indian country. Crime rates on Indian lands have increased
    significantly, hindering the efforts of Tribes to establish stability
    in their communities. The homicide rates on some reservations have
    equaled or surpassed levels in many large cities. To respond, Indian
    communities have only 1.3 police officers per 1,000 citizens, compared
    with an average of 2.9 per 1,000 in non-Indian areas with similar
    population density. Many Tribes lack adequate funding to provide a
    basic level of security in their communities, such as 24 hour police
    coverage.
        The law enforcement increase for BIA is part of a larger effort
    that will provide $182 million in new and redirected Federal funds to
    support Indian country law enforcement, a 100 percent increase over
    1998. To encourage clear communication and continuity between the
    Federal government and Tribes, BIA will maintain primary responsibility
    for law enforcement, with important technical assistance and support
    from the Department of Justice. The Justice budget proposes an increase
    of $51 million for additional FBI agents and assistant U.S. Attorneys,
    as well as for several targeted programs on reservations, such as drug
    testing and treatment, juvenile justice, and assistance to tribal
    courts. Justice also proposes to direct $52 million in correctional
    grant funding for detention center construction in Indian country and
    dedicate over $54 million for Community Oriented Policing Services on
    reservations.
        Trust programs.--The request for the Office of the Special Trustee
    is $42.0 million, a $8.1 million increase over 1998. The request
    supports the implementation of portions of the Special Trustee's
    Strategic Plan that focus on improving the performance of our current
    responsibilities: acquisition of trust systems, records clean-up, and
    elimination of trust asset processing backlogs. I'm pleased to report,
    that significant progress in these areas has occurred over the past
    year. A comprehensive high-level implementation plan for the Trust
    Management Improvement Project is being finalized and several sub
    projects are well underway. In January 1998, OST commenced an 18 month
    individual Indian money account data clean up contract and this month
    will award a contract for a commercial off-the-shelf trust fund
    accounting system.
        In BIA, the budget includes an increase of $5 million to address
    probate and land records processing backlogs. The budget also proposes
    $10 million for BIA to initiate a pilot program on one or more
    reservations to consolidate fractional interests in allotted land. It
    is not uncommon for as many as 100 to 300 individuals to hold undivided
    interests in a single allotment. This fractionation taxes the ability
    of the Government to administer and maintain records and accounts. It
    also makes it increasingly difficult for Indian owners to put their
    lands to productive use.
        On the authorizing side, the budget assumes enactment of the
    Administration's tribal trust fund settlement process legislative
    proposal, which is expected to be submitted to the Congress this month.
    The proposed legislation is the culmination of a five-year, $21 million
    effort to reconcile tribal trust fund accounts. The legislation will
    lay out a process designed to acknowledge and respect tribal
    sovereignty by using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
        MMS.--The resurgence in Gulf of Mexico leasing activity that we
    reported in the 1998 budget will continue into 1999. There have been
    four record-breaking lease sales in the Gulf over the past year and a
    half and a sustained level of exploration and development activity.
    Industry's interest and investment in the Gulf are spurred by dramatic
    advances in technology; the discovery of extremely prolific reservoirs;
    reductions in exploration and development costs; and the economic
    incentives provided by the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act.
        In response to this resurgence, we have requested a 1998
    supplemental appropriation of $6.7 million and an annualized increase
    of $7.5 million for 1999. I am pleased and gratified that the
    Subcommittee chose to include the $6.7 million in the supplemental bill
    that passed the Senate last week. These increases will put MMS on firm
    footing to effectively perform its regulatory responsibilities to
    ensure continued safe and environmentally sound development of the OCS.
    This investment, which will be fully offset by increased offsetting
    receipts, is modest compared to the return it will generate. OCS
    bonuses, rents and royalties constitute the largest category of the $7
    billion in receipts (equivalent to 90 percent of the Department's
    budget) that the Department collects.
        The Millennium Fund.--The initiatives that I have discussed all
    respond to immediate 1999 needs, but also position the Department to
    meet the challenges of the 21st Century. One proposal in the budget is
    explicitly a proposal for the 21st Century. The legacy of defining
    moments in American history is literally fading away in deteriorating
    archives, crumbling monuments, and moldering leather. The celebration
    of the turn of the century is an opportunity to showcase the
    preservation of America's history and culture for ourselves and for the
    world. To seize this opportunity, the budget proposes a $50 million
    grant fund to preserve the fabric of America's heritage, ensuring that
    the citizens of the 21st Century have the same opportunity that we have
    had to observe and enjoy the Star Spangled Banner, objects gathered by
    the Lewis and Clark expedition, and instruments in the laboratory of
    Thomas Edison.
        Using the existing legal framework of the National Historic
    Preservation Act, $25 million is proposed to be distributed to States,
    Tribes and territories. With the exception of grants to Tribes, this
    amount will be matched on a 60/40 basis by non-Federal funding. The
    remaining $25 million is proposed to be made available to Federal
    agencies for the preservation of artifacts of national scope and
    significance.
        Conclusion.--I believe that the 1999 budget for the Department of
    the Interior addresses the challenges that we will face in our 150th
    year. I look forward to working with you on these challenges and on the
    challenges we will face in the 21st Century.
        This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

                           fee demonstration project

        Senator Gorton. I probably have about 2 hours worth of
    questions, Mr. Secretary. You will get maybe 10 minutes of them
    before I have to leave for the Commerce Committee markup,
    because I do want others to--I will go then to Senator Byrd and
    whichever is the last Senator here can adjourn the meeting, if
    he will. And every member, whether present or not, will be
    authorized to submit written questions.
        I would like you to give me a brief briefing on what I hope
    has been one of the real success stories, and that is the fee
    demonstration project. How much money are you bringing in? What
    is it being used for? And when are we going to get an
    administration recommendation as to how to make it permanent?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think this program has been
    an outstanding success, visibly in the Park Service, but in the
    other land management agencies, as well. I believe, in this
    fiscal year, the Park Service anticipates collecting, net of
    collection costs, close to $132 million. I actually thought it
    was closer to $300 million. Well, my trusted source says $140
    million.
        Now, virtually all of that money is going back into this
    issue of repair and maintenance and upkeep. And I think it is
    making a very significant difference that you can actually see.
    We have said to park superintendents: We want you to do what
    some States do with their highway money. For every dollar they
    spend, there is a billboard on the site, saying: Courtesy of
    your elected representatives and the wisdom of your political
    leaders, this money is now moving out. We want to advertise the
    success. And I think we are doing it.
        Now, when do we submit a bill?
        I think it has been the view of OMB that that should be a
    fiscal year 1999 project. That is a judgment call. I guess I
    would rather have a bird in the hand. But, in any event, no
    later than January we will have a draft legislative proposal
    for you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.

                    columbia basin ecosystem management plan

        You mentioned in your opening statement the frustrations in
    the Columbia basin ecosystem management plan as against some of
    the things that you are doing elsewhere. Personally, I think,
    from my contacts with my own constituents, that a large part of
    that lack of success is that both the people who live in the
    Basin and Congress were assured that this large-scale planning
    would result in a prompt determination of final land management
    decisions. So far, what it has done is to add a huge amount of
    interagency consolidation in a bureaucratic process that seems
    to be in addition to a cumbersome local planning process.
        Once the consultation process is completed in the Columbia
    basin study, is there any assurance that the subsequent
    consultation at the local level will be eliminated or
    substantially reduced?
        Secretary Babbitt. I understand that that question is not
    exactly unsubstantiated by some of the stuff that has gone on.
    But there are two things, I think. The first is, at the point
    that a plan is signed off, it then needs to be wrapped into the
    74 separate land management plans. Now, we have had a lot of
    discussion about that, and I believe that can be done quickly
    and that it should obviate the need for a lot of flow-down
    decisionmaking.
        The other issue that people are worried about is
    consultation under the Endangered Species Act, which often
    turns out, at least in the eyes of many, to be the problem. In
    the forest plan, I think we have really spiked that problem. We
    now have consultations on timber sales coming out routinely in
    less than 60 days. And I think we can do that under this plan.

                                    presidio

        Senator Gorton. Just one more from me. Now that we have a
    Presidio Trust, why is the amount of money you are asking to
    spend going up rather than down?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the extra $25 million is in the
    form of a request from the Presidio Trust for the equivalent of
    bonding authority, to be exercised through the Treasury to
    begin the rehab and repair of a lot of those buildings that
    they believe there is a rental market for. That is the bottom
    line. They say they want to issue bonds so we can amortize them
    with rental proceeds. That is the entire increase.
        Senator Gorton. What will the likely request be for next
    year, then, in the next budget cycle? Will it go down?
        Secretary Babbitt. Only the Presidio Trust can answer that
    question, Senator. I remind you that this is now an independent
    body, which does not take lightly excessive intermeddling from
    the Secretary of the Interior. But I believe that the answer is
    yes, that it should go back down. This is a one-shot bonding
    authority request.
        Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary. I apologize again for the
    almost inevitable conflict, in this case with the tobacco
    markup. Senator Byrd is next, and then Senator Bumpers, who has
    just come. Let me tell you, Senator Bumpers, I have to go and
    Senator Stevens has already had to leave for the tobacco
    markup. So the questions will simply follow in order of the
    last Senator here and adjourn the hearing with the Secretary.
    And each Senator, of course, will have the right to submit
    questions in writing in addition to those that he or she has
    asked in person.
        And with that, thank you very much.
        Senator Byrd, it is your turn.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                   corridor h

        Mr. Secretary, pursuant to the Historic Preservation Act,
    the National Park Service has responsibility for evaluating the
    potential impact of Federal highway projects on historic
    sources. As you may know, efforts to construct and complete
    corridor H in my State of West Virginia have been subjected to
    litigation and delay ad nauseam by opponents of this highway.
        My support for corridor H is no secret. I have also been
    steadfast in my desire to see that appropriate procedures are
    followed in a timely manner. Specifically, I am concerned that
    opponents of this project--and there is a small group, highly
    vocal opponents, most of which I suppose are West Virginians,
    some of whom are from out of State and some who have just
    recently come to West Virginia possibly--I am concerned that
    the opponents of the project may be causing undue delay through
    repeated requests for extensions of comment and review periods
    by the keeper of the National Register.
        I wrote to you on November 25 of last year and again on
    March 1 of this year regarding these concerns. I have not yet
    received a response to my March 1 letter. I have been very
    careful not to question the substance of the issues involved,
    but rather to raise concerns regarding the time and the delays
    that have plagued this process.
        What can you tell me about these review periods and the
    extensions thereto, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, like you, I have been
    exceedingly careful not to voice or even intimate an opinion on
    the merits. As you know, I have been burdened with a special
    counsel over entirely false allegations that I intervened in a
    regulatory decision. And so I too am quite sensitive about
    this.
        The time periods for decision are an appropriate issue of
    inquiry. And I have in my hands a draft letter, with a
    handwritten note on it from my staff, saying: ``To be signed
    today.'' I suspect that note may or may not have been written.
    But, at any rate, it is now to be signed today, and says as
    follows:

        We expect the information, the documentation, from the
    Federal Highway Administration early in April. Now, that is No.
    1. We have got to get the material from them. Perhaps they will
    get wind of this hearing and what I take to be your strong
    desire that they submit this promptly.

        After that, I will lean on the keeper and make certain that
    a decision is made within 45 days from the date of submission
    from the Federal Highway Administration.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary. You have
    always been very responsive to our needs and our requests.
        To date, the National Park Service has not kept to its own
    deadlines in responding to requests from State officials. Can I
    be assured that the Department and the National Park Service
    will complete their work expeditiously, within the timeframes
    that the National Park Service itself established?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, this is with respect to many
    projects, a particular project?
        Senator Byrd. I am talking about this particular project.
        Secretary Babbitt. Oh, this particular one. Yes; the answer
    is ``yes.''
        Senator Byrd. The submissions by the State in April, can we
    be sure that the review will be within the 45-day period?
        Secretary Babbitt. I vow to you that you will have a
    response in the form of a decision within that timeframe.

                  role of state historic preservation officer

        Senator Byrd. Another concern that has surfaced in West
    Virginia is that the professional judgment and considerations
    of the State Historic Preservation Office are not being fairly
    treated and reviewed by the keeper of the National Register.
    What is the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer and
    the keeper in reviewing the impact that a project will have on
    cultural resources, listed or eligible, to the National
    Register of Historic Places?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would have to answer
    specifically in writing after looking at the statute. But I
    believe, generally, the question is, does the keeper decide
    based upon the recommendation or does the keeper concur? I
    believe it is the former. I believe the keeper actually has
    jurisdiction to make a de novo decision after considering the
    recommendation of the State Officer. But I would like to
    confirm that in writing.
        Senator Byrd. Very well.
        [The information follows:]

    The National Register of Historic Places--Determinations of Eligibility

        National Park Service regulations (36 C.F.R. 63) assign the
    Keeper of the National Register responsibility for determining
    whether properties that may be affected by Federal or federally
    assisted projects meet the National Register Criteria for
    Evaluation. If properties listed in the National Register or
    found eligible for listing are to be affected, the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation must be given an opportunity
    to comment on the project.
        Paragraph 2 of the regulations specifies that ``The
    Department of the Interior will respond within 45 days of
    receipt of a documented request for a determination of
    eligibility from a Federal agency when it is submitted in
    accordance with the following regulations and is accompanied by
    documentation that clearly portrays the nature and significance
    of the property.'' If the documentation is ``not sufficient to
    make a professional evaluation of the significance of the
    property,'' the Keeper is directed to request additional
    information. The regulations then provide that the Keeper will
    respond to the agency's request within 45 days of receipt of
    the requested documentation.
        Since 1983, the National Register has received five
    requests for determinations of eligibility, including 57
    properties in West Virginia and 2 properties in Virginia that
    might be affected by Corridor H. The Federal Highway
    Administration (FHwA) was asked to submit additional
    information on three of these requests. Corridor H
    Alternatives, an official consulting party, asked that the
    review periods for two requests be extended to enable them to
    prepare comments on FHwA's recommendations concerning
    eligibility. In view of the importance of having all possible
    relevant information before making decisions on this important
    project, the National Register staff concluded that it was
    appropriate to extend the review periods for a reasonable time.
    The additional material submitted by the FHwA and by Corridor H
    Alternatives and other members of the interested public has, in
    fact, provided important information that needed to be taken
    into account in making decisions about eligibility. In all
    cases, the National Register staff has made its determinations
    within 45 days of receiving the information necessary to permit
    informed evaluation of the properties involved.
        The National Register staff has been informed that the FHwA
    will be submitting requests for determinations of eligibility
    for a number of additional properties that may be affected by
    the Corridor H project over the next few months. The Department
    of the Interior is committed to making all decisions concerning
    determinations of eligibility as expeditiously as possible
    consistent with the National Park Service's responsibility to
    base these decisions on the most complete and accurate
    information available.

     the role of the state historic preservation officer and the keeper of
                    the national register of historic places

        The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
    assigns the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) an
    important role in consulting with Federal agencies on their
    undertakings that may affect historic properties and on the
    content and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect and
    manage or to reduce or mitigate harm to such properties
    [Section 101(b)(3)(I)]. The Keeper of the National Register
    also asks the opinion of the SHPO concerning the eligibility of
    the properties on which Federal agencies have requested a
    determination of eligibility and gives that opinion careful
    consideration in evaluating the properties. Under the statute,
    however, the responsibility for making determinations of
    eligibility rests with the Department of the Interior.
    Department of the Interior regulations assign that
    responsibility to the Keeper of the National Register of
    Historic Places.
        In the case of properties that might be affected by
    Corridor H, the Keeper has agreed with the West Virginia State
    Historic Preservation Officer's opinions on the eligibility of
    51 of the 57 West Virginia properties for which determinations
    of eligibility were requested. All of the properties on which
    the National Register and the SHPO disagreed were related to
    the site of the Civil War Battle of Moorefield and the Old
    Fields Historic District, in the Middle South Branch Valley, in
    Hardy County. A variety of interested individuals and
    organizations, including but by no means limited to Corridor H
    Alternatives, questioned the opinions of the FHwA and the SHPO
    concerning the eligibility of these two areas and asked that
    both questions be referred to the Keeper for a final
    determination.

                       state historic preservation office

        Senator Byrd. Let me just say again that the concern that
    has surfaced in my State is that professional judgment and the
    considerations of the State Historic Preservation Office are
    not being fairly treated and reviewed by the keeper of the
    National Register. Under what circumstances would the keeper
    overrule the recommendations of the State Historic Preservation
    Officer?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I think I need to go back and
    look at the statute, and I will respond. And this response will
    not take 45 days.
        Senator Byrd. All right.
        Is it your view that the keeper must take extraordinary
    steps to remain impartial and objective in these reviews?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, as I intimated earlier, yes. I
    mean, when this Congress passes a regulatory statute, requiring
    or authorizing decisionmaking on specific issues that are
    regulatory and quasi-judicial, I think that is important.
        Senator Byrd. Well, the perception is that, as I understand
    it, based on my conversations with my constituents, that the
    keeper is not always impartial and objective in the reviews
    that affect this particular highway. What steps can the
    Department take when there are concerns that one side or
    another may be receiving more favorable treatment?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, I would of course be willing to
    restate to the keeper her obligation to be fair and impartial,
    and I think also to re-examine and make certain that the
    process is as transparent as possible, in terms of having
    public input and making certain that there are not any
    substantive communications going on outside of the record or
    outside of whatever public process is established.
        Senator Byrd. When you make that clear--and perhaps you
    have done so before; I do not know--when you make that clear,
    will you do that in writing?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will.
        Senator Byrd. Would you supply the subcommittee with a copy
    of your letter?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will.
        [The information follows:]

        The Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places Need for
                                  Objectivity

        The Keeper of the National Register is well aware of the
    importance of fairness and objectivity in all decisionmaking,
    including determinations of eligibility. The Keeper and other
    appropriate National Register staff members carefully review
    all available information to ensure that these decisions are
    based solely on a professional, disinterested evaluation of the
    historical significance and integrity of the properties
    involved. Secretary Babbitt has written a memorandum to the
    Keeper re-emphasizing the importance of objectivity and
    impartiality in making decisions about eligibility, as he
    committed to do in response to Senator Byrd's expression of
    concern about this matter. If questions are raised about the
    Keeper's ability to make a fair and objective decision in a
    particular case, the matter can be referred to the Department
    of the Interior Ethics Office for an opinion. A copy of this
    letter will be provided to the Committee.

                        completing the necessary review

        Senator Byrd. I cannot stress to you enough, Mr. Secretary,
    the importance of completing the necessary reviews within the
    time specified. And I think you personally feel that way about
    it. I have not seen anything to the contrary ever. The State is
    doing everything that it can to be cooperative in responding to
    repeated requests for more and more information. The least that
    the Department can do is to respond to these requests in a
    timely manner.
        Now, Mr. Secretary, I will look forward to receiving a copy
    of that letter. And I, again, thank you.

                         reductions in heritage efforts

        I understand your commitment to providing resources for
    important administrative initiatives. I am troubled by some
    reductions in the budget which appear to be targeted at
    congressional priorities. In my State of West Virginia, for
    example, the National Park Service budget eliminated funding
    for ongoing support of heritage efforts in Wheeling. And
    comparable efforts in Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Washington are
    also targeted for elimination.
        With all of the increased funding proposed in the budget, I
    wish that the Department could have found a way, at a minimum,
    to continue these ongoing programs. Last year's funds were not
    for one-time activities in Wheeling. The city and its partners
    have been working cooperatively with the National Park Service,
    consistent with the plan jointly developed several years ago. I
    have been very supportive of this initiative, and I remain so
    committed. I intend to work closely with Senator Gorton to
    ensure that there is no disruption to the ongoing program in
    Wheeling, and that funds are restored, if not enhanced.
        Mr. Secretary, I, like others, have some other commitments.
    But I want to thank you again for your appearance here and for
    your cooperation. I have always found it to be excellent, and I
    am proud to say so publicly. I was glad to see you up at the
    dedication last fall of the training center at Terrapin Neck. I
    hear many good things about that national conservation training
    center. And it is truly a spectacular facility, and one for
    which I believe all in the Service and in the Department can be
    proud.
        I may have a few additional questions which I will submit
    for the record.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would just like you to know
    that with respect to that training center, I canceled out of a
    trip to Argentina with the President in order to honor your
    request to be there. [Laughter.]
        Let me just say it was the right decision. [Laughter.]
        Senator Byrd. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Campbell [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, I believe it
    is my turn. I will not ask you a bunch of questions because I
    have to run, too. But let me thank you on the record for your
    involvement last year in what we call the Rim Rock Run in
    Colorado. It was a marathon run through Colorado National
    Monument. And with your personal input, that run was a very big
    success.
        It is my understanding that the Park Service is now very
    close to a suitable compromise between protecting the integrity
    of the Park and allowing the organizers to have another one.
    And I am looking forward to them doing it. They have worked all
    year on it--both sides have. And so I just wanted to thank you
    for that.

                            sand creek massacre site

        And also I would ask you if you would look, when you have
    time, at S. 1695, a bill I just introduced, that would allow
    the Park Service to purchase a small area in Colorado that is
    called the Sand Creek Massacre Site. The problem with it is we
    do not know exactly the location of the site. We know very
    closely where it is. But for about 3 years, the State of
    Colorado Historical Society has been researching that area.
    They do not have the expertise, equipment, or the kinds of
    things they need to actually measure some of the underground
    contents, you know, being able to find shell casings and so on.
        And when we did a hearing on this about a week ago, Ms.
    Katherine Stevenson, she did testify on the part of the Park
    Service, and called it an extremely worthy project. And we are
    hoping that maybe the National Park Service will be able to
    help the State of Colorado define exactly where that is before
    we actually move forward with that purchase. So if you would
    kind of look at that bill, I would appreciate it.
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to do so.

                           presidio buildings status

        Senator Campbell. And just let me also say that, since
    Senator Gorton mentioned the Presidio, that I was the chairman
    of the Park subcommittee a couple of years ago, and I
    understand the request for some money. Over half those
    buildings qualify on the National Historic Registry, as you
    know. Some of them are in pretty bad disrepair. And I know that
    without some money going there, they will just have to be torn
    down. In order to get them rentable, we have to fix them up. So
    I do understand that request.
        And I thank you for your appearance today.
        Secretary Babbitt. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Bumpers. I am sorry, were you here when I came in?
        Senator Bennett [presiding]. I was. And I would normally
    yield without any problem except I have to chair another
    subcommittee in about 5 minutes. So if I may, Senator, I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Secretary, two quick things. In my opening comment, I
    gave you an invitation to come to Utah and visit the San
    Raphael Swell this weekend. And that stands. If it is
    impossible for you to rearrange your schedule that quickly, I
    would be happy to find a time, sometime in May, where you and I
    could go visit that, where Pat Shea is going to visit.
        I think this represents the best opportunity for resolution
    of Utah wilderness issues. The approach of the Emory County
    group, working in the San Raphael Swell, seems to have the
    approval of just about everybody reasonable on every side of
    this issue. And if you could come with Pat Shea on Saturday, as
    I say, I will rearrange my schedule and be there. If you cannot
    make it on Saturday, let us see if we can find a time where we
    can jointly be there.
        I found, when the two of us show up together, things
    usually are a little better than if one or the other of us is
    standing there.
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, people are always surprised, are
    they not?
        Senator Bennett. Yes. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I can just respond to your
    invitation.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Secretary Babbitt. I cannot go on Saturday. And one reason
    is because I am going to be in Utah tomorrow.
        Senator Bennett. Oh, OK.
        Secretary Babbitt. But I would like very much to accept
    your invitation to go out perhaps sometime during April. I have
    accepted an invitation from Congressman Hansen to go in search
    of the Bonneville cutthroat.
        Senator Bennett. I see.
        Secretary Babbitt. And perhaps we could, back to back, on
    successive days.
        Senator Bennett. That is a fish, for those who do not know.
    [Laughter.]
        Secretary Babbitt. I have never seen the San Raphael Swell.
    And yes, I accept.
        Senator Bennett. All right, fine. We will find a date. And
    I appreciate your willingness to do that.

                                  virgin river

        The other issue I would like to raise with you is a year
    ago, roughly, Assistant Secretary Bob Armstrong issued a
    decision regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers designations in
    Arizona. And much to our surprise and chagrin, because we were
    neither consulted nor notified in advance, he saw fit to
    include the tributaries of the Virgin River as part of that
    recommendation.
        This threatens the delicate balance of the Virgin River
    habitat management plan that we have been working so hard with
    your Department to hammer out. And the members of the Utah
    delegation sent a letter to you on October 22, 1997. As of
    today, we have yet to receive a response.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will look into that. Because
    I readily acknowledge that we have made a lot of progress
    together, with the State and the local communities, on the
    Virgin River. What is emerging there, we have already actually
    accomplished some of it in terms of the Zion settlement, with a
    lot more to come. And if this is viewed as destabilizing all of
    that progress, I will look at it and get back to you.
        Senator Bennett. We would appreciate it. It is
    uncharacteristic, I must say, for the record, for us not to
    receive a proper response from your Department. I have not had
    exactly that experience with the Council on Environmental
    Quality. And we have had some rather heated exchanges in this
    room on that issue.
        But your Department, even when the response has not been
    what we have wanted, has always been responsive. And so I
    wanted to call to your attention the fact that this letter from
    last October has been there, and I would appreciate a response.
    And I appreciate the spirit of your comment here, and hope we
    can work this out.
        Thank you.
        Senator Bumpers, I now have to leave, and it is all yours.
        Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.

                      esa and money for private landowners

        Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the so-called Chaffee-
    Kempthorne-Baucus-Reid Endangered Species Act?
        Senator Bennett. Add Bennett to that list.
        Senator Bumpers. The bill would provide money for private
    landowners who are willing to take certain steps to protect
    various species. Are you familiar with that?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am.
        Senator Bumpers. Are you also familiar with the language in
    the budget resolution conference report which says that this
    program will cost $70 million a year over 5 years, so we are
    talking about $350 million?
        Secretary Babbitt. I am.
        Senator Bumpers. And I am sure you are also familiar with
    the proposal of the budget committee to pay for that by selling
    off BLM lands?
        Secretary Babbitt. Yes; I am.
        Senator Bumpers. Tell us, in 1 hour or less, how you feel
    about that. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Babbitt. I am strongly opposed. I do not believe
    that it is good policy to finance ongoing responsibilities of
    my Department by a sale of Federal assets.
        Now, in addition to that, I think the proposal, even were
    it to be conceptually acceptable, is totally unrealistic. And
    why is that? Because this idea that there are a lot of excess
    BLM lands out there that can be auctioned off is not a
    realistic view of the BLM land base. BLM, in its land use
    plans, identifies surplus lands. And there is in fact a list of
    them. And they are potentially available for consolidation or
    other purposes.
        What kind of lands are they? They are bits and pieces, here
    and there, from land conveyance policies of the past. They tend
    to be rangelands--a bunch of them on our family's ranch. And I
    will tell you how my family feels about that. They feel the way
    that most ranchers in Arizona do. And that is, they do not have
    the slightest interest in purchasing lands that they now get
    discount grazing deals on and pay no taxes on. Why in the world
    would they want to purchase them and start paying taxes on it?
        There is no market for the land that people usually think
    of as being surplus. The only way to dispose of them in most
    cases is through land consolidation, where you arrange mutually
    beneficial land exchanges. And in fact, there are ongoing
    programs to do that.
        Well, I guess you have by now divined where it is I stand
    on this issue.
        Senator Bumpers. Yes; well, we have an amendment pending
    right now on the budget resolution. Senator Reid and I have a
    minor disagreement. He has an amendment which says that the
    money for the bill, S. 1180, the so-called Endangered Species
    Act, the money would come from dedicated revenues.
        And I had understood you were looking for some source. I am
    not sure I am so hot on that. It just seems to me like a $1.7
    trillion budget, we ought to be able to find that money
    somewhere to pay for that.
        The other point I want to make for the record, and for any
    comment you might have, is I think James Watt, who wanted to
    selloff everything, from the Nation's Capitol down to the
    rangelands of the West, prepared some BLM lands for sale with
    the consent of the Congress. And it turned out it was a loser.
    It cost more to prepare the sale and advertise and so on than
    the land actually brought. I am not sure what the prices were,
    but they get less for the land than it cost to prepare for the
    sale.
        But as you say, most of these lands are under grazing
    permits--why would anybody buy land that they already have and
    are not paying taxes on and so on?
        One other point. This afternoon, the Energy Committee is
    holding a hearing on a very extensive bill by Senator Craig
    Thomas. And that bill changes rather dramatically a lot of
    national parks and the way they operate.

                               concessions reform

        Now, as you know, I have been discussing trying to reform
    the concession laws in the national parks for 16 years. And
    Senator Bennett, when he came to the Senate, became an ally of
    mine on that. And I remember one day in the Energy Committee,
    he lectured the Republicans, who were taking strong opposition
    to my position on it. And he said, you know, we are
    Republicans, we are supposed to believe in competition and the
    free enterprise system. What is this first right of refusal and
    all this stuff?
        And we passed the bill. After his lecture, we passed the
    bill out of the committee. And it passed the Senate 90 to 9,
    and promptly died in the House. That is as close as I have ever
    come to getting a major reform in the park concessions.
        But, in any event, there is also a provision in the bill--
    and we are going to have four or five hearings on it, because
    it is a very comprehensive bill--but there is a provision in
    the bill where increased revenues--you remember we raised park
    fees--and there is a provision in this that we take some of the
    increase of the park fees to put into some sort of a ranger
    training program.
        Now, I am not opposed to training park rangers. But it was
    the absolute understanding of the Members of Congress that
    those fees were being raised to do maintenance work in the
    parks--a lot of maintenance work that, you and I both know,
    probably runs into the billions, that needs to be done. And I
    am going to try to attend a part of that hearing this afternoon
    and take exception to that. Though I do want to compliment
    Senator Thomas for at least coming up with a parks concession
    proposal. And he and Senator Bennett and I are going to sit
    down very shortly and try to work something out.
        I would like to leave some legacy here, after 16 years of
    effort, of doing something on parks concessions. I do not know
    whether I will succeed or not.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I may, just a word on the
    concessions issue. I am in a very cautious mood about
    concessions reforms, because most of the proposals that are
    floated I think are, in many ways, worse than the present
    situation. In the meantime, the Park Service has made
    considerable progress in getting a return on concessions into
    the support of the park system. Basically, that began with
    Secretary Lujan, in the Yosemite concession.
        So I think we are skeptical, or at least in a kind of a
    Missouri frame of mind, about proposals.
        Senator Bumpers. Mr. Secretary, let me interrupt you at
    that point. I recognize that revenues have been going up for
    the Park Service. I think maybe $50 million last year. But a
    big portion of that was because of one contract that was let
    competitively. And that was Yosemite. Thirty-five percent of
    your revenues are coming from Yosemite.
        And my other point is we have narrowed this down to three
    propositions. No. 1, right of first refusal, or first right of
    refusal. That is an anachronism in this day and time. No. 2,
    possessory interest. These things are not well known to other
    Senators who do not deal with this issue, but possessory
    interest is crazy. And those are two of the things. And of
    course the exemption. And we are talking about exempting
    roughly all but maybe--I forget how many--but if you exempt
    everybody that has revenues of $1 million or less, you wipe out
    most everybody except some of the bigger parks. And we have
    agreed to do that. I mean we have already reached an agreement
    on that.
        But possessory interest first right of refusal, as far as I
    am concerned, those are anachronisms from the dark ages.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I agree with all of that. We
    can address those issues, to some degree, through
    administrative reform. There is no legal requirement for right
    of first refusal. We can do competitive bidding. Competitive
    bidding is chilled, if not frozen, by the concessionaire's
    possession of a large possessory interest. We are doing
    possessory interest buy-downs in our new concession contracts.
        Legislation would be helpful, but not the wrong
    legislation. Now, for example, the proposal that the hearings
    are being structured on privatizing the management of Park
    Service concessions.
        Senator Bumpers. Well, now, you and I are in agreement on
    that. And that is the sticking point between Senator Thomas and
    me. And I hope we can work something out.
        Secretary Babbitt. OK. Well, it would be unacceptable to
    the Park Service, and I think it is a bad idea.
        Senator Bumpers. Well, I have taken up too much time. I
    have a couple of other questions. I may submit a couple of
    questions in writing.
        Senator Cochran, if you are the last, you get to adjourn
    the hearing.
        Senator Cochran [presiding]. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your cooperation
    with our committee. I have enjoyed very much having the
    opportunity, as a member of this appropriations committee, to
    work on solving a lot of problems in our part of the country
    that come under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
    Interior. And as you know, we both serve on the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Commission, and we have worked to try to help make
    the national wildlife refuge system an important and an
    enlarged part of our conservation resource effort.

                               yazoo complex nwr

        We have one part of the refuge system in Mississippi that
    needs some attention right now because of a fire that occurred,
    and destroyed one of the multiuse buildings at the refuge
    headquarters. It is at the Yazoo complex, which is the largest
    national wildlife refuge in Mississippi, comprising over 70,000
    acres in five different units.
        I bring this up because this is an event that occurred just
    recently. And I am not sure, and the local managers are not
    sure, about access to funds that would permit them to rebuild
    that multiuse building a that refuge. I raise it in hopes that
    you will support providing funds in our appropriations bill to
    take care of that. It probably should have been put in the
    supplemental. But everybody says the supplemental is being used
    for all manner of things that are not emergencies. And so we
    decided to wait and submit that. We hope we can have the
    support of your office to get that appropriation approved.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to have a look
    at that. It seems to me that replacement falls in a high
    priority category, no matter how you stack it up. In any event,
    I will respond in writing to you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

               Fire Damage at the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge

        On March 6, 1998, a fire destroyed the multi-use shop
    building at Yazoo Refuge Complex in Mississippi. The refuge's
    mechanical and wood working shops, tools, and other equipment
    stored in the building need to be replaced. The estimated cost
    is $621,000.
        The fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
    Rescissions Act (Public Law 105-174), signed by President
    Clinton on May 1, 1998, provides the $621,000 for building and
    equipment replacement.

                             natchez trace parkway

        Senator Cochran. One other point I wanted to make this
    morning, and one of the reasons I came over, was to remind the
    committee and also the Department of the importance in our
    State of completing the Natchez Trace Parkway. I have been in
    Congress long enough to see a lot of new and ambitious
    undertakings by the Department of the Interior and the National
    Park Service to the detriment of some of the older and earlier
    authorized projects. The Natchez Trace Parkway was authorized
    for construction in 1937, the year I was born. And it is not
    yet complete.
        When it was authorized, the States of Mississippi, Alabama,
    and Tennessee all agreed that the States would acquire the
    right-of-way along the trail that was then the Natchez Trace
    Trail that traverses the area from Natchez, MS, to Nashville,
    TN. And in exchange for the States going to the expense of
    obtaining right-of-way and then deeding that to the Federal
    Government, the Federal Government and the National Park
    Service would construct a roadway along this historic trail.
        You know as well as anyone what an interesting historical
    area this is. Meriwether Lewis died on the parkway. As a matter
    of fact, I was talking with officials just recently about
    trying to have some kind of appropriate historical exhibit
    there at that place, and to try to work to do that. That part
    of the parkway is across the line, over into Tennessee.
        All of the parkway is completed now in Tennessee and in
    Alabama. Some of the most expensive appropriations were
    required in that area, because of the terrain and the bridges
    that had to be constructed. But it is also arguably some of the
    most scenic because of that terrain.
        But there is very little that needs to be done now. But we
    see such small, little increments of funds being made available
    that it just keeps remaining the same--the costs continue to be
    the same or even get higher, even though each year we add a
    little more to it. With those funds, we make a little more
    progress.
        But now it is getting to the point where we are running
    into situations where there are maintenance requirements that
    we have got to deal with. Here is one example:
        In the metropolitan Jackson, MS, area, the Natchez Trace
    Parkway crosses over U.S. Highway 51, just north of the city
    limits in Jackson. At that time, U.S. Highway 51 was the major
    transportation corridor, north-south corridor, between Jackson,
    MS, Memphis, TN, St. Louis, on to Chicago. That was the major
    midcontinent highway. Well, that has been replaced now with an
    Interstate System; I-55 traverses parallel to U.S. Highway 51.
        But the point of my story is U.S. Highway 51 has now become
    a four-lane and, in some places, a six-lane artery for
    vehicular traffic coming into the city of Jackson from the
    suburbs that have developed in the metropolitan area north of
    the city. The problem is the Natchez Trace Parkway bridge that
    crosses over old U.S. Highway 51 still accommodates that two
    lanes of U.S. 51. So you have got all these people riding along
    on U.S. 51, and all of a sudden from six lanes, it goes to four
    lanes, and then, you are in a two-lane situation.
        You can imagine the backup of traffic into the Jackson City
    limits area, south, and then into the residential and business
    areas that lie north of that area. It is a terrible bottleneck.
    It has gotten to be somewhat of an emergency, and we must get
    the attention of the National Park Service and put this as a
    priority again, It is a dangerous situation. It contributes to
    accidents and a lot of other problems.
        We do not want to shut down the parkway there. There is no
    way to really relocate it and avoid this area. The thing to do
    is build a new bridge and have it accommodate the four-or six-
    lane artery that passes underneath the bridge. But that is not
    even on the schedule. And there is no request from the
    administration or the Park Service for funds to deal with that.

                          federal highway system funds

        Now, we have the Federal highway system that has a category
    of funding that helps provide additional funds, separate and
    apart from the direct appropriations of the National Park
    Service, through the Interior subcommittees, that is available
    to us. I hope that the Department, and your office, will
    undertake to look at this situation. It is a special problem. I
    have talked with local government officials--the county and
    municipal officials in this area--and they are rather helpless
    to deal with it.
        So I hope that we can find some way to have the Federal
    officials cooperate with local and State highway and
    transportation officials to solve this problem. That is kind of
    beside the point on finishing the parkway. Here is a part that
    is already finished. It has been completed for a good while
    now; but, it is in need of some attention.
        When I look here in the bill and your statement, and hear
    about the Everglades project, which I am all for--that is a
    wonderful thing; and the California Bay environmental thing,
    which is important; and then recently we adopted here
    legislation to create this massive California desert area,
    under the jurisdiction of the Department, and funds have to go
    to that--some funds have to. All of these other things--the
    forest plan, which is important--you know, millions of dollars
    in the bill and in your statement about all these other things,
    and some of the older and earlier commitments of the Department
    of the Interior and the Federal Government are just sitting
    there without any funding and any support.
        There is no constituency anymore. See, I am the only one. I
    mean the Alabama Senators, you are not going to hear from them
    on this. The Tennessee Senators, or the Vice President, I do
    not think you are going to hear from them. But once upon a
    time, I can remember when we had a coalition of support for the
    Natchez Trace Parkway. Now we are down to just one State that
    has a need for funds, and we cannot seem to get much attention.
        We appreciate the attention we do get, though. I do not
    want to complain too loudly or we will not get anything.
    Everybody is looking around for offsets for this and that. So
    who cares about the Natchez Trace Parkway?
        Well, the people of Mississippi do, and those who come
    visit the State appreciate it. And it is a wonderful resource
    and an asset. But it is being given short shrift and the short
    end of the stick. I do not know what we do about it except talk
    about it and try to offer amendments and urge the committee to
    provide the funds to deal with the problems. That is what we
    are going to continue to do as long as we have a responsibility
    here to represent the interests of the State and the Nation in
    this committee.
        Could you give us some assurance that there will be an
    effort made to look into these things and try to help us
    complete the parkway and attend to these other problems that
    exist down there that need early attention?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I have two comments and a
    suggestion. First of all, any trail that includes the gravesite
    of Meriwether Lewis is obviously of great interest to me
    personally.
        No. 2, you are correct that the U.S. Highway 51 bridge is
    not on the priority list submitted by the National Park
    Service. And, you know, you can go back to these priority lists
    forever. We have a huge problem, and that is that most of the
    funding that we request is for maintenance and upkeep of roads
    which are literally falling apart.
        My suggestion is this: It seems to me that in the context
    of an ISTEA bill, with the amount of money that is in that
    bill, and that if you could possibly obtain the assistance of
    the majority leader, Mississippi might be heard. And I do not
    say that lightly. Because I cannot promise you that I can
    restructure the priorities. But the funding for this in the
    context of that bill ought to be, it seems to me, something
    that we could talk about.
        I would be happy to meet with you and your colleagues to an
    extent that we can pursue it.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Senator Domenici, you not only are recognized, but you are
    given the honor of chairing the committee.
        Senator Domenici [presiding]. I have the honor of managing
    the bill on the floor of the Senate. I do not have a lot of
    time, but I am glad that you are giving me this title.
        Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late. The budget
    resolution is on the floor, and that is my job. I found
    somebody to takeover it for me for awhile.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, let me say that, in your
    absence, this has been an extraordinary mellow, positive and
    mutually agreeable session.
        Senator Domenici. By that, are you leaving any inference or
    assumption that it might have been otherwise had I been here?
    [Laughter.]
        Secretary Babbitt. I am voicing my sentiment that may it
    continue.
        Senator Domenici. It will. It will. I have enough problems
    on the floor that I have not thought about giving you any
    problems today.

                              indian school repair

        The GAO report about Indian school repair concludes that
    $754 million are needed to clear up an entire backlog of BIA
    repair needs and bring these schools into code and
    instructional compliance. In a footnote to that figure in the
    GAO report, it is noted that eight schools on the construction
    priority list would cost $112 million to replace.
        I have also heard that if we replace the 50 percent of the
    BIA schools that are over 30 years old, the replacement costs
    would be about $1 billion--and I am not suggesting that--
    leaving about $200 million in repair costs for the other half
    of the schools. Since the GAO did this study, I am wondering if
    you might, for the record, give us your Department's best
    estimates about what it will cost to repair and get these BIA
    Indian schools up to the standard that I have just described.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I do not challenge those GAO
    estimates. The difficulty is this: We do have increases in the
    BIA budget, but obviously there are limits. I think, for new
    school construction, we have two schools.
        Senator Domenici. That is right.
        Secretary Babbitt. I think there is one in Arizona and one
    in South Dakota. And I think one of the New Mexico Pueblos
    would then be at the top of the list.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Secretary, I am aware that you
    put in some additional money. I am very pleased about that. I
    did write a letter to the OMB Director and to the President
    with reference to the Indian schools. I believe, shortly after
    that, I was told by the OMB people that $38 million, or some
    such number, was added to school construction. I am very
    pleased that that is the case.
        But, Mr. Secretary, when you say that there is just so much
    we can do, I want to just share a thought with you. Since you
    have been a very strong advocate for the Indian people, and you
    remind us of that and them of that, I just wonder why the U.S.
    Government can start a new public school program in an area
    that we have never been in before--or at least attempt to; I do
    not think it is going to happen--and find money to spend on
    schools that are not ours. Yet we sit here today with you
    acknowledging that the schools that we own, where there is
    nobody else to build them and nobody else to repair them, that
    there is sort of a lack of urgency, when we would only build
    two out of a waiting list of scores?
        Secretary Babbitt. Well, Senator, I think that is a
    productive line of inquiry. I at least have given some thought
    to the President's proposal for assisting school districts, in
    general, through adding the deductibility of municipal bond
    interest as a Federal contribution. Obviously that particular
    financing device does not work on reservations for these tribes
    that have no way of issuing bonds.
        Senator Domenici. They are our schools, the Federal
    Government's, so you cannot.

                              financing mechanism

        Secretary Babbitt. But we could still give the same subsidy
    if you could issue bonds.
        But what that means, it seems to me, is an inquiry as to
    whether or not we could not find some analogous financing
    mechanism that would automatically be available to tribes.
    Maybe we should discuss that with the Treasury Department,
    because we ought to be providing some analogous assistance at a
    bare minimum. I am not suggesting that any of these things will
    solve the problem entirely. But it seems to me we may be
    missing an opportunity there.
        Senator Domenici. Well, if you want to explore it with
    Treasury, and if I can be of any assistance, I will join you.
        Secretary Babbitt. OK.
        Senator Domenici. But my real point is--and, frankly, I
    will make this now and I will make it whenever I have a chance
    to speak on the floor in the next 24 hours, when I am going to
    be joining Senator Johnson in trying to get more money for this
    part of the budget--but I believe, Mr. Secretary, that it is
    incumbent upon those who represent the Indian people in the
    U.S. Government to state loud and clear that we ought to take
    care of our Government's responsibilities first, before we go
    out and start new programs. I am not asking for you to comment.
    You work for a President. He puts a budget together.
        If we do not build these schools, no one will. It is
    getting close, if it is not already, disgraceful as to the
    condition of the Indian schools in the United States. I will
    continue to do what I can. It is not inconceivable, looking at
    new money that has been put in the budget over the last 4 or 5
    years, that had we started a program for $150 million to $250
    million in new money a year for Indian schools, we could have
    afforded it. We would not have had to hurt very many programs
    of the Federal Government, and we would be living up to a
    responsibility.
        It is very hard to find that kind of money when it is not
    in the President's budget. I am just merely stating a fact.
        I have two other quick comments with reference to Indian
    schools--these are both parochial in a sense. I wonder if you
    might clarify the BIA's responsibility for tribally controlled
    community colleges in terms of repair, rehabilitation and
    replacement. While I say it is parochial, there are many of
    these--in fact, I think there might be 26. I would also like to
    know about the Government operated post-secondary schools--
    namely, Haskell and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
    Institute [SIPI]; you know about SIPI in Albuquerque--and on
    the latter two, your plans for the campuses. What is our
    responsibility in this area?

                          tribally controlled colleges

        Secretary Babbitt. Well, with respect to the tribally
    controlled colleges, they are tribal institutions. I believe
    that there is a formula that was kind of a consensus
    development among tribes, committees, and others about the
    appropriate level of congressional support. The fact is we have
    never even come close to that.
        So rather than focusing just on construction or
    maintenance, I think what we ought to do is drop back and ask:
    How would it be possible to meet the implicit commitments that
    were in that formula?

                              haskell versus sipi

        Now, with respect to Haskell and the one in Albuquerque,
    those have a very different history and are much more closely
    tied, in my judgment, to a Federal nexus. I do not know the
    details, but I would be happy to write you a letter about that.
        Senator Domenici. I think it would be interesting for you
    to note, as you do that, that there is a very big disparity in
    the per capita allocation to Haskell versus SIPI. I know of
    only one major difference, and it may be the total answer, but
    I doubt it. The difference is that Haskell has more boarding
    students than SIPI. SIPI has some; Haskell has many, and the
    allocation includes both, board and room.
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to look into it and
    respond.
        Senator Domenici. Would you.
        [The information follows:]

     Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
                                   Institute

        Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in New Mexico
    offer a variety of junior college level education programs to
    Indian and Alaska Native students to help prepare them for
    four-year colleges and universities or employment. Haskell and
    SIPI were established by the BIA prior to enactment of the
    Tribally Controlled Community College Act and have always been
    Federally operated schools.
        Funding levels for SIPI and Haskell are based on a formula
    that takes into consideration staff costs, facility costs, and
    the room and board costs of the campus-housed student
    population. Using this formula, Haskell receives a higher level
    of funding than SIPI, largely due to two differences between
    the schools. First, Haskell has significantly more dormitory
    students--eight hundred students as compared to four hundred at
    SIPI. Secondly, Haskell is authorized to offer several
    baccalaureate degree programs which require higher staff costs
    than associate programs. SIPI only offers community college and
    technical degree programs.
        Haskell and SIPI have been directed to evaluate and suggest
    improvements to the current funding methodology to ensure that
    equitable funding is provided. The schools plan to complete
    this process within the next year.

                                indian colleges

        Senator Domenici. Now, let me for purposes of making sure
    that we understand about our Indian colleges--not the ones you
    just referred to, but the tribal ones--state that Indian
    colleges now have an average operating cost budget of $2,900
    per student. The average American college has an annual $6,200
    per student operating cost.
        Now, I merely lay that before you because the issue is
    quickly coming: Can we maintain Indian colleges that are a
    credit to the U.S. Government and pay this small amount, or
    should we not be taking a position that here, too, these are
    our Indian people, Indian colleges, and either they have enough
    money to run or we are going to get less than an adequate
    college education?
        Might you just give us your thoughts about that.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, obviously, I think we share the
    judgment that we ought to be providing a higher level of
    support. The President's budget does have a $5.5 million
    increase for the 26 tribally controlled colleges. I am not
    suggesting that that amount is entirely adequate, but at least
    it is a step in the direction of acknowledging the problem and
    doing something about it.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I do not know that this is
    anything close to an appropriate offer that would be accepted
    by you. I stand ready, Mr. Secretary, to join you and the new
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in trying to get the
    attention of everyone, including the administration, about the
    possibility of establishing a 5- to 10-year plan that will
    bring the Indian colleges up to some standard that we can all
    be proud of in terms of funding, and thus expect good
    education.
        As part of that, to start an effort to acknowledge that
    nobody is going to repair the Indian schools if we do not, and
    that they are probably in a worse state of repair and of
    physical plant need than any college, any high schools and
    schools in the worst parts of America in terms of construction
    and maintenance. I stand ready to do that.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am ready and willing. I
    accept that offer. Because it seems to me that with the budget
    now in balance, with this Senate passing an ISTEA bill with an
    additional $30 billion of additional discretionary spending,
    that it ought to be possible to devote an additional amount to
    this issue. I am certainly willing to discuss that.
        Senator Domenici. I think, Mr. Secretary, what we have to
    do is we have to join together and set forth a plan--
    acknowledge the goal and set forth a plan, and say that we are
    not getting there with $20 million or $30 million added to a
    budget that is just totally out of line. We have to have $200
    million a year, trying to get $1 billion, to get something done
    in both these areas as soon as practicable. I am more than
    willing to join in that, and I would recruit some Senators to
    join us in a real effort.
        I have talked with our new Assistant Secretary in charge of
    Indian Affairs. You have got a good man there. He is going to
    do a wonderful job. He is very, very concerned about Indian
    education.
        I would tell you that in the Senate, with reference to this
    infrastructure bill, called ISTEA, we have done a very
    significant thing for the Indian people, in that infrastructure
    bill for highways and mass transit. We have dramatically
    increased the Indian roads funding, Mr. Secretary, to somewhere
    around $230 million a year. Just 6 or 7 years ago, it was about
    $20 million.
        And so we are beginning to build some roads where you and I
    both know you cannot have any growth and prosperity without
    roads in America today. This is going to be catchup. In 5
    years, we are going to have well over $1 billion spent. I am
    very praiseworthy of that, and hope, throughout the House and
    the ultimate signing of the bill, that we can keep that funding
    in there.
        You would acknowledge that this is another one of the
    deplorable situations of our Indian people on the reservations.
        Secretary Babbitt. I do acknowledge that. And I acknowledge
    your efforts in getting that kind of increase. It is very
    helpful.

                          mescalero elementary school

        Senator Domenici. Let me have one more question if you
    will. This is truly very parochial. The Mescalero Elementary
    School was built with BIA funds. It became a BIA-funded public
    school through the Tularosa Public School System, a K through
    six elementary school that was destroyed by arson in 1990. This
    is the K through six school that was destroyed. The Tularosa
    system collected the insurance, and the BIA helped with
    temporary facilities.
        Now, the Mescalero Apache Tribe is seeking funds for the
    construction of a new K through 12 school to serve the entire
    reservation. I understand that the BIA, again, is responsible
    for the school, and I am very interested in verifying its
    status as a BIA school, and the possibility of its becoming a
    priority for replacement with BIA new construction funding.
        Around here, it is interesting that we have a big battle
    going on in the appropriation bill about disaster relief. This
    is not a national disaster, but I assume a fire that destroys
    an Indian school is a disaster to the Indian children and to
    that particular tribe. Could you supply us for the record what
    status that school has now. It seems to be a little bit in
    limbo because of the facts I just gave you.
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to do so.
        [The information follows:]
                     The Mescalero Apache School Situation
        The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00) to the
    State of Mexico for a 25 year period. During this period, the local
    school district located, constructed, and operated a public K-6 grade
    elementary school on this reservation land. The annual lease
    subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. To
    provide a thorough review of the situation, a chronology of events
    follows:
      February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down.
      February 19, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
            90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of
            Education and requested portable classrooms from BIA and the
            State.
      May 20, 1990.--The Albuquerque Area Education Administration notified
            the Tribe that no funds were available from Office of Indian
            Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
      August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met with
            Tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
            determine whether the Tribal community center was suitable for
            conducting classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School
            District had used the community center during part of school
            year 1989-90. The building was found to be seriously deficient
            for use as a school. The Facilities Management and Construction
            Center (FMCC) looked at options to upgrade tribal buildings or
            acquire portable classrooms.
      August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passes Resolution No. 90-
            28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed
            to reach an agreement on location and operation of a public
            school. The school district proposed to build a new school
            located off tribal lands, which would have required student
            busing and included other public students. The Tribe asked BIA
            to assume operational responsibility for a proposed tribal
            school in 1990-91.
      August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
            erected by the Mescalero Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for
            review.
      August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between the
            Secretary of Interior, Manuel Lujan; Assistant Secretary for
            Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and President of Mescalero Apache
            Tribe, Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position was that BIA
            would not support taking over the education program from the
            Mescalero Tularosa School District until an agreement was
            reached to operate an accredited public school.
      August 22, 1990.--Letter to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
            from Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to renovate
            tribal building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
      August 24, 1990.--The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs sent a
            letter to the President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe
            specifying conditions for granting assistance to tribal school.
            The Tribe independently obtained facilities and hired teachers
            for the 1990-91 school year.
      October 9, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe submits interim application
            for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
      April 4, 1991.--A letter was sent from the Assistant Secretary for
            Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees
            bringing the committees up to date on school. At this time, no
            agreement existed between the Tribe and public school district
            and the Tribe had obtained and erected a building for 250
            students.
      April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves Mescalero School to become a BIA
            funded school, effective July 1, 1991. BIA requires that safety
            deficiencies be corrected at the school prior to occupation.
      November 25, 1991.--Mescalero Apache submitted an application to BIA
            for new school construction.
      January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education Facilities
            Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was published.
            Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
            however, because the school was not a Bureau owned or operated
            facility when it was destroyed by fire, the application did not
            receive a high ranking on the priority system. The application
            was evaluated along with 66 other requests. Only the top five
            schools were added to the 1992-93 priority list which resulted
            in 16 schools total.
        The Bureau is concerned about Mescalero and other schools where
    students are being educated in classrooms that do not meet code
    requirements or modern standards. In recognition of the Mescalero
    Tribal School's needs, the BIA's Education and Facilities programs
    provide funding for the annual operation of the school. However,
    because the replacement school priority list was frozen by Congress in
    fiscal year 1993, the BIA cannot provide replacement school funding at
    this time.
        The BIA anticipates completing the list of 16 prioritized schools
    in the year 2001 or 2002. The Facilities Management and Construction
    Center and Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing
    completion of the replacement school projects and looking at a new
    replacement school application process. Depending on appropriation
    levels, the Bureau anticipates being able to solicit replacement school
    applications when the new process is established in 1999. This will
    provide Mescalero with the opportunity to compete for a replacement
    school in a national prioritized ranking process.

                     southwest fisheries technology center

        Senator Domenici. The Southwest Fisheries Technology
    Center--I am jumping ahead, away from Indian issues to another
    issue in our State--since 1993, we have been supportive of this
    center. When it is completed, it will be the only facility in
    the Nation dedicated to breeding and stocking of native
    threatened and endangered fish. To date, we have appropriated
    $20 million to rehabilitate Dexter and to construct the Mora
    unit.
        In 1998, this subcommittee provided $2 million to complete
    phase 3 construction in Mora, and $500,000 in operational
    funding. At the Dexter unit, there remains a need for $3.3
    million to bring the facility completely online. This means
    $2.9 million to complete phase 3 construction, $200,000 for
    laboratory equipment, and $227,000 in additional operational
    funding to fully staff it.
        Would you give the subcommittee an update on the status of
    these units, and does the administration foresee completion of
    the rehabilitation of the Dexter unit this year?
        Secretary Babbitt. I would be happy to respond in writing.
        Senator Domenici. I thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                     Southwest Fisheries Technology Center

        The status of construction for the Mora and Dexter units of
    the Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is presented below.
        In fiscal year 1998, the $2,000,000 provided for the
    Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is being used to complete
    construction at the Mora unit. In addition, $500,000 in
    operating funds were provided for start-up operations at Mora.
    These operating funds have been annualized in Service's fiscal
    year 1999 budget request. The Mora management plan, however,
    assumes $650,000 in annual optimal operating expense to fully
    staff the facility in the future. However, this additional
    funding was not included in the President's Budget request for
    fiscal year 1999 and is not a priority for the Department.

                          SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--MORA UNIT, STATUS--APRIL 1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal                     Construction     Optimal
        Construction/operations        year    Appropriations     completed       funding            Remarks
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phase I and II, planning, site       1990     $1,000,000   Yes              ..........  $15,720 sequestered in
     work, well fields, and              1991      3,000,000                                 fiscal year 1991;
     building shells for fish            1992      5,000,000                                 $63,000 sequesterd in
     production and storage.                                                                 fiscal year 1992.
    Phase III, equipping buildings       1997      2,705,000   No               ..........  To be completed in the
     and related facilities.                                                                 fall of 1998.
    Phase III, hatchery and wet lab      1998      2,000,000   No               ..........  Construction to begin in
     building, equipment, and                                                                fiscal year 1999.
     paving.
    Operating funds to fully staff.      1998        500,000   ...............    $150,000  ........................
                                              ----------------                 ------------
          Total....................  ........     14,205,000   ...............     150,000  ........................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Funding for the third and final phase of the construction
    at the Dexter unit is not included in the fiscal year 1999
    President's Budget. Currently, the FWS estimates that
    $2,863,000 would complete rehabilitation of the facility, as
    well as $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment. However, the
    Department has placed a priority on using limited construction
    funding to reduce existing inventories of critical health and
    safety projects or for mission critical priorities. The FWS
    estimates that $227,000 in annual operating funds would fully
    staff the facility. However, this additional funding was not
    included in the President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
    and is not a priority for the Department.

                         SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--DEXTER UNIT, STATUS--APRIL 1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal                     Construction     Optimal
        Construction/operations        year    Appropriations     completed       funding            Remarks
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phase I, and part of phase II        1993     $1,428,000   Yes              ..........  $12,138 was sequestered
     hatchery building, and              1994  ..............                                in fiscal year 1993.
     administration/lab building.        1995      2,200,000   Yes
    Balance of phase II storage/         1997        961,000   No               ..........  Construction to begin
     maintenance building.                                                                   fall 1998.
    Phase III, outdoor fish          ........  ..............  No               $2,863,000  Phase III will complete
     raceways, earthen research                                                              construction.
     ponds, paving/landscaping at
     buildings.
    Specialized lab equipment......  ........  ..............  ...............     200,000  Equipment needed to
                                                                                             identify and maintain
                                                                                             biodiversity.
    Operating funds to fully staff.  ........  ..............  ...............     227,000  ........................
                                              ----------------                 ------------
          Total....................  ........      4,589,000   ...............   3,329,000  ........................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         vanishing treasures initiative

        Senator Domenici. There is an initiative with reference to
    some of our park-like treasures that is called vanishing
    treasures. Are you aware of that?
        Secretary Babbitt. I am.
        Senator Domenici. This is a very, very excellent approach,
    of trying to put some emphasis on some very serious diminishing
    assets. Last year, the administration proposed this new
    initiative, to assist 41 park units in the Nation. I assume you
    were supportive of that, if not the one who came up with the
    idea and proposed it. This was for the stabilization and
    maintenance of ruins and cultural resources within the park
    units.
        I worked with this committee to secure funding for this
    initiative, and Congress provided $1 million in 1998, to get
    the initiative started, and $2 million for historic structure
    stabilization. This year, I do not find the vanishing treasures
    initiative among the administration's funded priorities. Does
    the administration continue to fund the vanishing treasures
    initiative?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to respond in
    writing. I suspect that what may happen is that this particular
    program was merged into some other line item. But I do not know
    that for a fact. So let me look at it.
        Senator Domenici. It would sure be helpful if there is some
    money in the budget, because I am assuming we start with zero
    as we talk to this committee in its appropriations.
        Secretary Babbitt. I will have a look at it.
        [The information follows:]

                     Vanishing Treasures--Fiscal Year 1999

        The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the
    Vanishing Treasures Initiative of $3.5 million was reduced in
    the Appropriations Act to $1.0 million. The fiscal year 1999
    budget request continues funding at the $1.0 million level for
    Vanishing Treasures. Of the total, $453,000 has been included
    in the base operating budgets at eight parks and $547,000 will
    be used for project preservation, training, and project
    management. The NPS has not yet selected the specific projects
    to be accomplished with the available fiscal year 1999 funds,
    but the Service expects to fund about six of the 38 emergency
    projects identified for the Vanishing Treasures program with
    the available money.

        Senator Domenici. Of the 1998 funds, which I just described
    to you, I would like to know, if those 1998 funds, have been
    obligated in relationship to this initiative? And if so, how
    much and for which parks?
        Secretary Babbitt. Sure.
        [The information follows:]

                     Vanishing Treasures--Fiscal Year 1998

        The $1.0 million in funding provided for the Vanishing
    Treasures Initiative in fiscal year 1998 was spent as follows:
    $453,000 was transferred to base operating budgets of eight
    parks to hire eleven permanent individuals; $40,000 was devoted
    to training expenses; $497,000 was utilized to fund six of the
    44 projects which had been identified as the most acute needs;
    and $10,000 was used to provide project management, monitoring,
    and a peer review system to evaluate program efficiency and
    effectiveness. The following table itemizes the distribution of
    operations and project funding by park.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Operations        Project
                    Park unit                     funding         funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aztec Ruins National Monument...........         $84,000         $75,000
    Mesa Verde National Park................          67,000  ..............
    Salinas Pueblo Missions National
     Monument...............................          33,000          25,000
    Chiricahua National Monument............          34,000  ..............
    Navajo National Monument................          33,000  ..............
    Tonto National Monument.................          51,000         125,000
    Tumacacori National Monument............          91,000          22,000
    Flagstaff Areas (Wupatki, Walnut Canyon,
     Sunset Crater).........................          60,000         125,000
    Chaco Culture National Monument.........  ..............         125,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................         453,000         497,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                surplus blm land

        Senator Domenici. I missed the discussion of the issue of
    disposing of surplus property in the Department of the
    Interior's public domain real estate, the BLM. I gather you
    were opposed to tying this to the Endangered Species Act in the
    manner suggested, but are you opposed to starting a
    comprehensive national effort to go ahead and get the surplus
    property out of the Federal inventory, or at least find out
    what can be done about ridding ourselves of some of this?
        I note that while some of it may have little value, Mr.
    Secretary, there are a lot of acres that are currently
    denominated surplus. In fact, my recollection is that in the
    Southwest, it is more than 2 million acres--maybe 2\1/2\
    million or 3 million. In New Mexico, it is an astronomical
    number. It is about 900,000 acres that are surplus and so
    designated.
        If we leave the ESA out of this, can you discuss with me
    whether the administration would like to join in starting an
    effort with reference to this surplus land?
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I am skeptical. Let me explain
    where I begin, and then we could entertain some thoughts. Most
    of this land that has been identified in the Southwest by the
    BLM is rangeland. Most of it is in holdings inside existing
    ranch units. Now that means, as a practical matter, that these
    lands cannot be disposed of at auction. It is not going to
    happen. I am not going to go out to either Joe Skeen or Sam
    Donaldson, although I might like to do it on Sam Donaldson's
    spread out there--actually, I am starting to warm to this. I
    would like to go out to Donaldson's spread and say, There are
    some BLM leases or inholdings, and they are going to be put up
    to auction to the highest bidder. [Laughter.]
        You get my point.
        Now, the ranch owners themselves are not very keen about
    this. And the reason is that they are getting a good deal. That
    includes my relatives. When I say my family, I am no longer
    part of my family for these purposes. My relatives get a good
    deal. They have grazing fees, which we have talked about, and
    they pay no taxes.
        And I have got to tell you that among my rancher friends in
    Arizona, there is not much interest in going to the bank and
    borrowing a bunch of money to buy land from the BLM. Now, those
    are the problems.
        What we have tried to do, I think with great success in
    many States, is use these surplus lands to block up and
    consolidate land management units. This inholding problem works
    both ways. There are private lands inside of BLM, and BLM lands
    inside of private lands. And I believe that the primary
    emphasis and the best land management alternative is to work on
    blocking these things up to the mutual satisfaction of the
    ranchers and other landowners and the Federal agencies.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Secretary, I do not know that
    that was a fair question, because actually the administration
    does have a task force working on this.
        Secretary Babbitt. But the surplus land issue, we define
    somewhat differently. I mean there are all sorts of GSA lands
    and other lands.
        Senator Domenici. I am talking now about the fact that--and
    I do not know whether the ranchers are opposed to this at all--
    but there are some--not this Senator--who say, for every new
    acre of Federal land to be acquired for whatever purpose--
    parks, BLM and Interior--there ought to be land disposed of. I
    am not one of those.
        But we are always in the business of buying more Federal
    land or proposing that we buy it--sometimes very large tracts
    and sometimes in States that are already in excess of 60
    percent owned by the Federal Government. I have come to the
    conclusion that we ought to start a national program and put
    some money in it, so the excuse that is normally there, that we
    cannot get rid of surplus property because we need some money
    to do appraisals, we need some money to get a plan together
    that won't delay us. I have come to the conclusion that a fair
    middle ground with reference to the position on new properties
    is to get a program going that, once and for all, analyzes and
    begins a multiyear disposal program that is thought out, well
    thought out, and worked on, with a lot of input.
        I hope that we are proceeding on that basis. We are working
    to get a statute written, and I am sure it will, at some point,
    work its way up to your office. I would hope that you would
    give it your every consideration, in an effort to satisfy a
    number of constituents who do concern themselves about us
    having land we do not need.
        Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I will certainly look at it.
    You may count me from Missouri on this one. I am a skeptic,
    because I believe that these lands have already been
    identified. We do not need to reidentify them. And we have an
    effective, ongoing historic process for dealing with this,
    through exchanges and consolidations. And I believe it is an
    effective policy. I would be happy to look at a proposal, but I
    have heard these proposals before and I do not think they are
    in the public interest.
        Senator Domenici. Well, frankly, Mr. Secretary, I do not
    think anybody, to my knowledge--since I have been in the
    Senate--and I hate to mention how many decades that spans
    today, because it is more than this young groups of New
    Mexicans back here in their 4-H coats would even think because
    I look so young they could not believe that. [Laughter.]
        In any event, I do not think there has been a genuine
    proposal--and I just make this as a statement, not to argue
    with you or make this an unpleasant day; it has been a very
    nice day between you and me--but I do not believe there has
    been a comprehensive effort to see what can be done about it.
    The ongoing program that you speak of, of blocking out and the
    like, has not been very effective.
        Nonetheless, we will get legislation up to you in due
    course. It is a commitment I have made to the people of New
    Mexico, that I am going to make sure this is answered--and you
    may be right, that there is nothing to it and you are just
    going to keep the land.
        I hope the opposition is not from those who take the
    position that the Federal Government can do better with this
    land than anybody else. I did not say you were that person, but
    there are some. I hope it is not generally environmentalists,
    who just think this is something that will harm the public
    domain. If it is surplused property, it seems to me we ought to
    have a pretty broad consensus to try to do something with it.

                         additional committee questions

        Thank you very much. There will be some additional
    questions which will be submitted for your response in the
    record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                         Additional Committee Questions

                              maintenance backlogs

        This committee has placed great emphasis in recent years on
    addressing the multi-billion dollar maintenance backlogs that
    exist within the various agencies funded in the Interior bill.
    This has been difficult given funding constraints, but we have
    been able to make progress supporting maintenance accounts, and
    by initiating the fee demonstration program.
        The Committee's support for these efforts cannot, however,
    be sustained if there is a perception that the backlog
    estimates are being ``gamed,'' or if we make no progress in
    reducing those backlogs no matter how much is appropriated for
    that purpose.
        Question. What progress has the Department made in making
    maintenance backlog lists more consistent and reliable across
    the various bureaus?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 maintenance and construction
    project lists submitted to the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee in February 1998 are qualitatively a big step
    forward. Common criteria of critical health and safety and
    critical resource protection were used for the first time.
        Question. How long will it be before you will be able to
    provide accurate, reliable, backlog lists to the Committee?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget submission will provide
    a 5-year listing of the highest priority maintenance and
    construction projects for the bureaus using Department-wide
    common maintenance and construction terms. This list will be
    updated annually to reflect completed projects, prior unknown
    critical projects, and the normal re-prioritization that occurs
    when managing any large volume of work items. This annual up-
    dating will keep the lists accurate and reliable.
        Question. What have you learned as you have engaged in this
    process?
        Answer. Rather than obtaining major new insights, the
    knowledge concerning the individual bureau processes for
    maintenance, construction, and the information systems used has
    been deepened.
        Generally in the past, maintenance has been a field-
    oriented priority setting process largely dependent on the unit
    and maintenance manager's criteria of need.
        The construction priority setting processes have been
    reviewed by headquarters and as a result have applied more
    consistent criteria within a bureau.
        The information systems used by the bureaus vary widely.
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a complete inventory and
    maintenance management system for education and administrative
    facilities used for setting priorities. Other bureaus, like the
    National Park Service, maintain several non-integrated systems.

                      everglades/south florida restoration

        The Administration is requesting $81 million for land
    acquisition in the South Florida ecosystem, a $5 million
    increase over the amount provided in fiscal year 1998.
        Question. What is the obligation status of the land
    acquisition funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998, and for
    what specific purposes will these funds be expended? Does the
    Department expect that these funds to be obligated and/or
    expended by the end of fiscal year 1998?
        Answer. Of the $76 million appropriated to NPS in fiscal
    year 1998, a total of $46 million will be used to fund a grant
    to the South Florida Water Management District for the purchase
    of lands in Storm Water Treatment Area 1-East (STA 1-E); of
    that amount $19.0 million has been obligated to date, with the
    remaining amount to be obligated during fiscal year 1998.
    Acquisition of lands in STA 1-E will improve the quality of
    water entering Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Of the
    remaining $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998, $26
    million is committed for acquisitions in the East Everglades
    Addition to Everglades National Park and $4 million is
    committed for acquisitions in Big Cypress National Preserve. As
    of May 15, 1998, $4.0 million has been obligated for Everglades
    and $970 thousand has been obligated for Big Cypress. The
    Department is working consistently to conduct negotiations so
    that all NPS land acquisition funds could be obligated this
    fiscal year.
        Question. If South Florida is funded at the request level
    in fiscal year 1999, how much in additional acquisition funding
    does the Department estimate will be required to complete
    acquisitions in the East Everglades? How much has been
    appropriated for this purpose to date? By what date does the
    Department feel these acquisitions must be completed? On what
    schedule are these funds likely to be requested?
        Answer. If the land acquisition request for South Florida
    is funded at the $23 million level as requested in the fiscal
    year 1999 President's Budget, ($20 million for Everglades and
    $3 million for Big Cypress), the Department estimates that the
    National Park Service will require an additional $20 million in
    fiscal year 2000 to complete acquisitions in the East
    Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park. To date, the
    Congress has appropriated $64.2 million for acquisitions in the
    East Everglades, including $26 million that was allocated by
    the Department to the Park Service last year. Because
    completion of the East Everglades Addition is one of the
    Administration's highest priorities for land acquisition and
    assuming that funds are available and current acquisitions
    remain on schedule, it is likely that the remaining funds for
    the East Everglades Addition will be requested in fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. How much of the $200 million provided for South
    Florida in the 1996 Farm Bill has been spent thus far, and for
    what projects?
        Answer. To date, the Department has obligated $65 million
    in grants to the State of Florida. Two grants were awarded to
    the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and one
    grant was awarded to the Florida Department of Environmental
    Protection (DEP) to acquire a total of 28,197 acres of lands
    critical to the Everglades restoration effort. The Federal
    funds were leveraged by $137 million of State funds for a total
    land acquisition investment of $202 million. The overall
    Federal share of the acquisitions associated with these three
    grants is about 32 percent.
        Following is a summary of the three grants provided by the
    Department to the State:

                           SUMMARY OF THE THREE GRANTS PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE STATE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Grant title                   Date/recipient       Acres   Federal cost   State cost    Total cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    East coast buffer...................  Dec. 12, 1996 & June       6,714   $36,909,740   $40,000,000   $76,909,740
                                           27, 1997 \1\.
    Carrol property EAA.................  Feb. 28, 1997 & May 27,    1,233     3,090,260       ( \2\ )     3,090,260
                                           1997 \1\.
    Golden Gate Estates.................  Apr. 17, 1998 \3\......   20,250    25,000,000    97,000,000   122,000,000
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................  .......................   28,197    65,000,000   137,000,000   202,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ South Florida Water Management District.
    \2\ Included above.
    \3\ Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

        In addition to the funds provided to the State, the
    Department has expended $926 thousand on administrative
    expenses. These expenses include the preparation of a
    programmatic Environmental Assessment for land acquisition in
    the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), as well as staff
    expenses to administer and review the grants to ensure the
    consistency of the grant with Everglades restoration. The FWS
    and Solicitor's Office staff, in the form of one field
    biologist, one realty specialist, one economist, and two
    attorneys will ensure that the lands acquired with Farm Bill
    funds will assist in the restoration through the development
    and monitoring of the necessary agreements between the grant
    recipient and the Department.
        The budget request includes $14 million for continued work
    on modified water delivery projects. The Federal Government
    will be responsible for 75 percent of the operating costs of
    these systems.
        Question. Will any of these operating costs be the
    responsibility of the Department of the Interior? If so, when
    will these costs begin to be incurred?
        Answer. In 1989, the Congress enacted the Everglades
    National Park Protection and Expansion Act (Public Law 101-229)
    to authorize the construction, by the Army Corps of Engineers,
    of a modified water delivery project for Everglades National
    Park. The purpose of the project is to reverse the decline of
    the park's natural resources due to the effects of nearly 50
    years of alterations to the natural water system from the
    Central and South Florida Project, providing flood control,
    municipal, industrial and agricultural water use. Completion of
    the modified water delivery project is currently scheduled for
    fiscal year 2005 and should result in a more natural sheet-
    water flow to the park. The Federal Government's share of the
    operating costs will be 75 percent and the Department expects
    that the Army Corps of Engineers will incur the operating
    costs, with the remaining 25 percent the responsibility of the
    local project sponsor.

                    department of the interior--fixed costs

        The Subcommittee is concerned by what appears to be
    continuously increasing fixed costs among land management
    agencies which keeps funds from getting to the ground level. It
    seems there are services provided by the Department of the
    Interior which are duplicative of those provided by the Forest
    Service. In many ways the respective missions of the Bureau of
    Land Management and the Forest Service are identical. In
    several on-the-ground activities, the Department and the Forest
    Service have co-located offices, assumed each others land
    management responsibilities, and generally cooperated. However,
    these have been predominantly local efforts. The following
    questions pertain to what could be accomplished if major
    national programs could be consolidated.
        Question. Although fire operations between the Forest
    Service and the BLM are integrated in many ways, could one
    agency completely assume fire suppression responsibility for
    the other agency?
        Answer. The fire management programs of the five federal
    agencies, (BLM, BIA, FWS and NPS of the Interior, and the
    Forest Service of Agriculture) represent what may be the most
    integrated interagency operation in the federal government. It
    is crucial that federal agencies, states and local governments
    cooperate because wildland fires respect no boundaries and the
    fire suppression resources of any one agency may be
    insufficient to meet the workload.
        It should also be recognized that fire suppression is only
    one aspect of the total fire management program. Fire
    management is an integral part of each agency's land and
    resource management programs, and as such cannot be a separate
    stand alone support function similar to a ``fire department''.
    The same personnel and preparedness resources used in
    suppression and rehabilitation are also used in land use
    planning, aviation management, prescribed fire, prevention,
    weed control, general field operational support, and field
    communications.
        While there are some similarities among the federal
    agencies involved in fire suppression, there are also vast
    differences in the laws and regulations governing these
    agencies and different ownership patterns, dominant uses, and
    vegetation. The recent Federal Fire Management Policy and
    Program Review focused on the need to further integrate fire
    and resource management and to balance the continued need for
    suppression with fire use. It has been correctly stated that
    resource management includes fire management. Therefore, the
    suppression portion of fire management programs should not be
    separated from the rest of the land management activities. The
    three tiered interagency fire management coordination process
    (national, geographic and local) has improved the effectiveness
    and efficiency of emergency operations without jeopardizing
    this critical fire and resource management relationship. Shared
    fire caches, dispatch and logistic centers, training centers,
    national resources such as aircraft specialized crews, modules
    and support contracts along with common operational policies
    and processes facilitate joint field operations.
        Through years of experience, we have learned that it is
    critical to maintain close ties between the fire programs and
    their respective agencies, while at the same time integrating
    operations on an interagency basis. This approach promotes
    innovation and is key to ensuring the best financial, program,
    and administrative controls. This has allowed BLM and the other
    Interior agencies with wildland fire management programs to
    receive ``unqualified audit opinions'' for the last several
    years. While there are additional opportunities to improve
    interagency fire operations, and we are committed to
    aggressively pursue continuous improvement, we do not believe
    that one massive wildland fire department would be more
    effective or efficient or be in the best interest of the public
    for quality land management.
        Question. Could all mapping activities for the Department
    [Interior] and the Forest Service be completely assumed by the
    U.S. Geological Survey?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) believes that
    the current division of mapping responsibilities within and
    between Department bureaus and with the Forest Service is
    appropriate. Existing cooperative programs in both agencies
    achieve mission-specific goals, timely response to customer
    groups, and economy of effort. For example, an interagency
    agreement between DOI (USGS, BLM) and U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (Forest Service) guides the coordination of
    production and maintenance of a single-edition primary series
    map for quadrangles containing Forest Service areas of
    interest. The Forest Service and USGS have a long history of
    cooperation in the production of maps and associated digital
    data products. Previous agreements between the two bureaus have
    resulted in improved service to the public through significant
    reduction in duplication of effort and the sharing of maps and
    digital data products meeting common standards. At the same
    time, the division of specific responsibilities between the two
    agencies ensures that each has the ability to decide on program
    priorities to accomplish their missions.
        Question. Could major information systems for resource
    management and infrastructure be consolidated into one system?
        Answer. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the
    Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, a
    benefit/cost analysis should be funded and developed to answer
    this question. Consolidating all resource management
    requirements into one system is costly, time consuming, and may
    even require changes in legislation that may affect programs in
    the Minerals Management Service, the National Park Service, the
    Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    the U.S. Forest Service. Numerous General Accounting Office and
    General Service Administration studies caution against these
    ``grand design'' system efforts. However, it is important to
    note that the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
    Service are working together to improve efficiency by exploring
    the opportunity to consolidate BLM's Automated Land and Records
    System (ALMRS) with the Forest Service Automated Land Project
    (ALP).

                              everglades-research

        The justification (p. 37) notes that the Everglades science
    working group has been developing an overall science plan
    ``incorporating future funding requirements and schedule for
    completion * * *.''
        Question. Has this plan been completed? If so, what is the
    estimated run out for the Everglades science program?
        Answer. Science planning, coordination, and integration is
    and has been an integral component of the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) Program dating back to the early
    1990s. This science-related activity was conducted under the
    auspices of the SFER Working Group (WG) through the Science
    Sub-Group. A summary update of the Science Sub-Group's
    ``Science Plan'' (currently referred to as a Report entitled
    Science Planning and Implementation: 2000 & Beyond) has been
    included in previous publications of the SFER Program ``Cross-
    Cut Budget.''
        In 1996, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    expanded the SFER Program to include both federal and non-
    federal participation. In addition, the SFER WG realized a need
    to integrate managers and scientists through a formal mechanism
    in order to improve the communication of managers' information
    needs to scientists and science-results back to managers. To
    address this need, in the Fall of 1997, the SFER WG
    reformulated the coordinated science program under a new
    structural and functional sub-group renamed the Science
    Coordination Team. The team is comprised of both scientists and
    managers who work closely with the resources in South Florida.
        An updated, long-term report (``South Florida Ecosystems
    Restoration Science Planning and Implementation: 2000 & Beyond)
    is being developed by the Science Coordination Team. This
    report will more formally integrate all federal and non-federal
    science needs and science activities into one coordinated and
    integrated program. It will strengthen the communication
    between management-related science information needs and the
    science being conducted to address those needs. It will also
    codify procedures for conducting science reviews and workshops
    to continually address the question: ``Are we doing the right
    science?''
        A draft outline of the updated Report was presented to and
    approved by the SFER WG and Task Force in early spring 1998. A
    draft of the Report is scheduled for submittal to the WG in
    June 1998 with final draft for WG/TF consideration in September
    1998. It is important to note that science planning,
    coordination and integration is continuing (with WG oversight)
    at the same time the text for the report is being generated. In
    other words, the Science Coordination Team and WG are not
    `standing still' while the report is being formalized.
        Question. How does the ``Ecosystem Science Planning and
    Peer Review'' project, identified as a new start within the
    science program (p. 39), differ from the ongoing ``Ecosystem
    Restoration Planning'' project (p. 37)? ``Landscape Patterns,
    Processes, and Modeling'' (p. 39) and ``Ecological Modeling--
    Refinement and Applications'' (p. 37)?
        Answer. One of the initial products of the ``Ecosystem
    Restoration Planning'' project as identified above is the
    publication entitled ``An Integrated Plan for South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration and Sustainability: Success in the
    Making'' (April 1998). This publication and additional
    ``planning'' and outreach documents relate to the overall South
    Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program generated under
    ``Ecosystem Restoration Planning.'' Science (as in ``Science-
    Based Decision Making'' and science planning, coordination and
    integration) is but one of the many areas addressed in this
    ``integrated plan.''
        However, the ``Ecosystem Science Planning and Peer Review''
    project identified as a new start in fiscal year 1999 deals
    specifically with providing funding for implementing the
    science review/workshops process currently being implemented
    and expanded by the Science Coordination Team (as per the
    evolving Strategic Science Plan). Currently, there is an active
    process for science oversight and topical review for Florida
    Bay science. This ``oversight'' and ``topical'' review/workshop
    process is being expanded to include the ``whole'' Greater
    Everglades and Coastal Ecosystems, specific major regions of
    South Florida (such as central Everglades, Big Cypress, etc.)
    as well as specific major topical subjects (e.g., ecological
    modeling, hydrological modeling, landscape dynamics,
    contaminants, etc). The science reviews/workshops will be
    conducted through the Science Coordination Team under the
    auspices of the Working Group via funding, in part, from the
    ``Ecosystem Science Planing and Peer Review'' project.
        An increase of $249,000 is requested to support the Office
    of the Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Task Force.
        Question. Is the need for this increase related to the
    increases requested for other South Florida activities (such as
    land acquisition)?
        Answer. No, this increase is necessary to meet the new
    requirements for support to the task force and working group.
    The requirements of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    of 1996 expanded the membership and scope of duties of the task
    force to include State, Tribal, and local government entities
    and also directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure a high
    level of public participation and access to records. This
    modest budget increase will allow the task force and its
    working group to meet these requirements.
        Question. Is this increase needed even if funding for other
    South Florida activities is closer to the fiscal year 1997
    level rather than the fiscal year 1999 request?
        Answer. Yes, this funding increase is based on the new
    requirements contained in the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1996 and has no direct relationship to the funding
    requirements for specific restoration projects and initiatives.

               interior columbia basin ecosystem management plan

        This subcommittee has major reservations about the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Study. When this project was first
    undertaken by the BLM and FS, Congress was assured that
    planning over large areas such as the Columbia Basin would
    promptly result in making final land management decisions. It
    is very frustrating, that due to the process of consultation,
    the Columbia Basin study has become little more than a
    bureaucratic process that appears to be in addition to a
    cumbersome local planning process.
        Question. Do you foresee that the record of decision could
    prevent further species listing relative to actions on federal
    lands? What will it take in the record of decision to
    accomplish this goal?
        Answer. We hope to build into the Final EIS and Record of
    Decision the necessary analysis and direction to avoid the need
    to list additional species where all or a major portion of the
    species population resides on federal lands. Furthermore, it is
    our intention to provide the necessary direction to ensure that
    no listing of additional species occurs as a result of
    management actions on Forest Service or BLM lands. This intent
    is clearly written into the goals for the Project. However, it
    may be necessary to list species which occur on federal lands
    because of adverse actions occurring on other parts of the
    species range. By implementing the Final EIS and Record of
    Decision, we will have done our part to prevent further species
    listing.
        Question. Beyond the requirements for consultation, when
    and if a Record of Decision is issued for the Columbia Basin
    Study, how can we get the decision fully implemented without
    local unit planning efforts?
        Answer. The Record of Decision will amend Forest and
    Resource Management Plans across the project area. It is
    intended to provide broadscale direction on issues that cross
    administrative boundaries. It will also provide goals for
    management activities that are more consistent between
    administrative units.
        Local unit planning efforts will be necessary to fully
    implement management direction from this Project. We are not
    substituting broadscale direction for local land management
    plans. On-the-ground implementation decisions will continue to
    be made by local land managers using direction provided in the
    amended plans. Additional collaboration, public comment, and
    analysis may be required in some areas during the local
    planning process.
        Question. How much of the funds in the President's budget
    that are directed towards implementation of the plan will
    actually go to implementing local plans?
        Answer. All of the new funding proposed in the President's
    budget is directed towards implementation of the decisions of
    the Project. Some of the funding will be utilized for certain
    process requirements such as sub-basin review and ecosystem
    analysis at the watershed scale or tribal coordination and
    collaboration. All are essential steps in meeting the direction
    of the Project, and assuring that the actions taken by the land
    management agencies meet ecosystem restoration goals.
        Question. What is the impact of the plan on private
    property?
        Answer. Decisions made in the Final EIS and Record of
    Decision will not apply to private or other non-federal lands.
    Decisions made by the Project will only apply to the 72 million
    acres of Forest Service or BLM administered land within the
    project area. How those lands are managed could affect other
    lands; just as current management of federal lands affects
    other lands, and private management affects federally
    administered lands.
        The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal
    land managers consider the effect of their resource management
    activities on surrounding lands as well as federal lands.
    Chapter 4 of the DEIS outlines what the cumulative effects
    might be.
        Question. What would be your reaction to language in the
    Interior Appropriations bill which states that the plan shall
    in no way adversely impact private property owners?
        Answer. The 1996 Interior Appropriations Act included
    language that expressly prohibited the use of recommendations,
    regulations, or requirements included in the Final or Draft
    EISs or Records of Decision to regulate the use of, or actions
    occurring on, non-federal lands. The language further specified
    that the products of the Project shall not provide any legal
    basis for imposition of such recommendations, regulations, or
    requirements on non-federal lands by any court or regulatory
    agency, federal or state.
        The Department opposes the inclusion in appropriations
    bills of language extraneous to the appropriations process,
    such as that suggested in the question. Further, since the
    project does not apply to non-federal lands within the project
    area, such language would not clarify impacts to private
    property owners.
        Question. The Columbia Basin Study has been extremely
    expensive, with the BLM and Forest Service spending over $15
    million on the study alone and estimating up to approximately
    $150 million to operate under the plan. To what degree is
    success of the plan dependent on these agencies receiving the
    funding increases requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
        Answer. Funding for implementation of the Project would
    result from three approaches: (1) redirecting the capability of
    our existing field organization; (2) requesting new funding
    from Congress; and (3) developing partnerships. If full funding
    is not provided, the rate of implementation of the final
    alternative will be decreased appropriately and
    proportionately.

                             National Park Service

                            construction management

        Pursuant to language contained in the fiscal year 1998
    Conference report, the Park Service--with the help of an
    outside panel--has been engaged in a bit of ``soul searching''
    with regard to its construction program. This was prompted by
    the public outcry over the $300,000 outhouse at Delaware Water
    Gap NP, and some very expensive employee housing that was built
    at other park units.
        Question. What is the status of the outside panel's review
    of Park Service construction management? When will the panel's
    report be completed?
        Answer. The National Academy of Public Administration
    (NAPA) began their review of NPS construction management in
    January of this year. NAPA researchers have visited the Denver
    Service Center, selected parks, and regional offices. Their
    discussions at each office have focused on understanding how
    the NPS currently manages the construction program. They were
    provided information on funding cycles, flow of funding from
    Congress into construction projects, checks and balances within
    the system for accountability of fiscal expenditures, the
    selection of the professional office to perform the work, and
    detailed project management procedures. NAPA's final report of
    their findings is to be submitted in June, 1998.
        Question. Can you give us any hints as to what the panel
    may recommend, or what your own views are regarding management
    of the Park Service construction program?
        Answer. As of this date no official information is
    available to the NPS regarding NAPA's findings. The Service is
    aware of the program's shortcomings. In support of the
    Administration's initiative to improve government operations,
    the Denver Service Center implemented some changes in the
    beginning of fiscal year 1996. These changes created a totally
    reorganized office, revamped office practices, and reduced the
    work force by nearly one third. Implementation of all these
    changes continues and the Department and the NPS welcome the
    insight of the NAPA findings to aid in further improvements to
    the construction program.
        The fiscal year 1999 line item construction list for the
    Park Service was delivered to the Committee only recently, as
    the Park Service was engaged in a careful scrub of the
    individual projects.
        Question. Are you confident that the projects on the fiscal
    year 1999 construction list represent only the most critical
    health and safety and resource protection needs?
        Answer. Yes. In February of 1998, NPS and Departmental
    representatives met to thoroughly review the fiscal year 1999
    NPS construction program request. All potential projects from
    fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001 were screened and assessed.
    Only those projects that possessed the strongest health and
    safety, resource protection requirements, or continuing
    projects were recommended for inclusion in the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget request.

                               millennium program

        The Administration is requesting $50 million within the
    Park Service budget for a new program to help public and
    private entities preserve historic sites and cultural artifacts
    important to America's heritage. Half of this funding would be
    used for grants to States and tribes, half would be used for
    projects of ``national scope'' to be selected by the White
    House.
        Question. If the grants to states are to be made according
    to existing allocation formulas, and the national funds are to
    be allocated under existing grant programs, why has the
    Administration chosen to establish an entirely new program and
    screening process?
        Answer. In point of fact, the Administration is not
    proposing establishing an entirely new program. The Historic
    Preservation Fund is a 30-year old Federal grant program with
    well-established administrative processes and professional
    performance standards. The Millennium program to Save America's
    Treasures would increase the fund for two years to make a
    special effort to preserve our history and culture as we enter
    a new Millennium, but in a manner that is already familiar to
    the existing partners, and does not add administrative expense.
        Question. Why shouldn't individual projects of national
    worth simply be identified and funded through existing programs
    or line-item appropriations for the relevant agencies?
        Answer. The goal of the Millennium program is to raise
    national awareness of the importance of preserving our key
    national treasures for future generations. Quoting First Lady
    Hillary Rodham Clinton, ``It is the turn of the century. It is
    the turn of the millennium. But more than that, it is an
    opportunity for us to take stock of who we are as Americans,
    what we believe in and what we want to carry into the next
    century.'' Pre-targeting specific projects would diminish the
    potential national awareness and desired grassroots
    involvement. The magnitude of our nation's most urgent
    preservation needs is not fully known. Predetermining projects
    may miss key national treasures sorely in need of assistance.
    The Administration's proposal provides for more open
    competition and public access on behalf of the full breadth of
    our Nation's historic and cultural treasures.
        Question. Why should the grants to States and tribes be
    separate from the regular Grants-in-Aid to State programs?
        Answer. As noted above, the proposal is not separate from
    the existing program per se, but rather effectively uses an
    already existing program while augmenting it to celebrate the
    millennium and to highlight this important need. The proposal
    neither undermines nor diminishes the existing programs to
    States and tribes; it is simply a program of limited duration
    with specifically targeted goals but within an already existing
    program. Too, the Millennium Grants have a slightly broader
    focus that the routine Historic Preservation Fund program with
    the additional and allowable--emphasis on collections and
    archives. The program should be held separate with specific
    regard to tribes; targeting tribal grant funds through states
    would violate the nation's government-to-government
    responsibilities to Indian Tribes.
        Question. Why should Indian Tribes be given a blanket
    exemption from cost share requirements for the purposes of this
    program? Shouldn't exemption from cost share requirements at
    least be contingent upon a judgment that the tribe in question
    does not have the resources available for matching funds?
        Answer. The National Park Service's 10-year experience with
    the Historic Preservation Fund of providing assistance to
    tribes has shown that, with few exceptions, tribes simply
    cannot provide match. Were this made a requirement, few could
    participate in the national program and we would all be
    diminished for it. In addition, there is precedent. Most
    Federal grant making typically exempts tribes from matching
    requirements or, conversely, authorizes tribes to use other
    Federal funds as matching share. Given the short and targeted
    duration of the Save America's Treasures Grants, the former
    approach was deemed the best administrative approach.

                               yosemite recovery

        Last year Congress approved close to $200 million in
    emergency funding for restoration and rehabilitation of
    Yosemite National Park.
        Question. Can you update us as to the status of the
    recovery?
        Answer. The recovery effort is fully engaged. Most projects
    are on schedule with the Yosemite Flood Recovery Action Plan
    submitted to Congress in November, 1997. That plan outlines a
    4-year timetable for substantial completion of flood related
    repairs. Throughout the past year, most NEPA compliance,
    emergency repairs, and preliminary planning for permanent
    repairs have been completed. A flood recovery management team
    is established in the park and reports to the Superintendent. A
    support and oversight process is established at the Regional
    Office and Washington levels, with quarterly review by the
    Office of the Secretary of the Interior and House and Senate
    appropriations Committees through the Flood Recovery Quarterly
    Reports.
        One major project, the permanent rebuilding of the El
    Portal Road (7.5 miles of Highway 140 within the park), was
    delayed from January until September, 1998. The delay was due
    to project bidding that reflected contractor anxiety about
    beginning a major earth-moving project in the middle of an El
    Nino winter. A rebidding process is now concluded, with
    expected award on June 1, 1998.
        Day use visitors will experience only minor disruptions
    from recovery work this summer. Overnight accommodations remain
    essentially at 1997 levels. The 250 lodge units and 350
    campsites destroyed by flooding are not yet replaced. Lodge
    construction is scheduled to start in June of 1998. Campground
    reconstruction is pending a Record of Decision on the Valley
    Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    expected by December 1998.
        Concessioner service levels continue to be impacted by the
    loss of 439 bed spaces in Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Concession
    Services, the park's main lodging provider, has chosen to use
    150 overnight visitor rental units to house employees and has
    also installed 84 temporary dormitory beds. This results in
    another 150 units being unavailable for overnight visitors, but
    continues the strategy established in the summer of 1997.
        As of March 31, 1998, $44.4 million has been obligated on
    the recovery effort. Current projections call for obligations
    of an additional $50 million this calendar year. Current
    estimates are generally running within 10 percent of original
    estimates. One project, the rebuilding of El Portal Road
    (Highway 140 within the park), has exceeded the original cost
    estimate by approximately 30 percent or $8 million. Natural and
    cultural preservation concerns, coupled with the precipitous
    nature of this Merced River canyon construction, have escalated
    project costs beyond the original estimate. At this time, we
    expect to manage the shortfall within the context of the entire
    $186 million recovery authorization, applying savings from
    other projects wherever possible. This is a design/build
    project and has been through a negotiated bidding process with
    three of the country's largest road building firms. The Federal
    Highway Administration is in the process of certifying the
    ``Best and Final Offers'' and expects to award the contract on
    June 1, 1998.

                               headwaters protest

        Media reports recently described ongoing protests against
    the proposed deal to preserve the Headwaters Forest and other
    redwood groves in California. One of those reports described a
    sit-in taking place on a tree that was on land owned by Pacific
    Lumber Company. The story went on to acknowledge that the sit-
    in was a case of criminal trespass, and that one of the
    participants was a Park Service employee.
        Question. While we can all appreciate the rights of your
    employees to exercise their first amendment rights, does the
    Department have any recourse when employees are engaged in a
    criminal activity--presumably off hours--that directly
    contradicts a departmental initiative?
        Answer. Redwood National Park and State Park law
    enforcement have a cooperative relationship with the Del Norte
    County Sheriff and the Chief of Police for Eureka, California.
    The Sheriff and the Chief have jurisdiction for such an
    incident described. No National Park Service employee was
    arrested on charges of criminal trespass, therefore, we dispute
    the media report. Regardless, we would be guided by the Federal
    Government Code of Ethics and Conduct in reviewing any incident
    which calls into question an employee's rights and which might
    jeopardize the government's business.

                                      gpra

        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals
    linked to the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program
    activities in its budget request?
        Answer. Because of the way the NPS developed its goals,
    there is a direct relationship between the agency's mission,
    its strategic goals, and annual goals. NPS is also examining
    the relationship of goals and program activities in the budget
    request. The National Park Service developed a ``stack'' of
    five annual goals in order to successfully reach each five year
    strategic goal. The five year goals come directly from the NPS
    mission goals in its Strategic Plan.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. The performance measures were developed as part of
    the process of developing the goals themselves. The National
    Park Service found that incorporating the performance measures
    into its goals, and stating goals as the desired condition
    (such as 50 percent historic structures are in good condition)
    forced clarification of the goal itself. The performance
    measures were chosen for relevance to the goal itself--they
    measured success in meeting that goal; availability--where
    possible, existing data was used; and accessibility--data could
    be collected without incurring major new costs. The NPS sought
    to find the most economical and least burdensome way possible
    to measure its goals. At the same time, because the NPS sees
    GPRA as a management system, and not simply a reporting
    requirement, performance measures were chosen to be as
    meaningful as possible--measuring condition of resources or
    visitors wherever possible.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data
    collection and verification with the need for reliable and
    valid performance data?
        Answer. In its process of developing the goals which
    incorporate the performance measures into them, the NPS
    discarded numerous goals/measures because they were too
    subjective, too expensive to collect, or too subject to
    manipulation. The NPS sought to find the most economical and
    least burdensome way possible to measure its goals in a way
    that was also reliable and verifiable. For example, the visitor
    survey cards which measure visitor satisfaction will be
    returned to a central, non-park location for electronic
    processing before being returned to parks to analyze specific
    comments. Parks need to have the written, qualitative comments
    in order to manage better; the NPS needs the Servicewide
    quantitative data in order to be able to report Servicewide
    performance externally.

                           park operations initiative

        In addition to a number of increases requested for system-
    wide initiatives, the Park Service is requesting a $6.79
    million increase for the ``Park Operations Initiative.'' The
    funds would be used to provide increases for 45 park units and
    one heritage area to meet high-priority operating needs.
        Question. Would you supply for the record a list of
    projects that would be completed if the increase for the Park
    Operations initiative were $15 million? $10 million? Only $3
    million?
        Answer. The following table entitled ``Park Specific
    Increase Proposals, fiscal year 1999, Various Funding Levels''
    provides a list of project proposals by park under the
    suggested funding scenarios including the President's fiscal
    year 1999 budget request of $6.79 million for 46 areas. It
    lists the proposals alphabetically by park, the dollar amounts
    proposed under different funding levels, the reason for the
    increase and the increase objective. At a funding level of $15
    million 83 parks would receive funds to meet high-priority
    operating needs. A funding level of $10 million would reach 60
    parks. Funding at $3 million would aid 16 parks.

                                           PARK SPECIFIC INCREASE PROPOSALS, FISCAL YEAR 1999, VARIOUS FUNDING LEVELS
                                                             [Proposal amounts in thousand dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  President's     Other funding scenarios--total in millions
                                                  fiscal year  ------------------------------------------------
                     Park unit                   1999  request                                                        Reason for increase and objective
                                                $6.79  million        $15             $10             $3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adams National Historic Site, MA..........  ..............             250  ..............  ..............  Increased workload: Maintain museum
                                                                                                                 collections.
    Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, TN.              75              75              75  ..............  New facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
                                                                                                                 to Enhance Visitor Experience.
    Antietam National Battlefield, MD.........  ..............             193  ..............  ..............  Restore programs: Enhanced seasonal
                                                                                                                 maintenance and interpretive programs.
    Appomattox Court House National Historical  ..............             335             150  ..............  Threats to resources: Develop Resource
     Park, VA.                                                                                                   Management and Preservation Capabilities.
    Arkansas Post National Memorial, AR.......              55              55              55  ..............  Threats to resources: Provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Assateague Island National Seashore, MD...  ..............             150             150  ..............  Threats to resources: Improve Safety and
                                                                                                                 Resource Management.
    Cache La Poudre Heritage Area, CO.........             150             150             150             125  New Area: Provide Technical Assistance for
                                                                                                                 New Heritage Area.
    Cane River Creole National Historical                  100             100             100  ..............  New Area: Upgrade Maintenance Program to
     Park, LA.                                                                                                   Provide Resource Preservation.
    Canyonlands National Park, UT.............  ..............             203  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Improve visitor and
                                                                                                                 resource protection.
    Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site,  ..............             125  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Preventive
     NC.                                                                                                         preservation maintenance.
    Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, AZ...              72              72              72  ..............  Threats to resources: Upgrade maintenance
                                                                                                                 program to provide resource preservation.
    Catoctin Mountain Park, MD................  ..............             157  ..............  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Maintain
                                                                                                                 historic/public use buildings.
    Chattahoochee River National Recreation     ..............              60              60  ..............  Increased workload: Provide technical
     Area, GA.                                                                                                   assistance.
    Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National                     140             140             140  ..............  Health and safety: Provide visitor and
     Historical Park, DC-MD-WV.                                                                                  resource protection.
    Chickamauga and Chattanooga National        ..............             200             200  ..............  Resource preservation: Address maintenance
     Military Park, GA.                                                                                          needs and resource threats.
    Chiricahua National Monument, AZ..........             110             110             110  ..............  Threats to resources: Provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area,   ..............             600  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Maintain and provide
     OH.                                                                                                         interpretation of the Cuyahoga Valley
                                                                                                                 Railroad.
    Denali National Park and Preserve, AK.....  ..............             160  ..............  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Implement road
                                                                                                                 dust palliative program.
    De Soto National Memorial, FL.............              50              50              50  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Upgrade
                                                                                                                 maintenance program to enhance visitor
                                                                                                                 experience.
    Effigy Mounds National Monument, IA.......             107             107             107  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Upgrade
                                                                                                                 maintenance program to enhance visitor
                                                                                                                 experience.
    El Morro National Monument, NM............              52              52              52  ..............  Threats to resources: Provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Fire Island National Seashore, NY.........             250             250             250             200  Deteriorated Infrastructure: Provide visitor
                                                                                                                 and resource protection.
    Fort Davis National Historic Site, TX.....  ..............             105  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Initiate cultural
                                                                                                                 resource management program.
    Fort Donelson National Battlefield, TN....  ..............              57              57  ..............  Threats to resources: Maintain cultural
                                                                                                                 resources.
    Fort Frederica National Monument, GA......              60              60              60  ..............  Threats to resources: Enhance maintenance
                                                                                                                 program to provide resource preservation.
    Fort Larned National Historic Site, KS....              70              70              70  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Enhance
                                                                                                                 maintenance program to provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Fort Pulaski National Monument, GA........  ..............             100  ..............  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Maintain
                                                                                                                 historic structures.
    Fort Stanwix National Monument, NY........              50              50              50  ..............  Deteriorated infrastructure: Enhance
                                                                                                                 maintenance program to provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County      ..............             298  ..............  ..............  New lands: Manage new lands acquired since
     Battlefields Memorial National Military                                                                     1989.
     Park, VA.
    George Washington Memorial Parkway, MD-VA.             143             143             143  ..............  New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
                                                                                                                 for a newly-acquired responsibility.
    Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, AK  ..............             387             347  ..............  Health and Safety: Maintain park facilities
                                                                                                                 and utility systems.
    Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, UT..  ..............              50  ..............  ..............  Health and safety: Protect human health and
                                                                                                                 improve water quality.
    Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA..             500             500             500             450  New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
                                                                                                                 for a newly-acquired responsibility.
    Grand Portage National Monument, MN.......  ..............              56  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Protect and define
                                                                                                                 cultural resources.
    Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site,              107             107             107  ..............  Threats to resources: Enhance maintenance
     MT.                                                                                                         program to provide resource preservation.
    Guilford Courthouse National Military                  100             100             100             100  Increased visitation: Enhance education
     Park, NC.                                                                                                   programs and provide resource preservation.
    Hampton National Historic Site, MD........  ..............              78  ..............  ..............  Restore programs: Enhance visitor services
                                                                                                                 and upgrade curatorial program.
    Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI........             275             275             275             205  Threats to resources: Provide resource
                                                                                                                 preservation.
    Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National                  80              80              80              80  New facilities: Enhance maintenance program
     Historic Site, NY.                                                                                          for a newly-acquired responsibility.
    Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and   ..............              60              60  ..............  Threats to resources: Provide increased
     Preserve, LA.                                                                                               resource management and maintain visitor
                                                                                                                 center/headquarters building.
    John Muir National Historic Site, CA......             168             168             168             168  Threats to resources: Upgrade maintenance
                                                                                                                 program to enhance visitor experience.
    Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park,  ..............             250             250  ..............  Threats to resources: Improve park
     HI.                                                                                                         operations and protect resources.
    Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield                  80              80              80  ..............  New facilities: Enhance education programs
     Park, GA.                                                                                                   and provide resource preservation.
    Keweenaw National Historical Park, MI.....  ..............             200  ..............  ..............  New area: Provide Critical Resource
                                                                                                                 Management Capability.
    Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, IN.....              50              50              50  ..............  New Program: Enhance Education Programs.
    Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site,    ..............             293             225  ..............  New facilities: Maintain Rehabilitated
     VA.                                                                                                         Buildings and Operate Site.
    Manassas National Battlefield Park, VA....             250             250             250             200  New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
                                                                                                                 and Provide Resource Preservation.
    Manzanar National Historic Site, CA.......             137             273             273  ..............  New Area: Enhance Maintenance Program for a
                                                                                                                 Newly-Acquired Area.
    Marsh-Billings National Historical Park,               244             244             244             244  New area: Operate New Unit.
     VT.
    Mesa Verde National Park, CO..............             204             304             204  ..............  Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
                                                                                                                 Preservation.
    Minute Man National Historical Park, MA...             250             250             250             200  Health and Safety: Provide Visitor and
                                                                                                                 Resource Protection.
    Mississippi National River and Recreation   ..............             300             300  ..............  New area: Develop Partnership Programs.
     Area, MN.
    Natchez National Historical Park, MS......             300             300             300             300  New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
                                                                                                                 and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
    National Capital Parks-Central, District               250             250             250             200  New Area: Upgrade Maintenance Program to
     of Columbia.                                                                                                Enhance Visitor Experience.
    National Capital Parks-East, District of                87              87              87  ..............  Health & Safety: Upgrade Safety Program.
     Columbia.
    New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park,             100             100             100  ..............  New Facilities: Enhance Education Programs
     LA.                                                                                                         and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
    Niobrara/Missouri National River, NE......             100             100             100  ..............  New Area: Commission Support for New Unit.
    Northwest Alaska Areas, AK................  ..............             183  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Develop Professional
                                                                                                                 Archaeological Program.
    Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN............  ..............              50  ..............  ..............  New facilities: Provide Visitor Services.
    Oklahoma City National Memorial, OK.......             200             200             200             175  New Area: Technical Assistance for New Unit.
    Olympic National Park, WA.................              88              88              88  ..............  Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
                                                                                                                 Protection.
    Pea Ridge National Military Park, AR......              62              62              62  ..............  Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
                                                                                                                 Preservation and Enhance Education
                                                                                                                 Programs.
    Point Reyes National Seashore, CA.........  ..............             314             150  ..............  Threats to resources: Protect Critical
                                                                                                                 Natural Resources.
    Puuhonua o Honaunau National Historical                240             240             240  ..............  Threats to Resources: Provide Resource
     Park, HI.                                                                                                   Preservation.
    Rock Creek Park, District of Columbia.....             126             126             126             126  New Facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
                                                                                                                 to Enhance Visitor Experience.
    Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, NH..  ..............             167  ..............  ..............  New facilities: Protect, preserve and
                                                                                                                 interpret park resources.
    Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument,  ..............             105  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Enhance ruins
     NM.                                                                                                         preservation.
    Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks,    ..............             458  ..............  ..............  Threats to resources: Mitigate natural
     CA.                                                                                                         resources threats.
    Sitka National Historical Park, AK........             255             255             255  ..............  Increased Visitation:Enhance Education
                                                                                                                 Programs and Provide Resource Protection.
    Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, KS...  ..............             200  ..............  ..............  New area: Provide Operational Funding for a
                                                                                                                 New Park.
    Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National                   50              50              50  ..............  Deteriorated Infrastructure: Enhance
     Historic Site, NY.                                                                                          Maintenance Program to Provide Resource
                                                                                                                 Preservation.
    Thomas Stone National Historic Site, MD...  ..............             300             300  ..............  New area: Maintain and operate restored
                                                                                                                 historic structures.
    Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site,             133             133             133  ..............  Increased Visitation: Enhance Education
     AL.                                                                                                         Programs and Upgrade Maintenance Program.
    U.S. Park Police, VA......................  ..............             650             650  ..............  Health and Safety: Increase Law Enforcement
                                                                                                                 Presence on GWMP.
    Valley Forge National Historical Park, PA.             356             356             356  ..............  Threats to Resources: Upgrade Maintenance
                                                                                                                 Program to Enhance Visitor Experience and
                                                                                                                 Provide Visitor Protection.
    Washita Battlefield National Historic                  110             110             110             110  New Area: Operate New Unit.
     Site, OK.
    Weir Farm National Historic Site, CO......              87              87              87  ..............  New Area: Enhance Education Programs.
    White House, District of Columbia.........  ..............              70  ..............  ..............  New facilities: Provide Controlled Climate
                                                                                                                 for Museum Collection.
    William Howard Taft National Historic                  189             189             189             189  New Program: Enhance Education Programs and
     Site, OH.                                                                                                   Upgrade Maintenance Program.
    Women's Rights National Historical Park,    ..............              55  ..............  ..............  New facilities: Operate and Maintain
     NY.                                                                                                         Restored M'Clintock House.
    Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and                   128             128             128             128  New Facilities: Upgrade Maintenance Program
     Preserve, AK.                                                                                               to Enhance Visitor Experience.
    Yellowstone National Park, WY.............  ..............             755             175  ..............  Threats to resources: Ensure Resource
                                                                                                                 Preservation.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          cultural resource management
        Page 47 of the justification indicates that 2,000 structures will
    be added to the List of Classified Structures in fiscal year 1998 and
    1999. That page also indicates that approximately 20,000 of the
    estimated 22,000-25,000 structures in parks have been inventoried.
        Question. Does this indicate that the inventory of historic
    structures in the park system is close to completion? If so, do you
    anticipate a reduction or reallocation of resources required for this
    purpose in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Yes, the classified structures inventory should be
    substantially complete by the end of fiscal year 2000. However, after
    that date, work will be needed, and continued, to keep current the
    basic management information concerning significance, threats, impacts,
    condition, use, and approved treatment of these resources. Funding, if
    any, which is not needed for the classified structures inventory might
    be reallocated and used to inventory cultural landscapes within the
    NPS.
                            inventory and monitoring
        The request includes a more than 30 percent increase ($2 million)
    for the Inventory and Monitoring program, which would enable applicable
    parks to acquire twelve basic data sets in 12 years as opposed to 17
    years.
        Question. Is it anticipated that the data acquired with this
    increase will have a significant beneficial impact on park management
    during the 5-year period by which data collection will be advanced?
        Answer. Yes. These are data that are often needed now if impacts to
    resources are to be avoided, so advancing to any degree is helpful. The
    inventory program is moving into the collection of data on endangered
    species and other species of special concern. To meet Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) baselines and goals, protect species
    from further losses, and to identify and protect sensitive cave and
    resources, basic data are needed.
        Question. Why shouldn't this increase instead be used to meet the
    large quantity of known and unmet needs within the park system?
        Answer. The lack of this information is one of the important unmet
    needs within the park system. In a survey conducted by the National
    Parks and Conservation Association in 1994, park superintendents rated
    ``adequacy of natural resource base data'' third, behind only ``overall
    park budget'' and ``adequacy of workforce size'' as one of the most
    critical needs. As such, it rated higher than 45 other needs including
    those such as campgrounds, transportation services, ranger tours/talks,
    park housing, employee morale, structure or ruin stabilization, and
    endangered species. The General Accounting Office and many others have
    also evaluated lack of baseline data as a critical outstanding park
    need.
        An increase of $500,000 is requested for the Interior Museum
    Property Program, part of which appears to be for the purpose of
    covering shortfalls within individual bureau budgets.
        Question. Is the Park Service performing functions that apparently
    are not a high enough priority within the other bureaus to warrant
    allocation of adequate resources? If so, why?
        Answer. No, the National Park Service is not performing functions
    for other bureaus. The National Park Service has the largest holdings
    of museum collections at Interior and retains the funding mechanism to
    support the Departmentwide museum property activities. Interior's
    Museum Property Program was restructured in fiscal year 1998 to clarify
    roles and lines of authority and to improve the Department's museum
    services. To foster a strong and coordinated management structure for
    all Interior Museum Program operations, the Office of Museum Services
    was created to provide advice, guidance, technical assistance and
    training to all Interior bureaus with museum collections. The Office of
    Museum Services coordinates closely with the Office of Acquisition and
    Property Management, which continues to have responsibility for
    managing Interior Museum Program policies. The increase of $500,000
    will provide critical funding for this Office to address the management
    weaknesses and deficiencies in the accountability and control over
    museum property.
        Interior has museum collections at 739 units throughout the
    Department and at more than 400 nonfederal institutions. Each bureau
    has prepared a strategic plan for bringing the management of its
    collections into compliance with the Department's standards for
    managing museum collections. Bureaus have begun to hire curators and
    other professional staff, and have identified a critical need for
    training to effectively carry out their program responsibilities. The
    Office of Museum Services will provide Departmentwide training on how
    to care for and properly store museum collections, in addition to other
    areas including program planning, cataloging, public access, use and
    interpretation, and environmental monitoring. The Office will promote
    an understanding of Interior's mission and activities; develop,
    demonstrate and test museum techniques and services; consolidate
    collections management activities; and manage all museum services in
    the Main Interior Building Complex. The Office will manage cross-
    boundary partnerships with museum and educational institutions to
    increase access to specialized skills and improve the effectiveness of
    the program. To increase appropriate access to our museum collections,
    the Interior Museum Property Program has developed an Internet home
    page to provide up-to-date information to scientists, educators,
    researchers, and members of the general public.
                                Visitor Services
                             visitor use management
        The justification notes the work being performed by the National
    Center on Accessibility.
        Question. How much is the Park Service currently spending annually
    on accessibility, both in retrofitting existing facilities and as
    additional incremental work for new construction?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, $595,000 is funded for program
    direction and assistance. That figure includes the $208,000 allocated
    for the Accessibility Management Program and the $287,000 allocated to
    Indiana University for the work of the National Center on
    Accessibility. The NPS does not currently compile total expenditures
    for accessibility work being accomplished in projects undertaken at the
    individual parks. Most of the work is accomplished as part of the
    repair and rehabilitation program, the cyclic maintenance program, or
    the new construction program. In some areas, the entire project is
    devoted to accessibility concerns; in other instances, only a portion
    of a project cost encompasses accessibility issues. Federal law
    mandates that all construction and renovation projects be completed in
    compliance with current accessibility codes and standards. Research has
    shown that when access is considered in the design of new projects, the
    cost is very small.
        Question. Is this amount increasing, declining, or about level?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes
    significant increases in the NPS Repair/Rehabilitation and Cyclic
    Maintenance programs, which will result in considerable increased
    expenditures for accessibility work by the Service in fiscal year 1999.
    We are currently exploring a means to conduct a more comprehensive
    condition assessment of our access deficiencies, so we can more
    effectively program corrective actions.
        Question. How much accessibility work does the Park Service perform
    for other Interior bureaus, other agencies, and nonfederal entities?
        Answer. In general we do not perform accessibility work for other
    bureaus, agencies, and non federal entities. The only exception to that
    would be the technical assistance and in-service education programs and
    services provided by the National Center on Accessibility (NCA). While
    the primary objective of NCA is to provide assistance to the National
    Park Service, they also make their services available to other agencies
    and organizations in the park and recreation field.
        Question. Is any of this work reimbursable?
        Answer. Yes, a large share of the work performed by the NCA is
    reimbursable. The NCA is funded partially by the Cooperative Agreement
    with the National Park Service, but their program is also funded
    through the provision of in-kind costs provided by the University, by
    fee for service activities, by other grants and cooperative projects,
    and by tuition fees generated by the continuing education programs. In
    almost all instances these other agencies pay for those services.
        The justification indicates that the amount of appropriations from
    the Operation of the National Park System account that will be required
    for fee collection will drop from $2.9 million in fiscal year 1998 to
    $1.5 million in fiscal year 1999 (p. 79).
        Question. Why is this $1.4 million reduction not reflected as a
    program decrease in the Visitor Use Management activity?
        Answer. The NPS Budget Justification states that the estimated $1.4
    million not needed for fee collection at demonstration parks would be
    reprogrammed for other park uses. Accordingly, the NPS did not propose
    a budget reduction as it was unclear as to what use or uses for which
    the funds would be reprogrammed. Since the submission of the fiscal
    year 1999 budget, the NPS has begun the process of reevaluating its
    course of action as regards to the ONPS fee collection monies and how
    ``non- demonstration'' parks will cover the cost of fee collection in
    fiscal year 1999. Once a final decision is made, the NPS will submit a
    reprogramming as required.
        Question. To what types of other activities will these funds be
    reprogrammed?
        Answer. Should the funds be reprogrammed for activities other than
    fee collection costs, the activities would cover the basic park
    operational responsibilities of resource stewardship, visitor services,
    and park maintenance. The funds could remain in the park that currently
    has control of the funds or be shifted from one park to another to
    cover operational requirements that are unmet at the other park.
        Question. Assuming these funds are included in the fiscal year 1999
    Appropriations Act, does the Park Service anticipate submitting a
    reprogramming request for these funds to the Committees on
    Appropriations?
        Answer. Should the NPS anticipate using the funds for an activity
    other than fee collection, a reprogramming request will be submitted to
    the Committees, as required. $1.5 million is being requested for the
    costs of background checks for law enforcement officers, in part to
    reduce the burden these costs place on individual park units.
                               health and safety
        Funds were provided in fiscal year 1998 for a Workers' Compensation
    Initiative. According to the justification (p. 81), these funds are
    supporting nine positions Servicewide.
        Question. Are these funds being used for retraining, actual
    salaries and benefits, or both?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior initiated a program to
    create opportunities so that persons on long-term disability could
    return to work. The National Park Service agreed to participate by
    providing temporary funding for nine positions as part of its risk
    management initiative, with the intent of bringing eligible employees
    who experienced employment-related injuries back to work. As this
    program began being implemented, however, it became apparent that
    coordinating this kind of job placement was difficult. Since it has
    also been found that training Workers' Compensation coordinators,
    evaluating each case file, and funding fraud/abuse investigations as
    planned is proving more effective, fiscal year 1998 program resources
    have been redirected to these efforts in order to maintain progress
    towards the NPS fiscal year 1999 risk management goals. The program is
    still being reevaluated, and a redesigned program reflecting these
    changes will be submitted this summer to the Appropriation
    Subcommittees.
        Question. Are the positions being supported all within the Visitor
    Services activity?
        Answer. The plan had been to support all risk management activity
    associated with this initiative out of the Visitor Services subactivity
    of the Park Management activity.
        Question. If not, will funding for these positions be transferred
    into other program areas? If so, when?
        Answer. It had never been the plan of the National Park Service to
    transfer funds to other subactivities to temporarily support positions
    in those functional areas.
        Question. Will new positions be supported with the Workers'
    Compensation Initiative funding as these positions are transferred?
        Answer. As previously stated, the National Park Service is working
    on redesigning their program to emphasize investigations and training,
    which are proving to be more cost effective than the temporary
    subsidization of positions.
        The Service is requesting an increase of $2 million for Risk
    Management, which will be used to contract with a consulting firm to
    assist parks in reducing employee accidents and related costs.
        Question. What work would the Park Service be able to perform with
    only a $1 million or $500,000 increase?
        Answer. The original request for $2 million is to assist at least
    12 to 15 park units (and perhaps as high as 20 parks) with poor
    accident/injury rates that are not able to reduce the number of
    employee accidents/incidents by 10 percent per year through the year
    2002. A reduction of 50 to 75 percent will result in a corresponding
    reduction in the number of parks that will benefit from this
    initiative.
        Question. Will the $2 million be a one-time cost, a recurring cost
    for a definite period, or an ongoing cost?
        Answer. The NPS anticipates this level of funding as recurring for
    a period of five years.
        Question. What are the estimated savings in workers' compensation
    that would be achieved if the Park Service were to meet its safety
    goals for fiscal year 1998? fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. We estimate that only approximately 40 percent of our
    annual OWCP costs can be reduced through active OWCP case management. A
    realistic expectation of a reduction may be as high as 10 percent of
    the current and projected costs. We also believe that all Continuation-
    Of-Pay (COP) costs, which are paid for from the park base ($987,000 in
    fiscal year 1997), can be reduced by 10 percent each year. Potential
    savings are shown below. Since billings cover actions two years in
    arrears, the earliest the savings might be realized would be fiscal
    year 2000.

                                       ESTIMATED SAVINGS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Percent      Continuation-of-
                                                                    reduction            pay         Long-term costs
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Year:
        1.....................................................                10           $98,700          $650,000
        2.....................................................                20           197,500         1,300,000
        3.....................................................                30           296,000         1,950,000
        4.....................................................                40           395,000         2,600,000
        5.....................................................                50           493,500         3,250,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An amount of $1.5 million is being requested for the costs of
    background checks for law enforcement officers, in part to reduce the
    burden these costs place on individual park units.
        Question. Why are these funds being managed Servicewide as opposed
    to being included in the operational budgets of the park units that
    consistently have the greatest requirements?
        Answer. These funds for background checks on law enforcement
    rangers are managed Servicewide in order to provide the flexibility
    necessary to match National Park Service needs. The needs of individual
    park units vary significantly from year to year due to fluctuations of
    seasonal staff. Oversight at the national level provides funding to the
    appropriate parks on a consistent basis. Including these funds in the
    operational budgets of individual parks could lead to shortfalls in
    park units having an increased need in a particular year.
        Question. Have any park units received increases in recent years to
    offset the costs of background checks?
        Answer. Additional funds have not been previously requested to
    address this specific concern. Parks have covered these costs from
    funding already within their park base budget.
        The justification states that the $400,000 increase requested for
    ``Airspace Issues over National Parks'' will be used for one FTE to
    ``enable national park units to participate in [the] joint FAA-NPS
    process which requires extensive coordination and guideline
    development.''
        Question. How will the funding requested be used beyond salaries
    and benefits for the one FTE?
        Answer. Beyond salary, benefits, and support for the one FTE, these
    funds will be used to contract acoustic and aeronautical expertise for
    parks participating in the joint FAA-NPS process. Resolution of local
    issues will be facilitated by providing studies, research, or expert
    guidance needed in this extremely complex and technical process. The
    range of expertise required make contracting the only practical avenue
    if the NPS is to participate in this process.
        Question. In the out years of this program, how will implementation
    costs be divided between the program and the budgets of the individual
    park units requiring assistance?
        Answer. This proposal addresses only the provision of technical
    services, coordination, and guidance to the parks. All other costs,
    principally the costs associated with the joint planning process, would
    need to be born by the individual parks and, to some extent, by the
    Federal Aviation Administration.
                                u.s. park police
        The Park Police received a $12 million appropriation in fiscal year
    1998 as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act.
        Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of how these funds
    will be used. Additional needs for the Park Police have been identified
    to this Committee, including the need for a new helicopter and
    additional funding for training and filling vacant positions.
        Answer. The U.S. Park Police received one-time funding in fiscal
    year 1998 as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act in the
    amount of $12 million. A breakdown on how funds are used is as follows:
    Repair and Rehabilitation of the Anacostia Operations Facility (AOF),
    $7,750,000; provide and enhance routine assistance to the District of
    Columbia, $1,248,400; operation of the Aviation Unit, $597,900;
    background investigations for onboard personnel, $760,000; and
    equipment replacement program for 54 percent of existing fleet,
    $1,643,700.
        Question. What is the Department's assessment of the Park Police's
    need for a new helicopter to be based in Washington, D.C.?
        Answer. The U.S. Park Police operate the only police aviation unit
    within the District of Columbia. The Park Police Aviation Program is
    operational for law enforcement, medical evacuation and rescue, and
    other emergency services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are
    two helicopters in the Aviation Program, one single engine helicopter
    (Bell 206LR) and one twin engine (Bell 206L3) helicopter. In 1992, the
    Park Police purchased the twin engine to replace an outdated single
    engine helicopter (Bell 206L). Currently, the single engine (206L3)
    helicopter has in excess of 7,600 hours of flight time and the twin
    engine has in excess 3,200 hours of flight time. The Department of the
    Interior's Office of Aircraft Services states that helicopters used for
    law enforcement and/or safety missions should be replaced at 5,000
    hours flight time. Funding requests to replace the outdated helicopter
    have been identified and submitted, but have not ranked high enough
    (within available funding allowances) when competing against other NPS
    needs.
        Question. Do the helicopters currently operated in Washington, D.C.
    meet operational and safety requirements?
        Answer. Yes, the U.S. Park Police helicopters currently operating
    in Washington, D.C. meet operational and safety requirements. The U.S.
    Park Police Aviation Unit is regulated by Part 91 of the Federal
    Aviation Regulations. These regulations require that each aircraft be
    certified to meet certain safety and maintenance codes. Part 91
    requires strict maintenance records and accountability as well as the
    additional need to meet passenger aircraft certification.
        Question. Does the Department anticipate requesting funds for a new
    helicopter(s) at any time in the foreseeable future?
        Answer. The U.S. Park Police continues to submit funding requests
    each fiscal year for two new helicopters. The NPS will submit this
    request for funding to the Congress when it is ranked as a high
    operational priority for the NPS and falls within allowance levels
    allowed for the NPS request.
        Question. What would be the cost of a replacement helicopter?
        Answer. The total cost of a replacement helicopter is approximately
    $10.4 million. This includes an annual recurring cost of approximately
    $1.8 million. The base cost of a twin engine helicopter is
    approximately $7 million. Additional completion cost for rescue/medivac
    configuration and necessary hangar modifications, which include a new
    above ground fuel delivery system, would cost approximately $1.6
    million. The Department of the Interior, Office of Aircraft Services is
    paid annually for hourly flight costs, daily availability rates, and
    catastrophic coverage for the aircraft at an approximate total of $1.75
    million. An additional $50,000 is needed annually to hire a full time
    mechanic to maintain both aircraft.
        Question. With the Park Police now having the only law enforcement
    aviation program in the District of Columbia, what is the estimated
    increase in costs to the Park Service of providing aviation services
    that are wholly or primarily for municipal purposes?
        Answer. The U.S. Park Police Aviation Unit is funded at $600,000
    annually. In fiscal year 1997, the Park Police Aviation Unit reported
    that 33 percent of all missions and 26 percent of all flight hours were
    devoted to the District of Columbia. Therefore, approximately $152,000
    of the annual operating budget was spent in providing non-reimbursable
    aviation services primarily for municipal purposes. Since the
    elimination of the Metropolitan Police Department's Aviation Unit,
    requests for assistance from the District of Columbia have increased
    approximately 40 percent over the last 22 months.
        Question. Has the Park Service received any increase in services
    from the District government in exchange for these increased aviation
    costs?
        Answer. The relationship between the United States Park Police and
    the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia is
    unique among Federal and municipal agencies. The Park Police have the
    same power and authority within the District of Columbia as the
    Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Because of this relationship, the
    MPD and the Park Police have always used in-kind services to reimburse
    each other for services provided. While there has been no increase in
    services that can be directly related to our increase of aviation
    services, the interaction between the two departments occurs daily. The
    MPD has always assisted the Park Police with demonstrations and public
    events that occur in the many park areas within the District. This is
    especially true of the myriad demonstrations and special events that
    occur in the vicinity of the White House.
        Question. What are priority operational needs for the Park Police
    that the Park Service would fulfill if it had additional resources?
        Answer. The priority operational needs for U.S. Park Police are as
    follows:
      --Personnel: recruit and hire sufficient officers to address the
            current shortfall of personnel.
      --Communications: address the mandated conversion to a narrow band
            radio system by the year 2005.
      --Equipment: replace outmoded and worn equipment, including vehicles,
            defensive equipment, uniforms, and Automated Data Processing
            (ADP) equipment.
      --Aviation: replace two helicopters, including rescue/medivac
            configuration costs.
      --Pension: ensure that the Park Police Pension system, which is
            administered by the District of Columbia government, is
            sufficiently funded to meet the requirements of this legally
            mandated program.
        Question. What is the cost of filling additional positions
    and providing appropriate training (in appropriate increments)?
        Answer. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
    sets the size of a training class at 24. The cost of salaries
    and benefits will vary according to the month in which the
    class starts in the fiscal year. Startup costs for new officers
    include applicant processing, background investigation,
    physicals, uniforms and equipment, travel to and from the
    FLETC, and training. The following breakdown includes salaries
    and startup costs:

                      COST OF FILLING ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Month                     Class size      Total cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.................................              24      $1,129,012
    June....................................              24         736,176
    August..................................              24         583,677
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Is the Park Service confident that the Park
    Police are given the opportunity to compete fairly with other
    park service programs and park units for budget increases?
        Answer. Yes. The U.S. Park Police budget requests are
    considered at each level of the budget process along with all
    other requests. The Park Police submit their requests to the
    National Capital Region's (NCR) budget office for inclusion in
    the NCR budget submission. NCR's budget request is then
    prioritized and forwarded to the Washington Office for
    inclusion in the National Park Service's budget request. At
    each step of this process, priorities are set for budget items
    by each entity. Thus, an item that is the top priority for the
    U.S. Park Police may fall as a much lower priority on the NCR
    request and this prioritization is repeated throughout the
    process. The U.S Park Police have received funding increases
    for needs comparable to other NPS operations, including a
    fiscal year 1997 increase of $600,000 for new operational
    responsibilities associated with Pennsylvania Avenue and the
    Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial in the District of Columbia; in
    fiscal year 1998, $500,000 was provided on an ongoing basis to
    establish an equipment replacement fund; and the Park Service's
    fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an operational increase of
    $843,000 and an increase of $2.479 million for the Park Police
    Pension Fund. In addition, in 1997 the NPS received $2.3
    million, including $1 million in recurring operational costs,
    through a supplemental appropriation for anti-terrorism needs
    at three parks and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. An
    additional $1 million was also provided to the U.S. Park Police
    for added security measures and operations at the Statue of
    Liberty. All of the operational funding has been continued as
    part of the base budget.

                             concession management

        $1.5 million is being requested to support concession
    management reform.
        Question. What would be the impact on the Park Service if
    these funds are not provided?
        Answer. If the funding is not made available, the Service
    would be unable to expand use of the private sector to perform
    various concession functions and take other steps to improve
    concession management.
        Question. What is the total estimated cost of the
    concessions management support contract that the Park Service
    expects to issue in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The Administration is planning to establish an
    advisory group soon that would review the NPS concessions
    management operation. This programmatic review of concessions
    management would help determine what will be suitable for
    contracting out. The total estimated cost would be based upon
    an evaluation of options to be provided in the review by the
    outside advisory group.
        Question. Would the Service be inclined to proceed with
    this contract were the $1.5 million increase not provided?
        Answer. If the Service and the outside advisory group find
    that concessions management could be improved by contracting
    out specific functions to the private sector, then we will
    proceed with such a contract in fiscal year 1999. If no
    additional funds are provided, however, that contract would be
    limited to funds available through savings or reductions in
    existing concessions management. In the near term, additional
    funds are needed for the transition to relying more on private
    firms with business and professional experience to handle
    whatever concession management functions that the Service and
    the outside advisory groups identify as appropriate for
    contracting out. In the longer term, improved concessions
    management, along with concessions reform legislation, should
    provide for a net increase in returns to the government that
    exceed the near term costs.
        Question. The justification states that recent changes in
    concessions management have resulted in increased revenues to
    the Park Service and improved services and facilities. Does the
    Service anticipate that significant additional incremental
    improvements would result from the requested increase?
        Answer. The potential for improvements in revenues and
    services will be evaluated by the aforementioned review of
    concessions management support options. Though we expect
    additional improvements, it is not possible to say exactly what
    additional incremental improvements will result from the
    requested funding until the planned review determines the
    appropriate scope of a support contract.

                                  maintenance

        The Administration is requesting a $60 million increase for
    Park Maintenance, which would be split between Repair and
    Rehabilitation (+$37.5 million) and Cyclic Maintenance (+$22.6
    million). This would more than double funding for the
    maintenance account.
        Question. Are you confident that the Park Service has the
    ability to manage such a large increase in a manner that
    ensures that funds are used for the most critical projects?
        Answer. We are confident the Service will be able to manage
    the requested increase for critical health/safety projects in
    our nation's national parks in a manner that ensures that the
    funding addresses the most critical projects. Considerable
    effort by the National Park Service and the Department has gone
    into formulating a prioritized list of more than 400 critical
    health and safety projects at park units across the country,
    which was provided to the Committees in early March. This, we
    are confidant, will ensure that this badly needed increase is
    directed to those projects identified as most critical.
        Question. How would reducing the size of the increase (by
    half or two thirds) impact Park Service performance measures
    for the Maintenance account?
        Answer. Reducing the requested increase for park
    maintenance by a magnitude of half or two thirds would severely
    impact the ability of the National Park Service to achieve
    established performance measures or to comply with
    Congressional direction to reduce the Service's maintenance
    backlog. A significant number of the more than 400 critical
    health and safety projects identified and submitted to the
    Committees in early March would have to be deferred for
    accomplishment in future years, contributing to a NPS
    maintenance backlog.

                          year 2000 computer problems

        The Service is requesting a $760,000 increase for non-
    financial systems year 2000 date conversion.
        Question. Is this expected to be a recurring cost for
    fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. This will not be a recurring cost for fiscal year
    2000. The funds will be used in fiscal year 1999 to assist
    small parks in two critical phases of the Year 2000 conversion
    program: (1) help small parks replace Year 2000 non-compliant
    equipment; and (2) assist small parks in procuring Independent
    Verification and Validation software and the training of staff
    in the use of this software. The software is necessary to
    inventory and repair Year 2000-related problems.

                                   diversity

        A $450,000 increase is being requested for an employment
    database and cultural diversity recruitment pursuant to the
    Department's strategic plan for improving cultural diversity in
    the workplace.
        Question. How does the Department's current diversity
    initiative differ from past efforts and commitments to enhance
    diversity?
        Answer. Past commitments to improve and enhance cultural
    diversity within the NPS have focused primarily on efforts to
    broaden participation in developmental programs by women and
    minority group members. These include the Servicewide Intake
    Program, the Women's Executive Leadership Program, the
    Executive Potential Program, and other developmental
    opportunities. These programs help to prepare personnel for
    advancement once in the system and will be continued as
    important management tools for the NPS. Diversity is critical
    in NPS because all of the NPS programs reach all segments of
    society.
        The Service, through this request, would use $100,000 to
    initiate programs to attract a more diverse applicant pool from
    which to select future employees and $350,000 to upgrade the
    Service's employment databases so that employee movement
    through the organization may be tracked. Categories which need
    to be tracked include developmental assignments, management
    succession, career progression, and other activities that lead
    to advancement within the National Park Service. The system
    currently used to produce data on career progression is manual,
    inefficient, and inadequate in terms of successfully planning
    and managing our workforce. Moreover, these systems are labor
    intensive and drain FTE and other resources that could be used
    for other functions.
        The Department continues to give high importance to
    diversity programs and is encouraging all agencies to take
    major, proactive steps to address diversity and move the
    Department forward. The Department has worked alongside the
    senior level executives and managers on diversity measures to
    be implemented throughout the Department.
        Question. Are corresponding increases requested in the
    other Interior bureaus' budgets? If so, please provide a
    Department-wide summary for the record.
        Answer. Four Interior bureaus are requesting budget
    increases associated with diversity efforts in fiscal year
    1999. The funding requests differ from bureau to bureau based
    on specific needs relative to goals set out in the Strategic
    Plans and Diversity Action Plans for each bureau. The summary
    of these increase requests is as follows:

    Interior bureaus requesting budget increases

            Bureau                                          Increase request

    Bureau of Land Management..................................... +$539,000
    Bureau of Reclamation.........................................  +525,000
    Fish and Wildlife Service.....................................   +31,000
    National Park Service.........................................  +450,000

        All other Interior bureaus are continuing their diversity
    efforts at the same level of funding as in fiscal year 1998.
        Question. If not, what special need for additional funding
    does the Park Service have in this regard?
        Answer. The effective recruitment and placement of quality
    personnel throughout an organization is fundamental to the
    achievement of the authorized mission of that organization. A
    recent analysis conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity
    Office identified underrepresentation of minority group members
    in eight of the Service's most populous job classifications in
    both the seasonal and permanent employment categories. Working
    toward goals that will effect noticeable improvement in these
    areas will require initiatives to address the very different
    requirements of seasonal and permanent recruitment. Further,
    the Service has an organizational interest (both short and
    long-term) in the development and career advancement of all
    employees. This initiative moves the NPS forward in the
    achievement of goals outlined in the Department and the
    National Park Service Strategic Plans.

                         external administrative costs

        The justification notes that a fixed cost increase of $1.6
    million for GSA space rental is requested, along with a $1
    million programmatic increase.
        Question. The fixed costs increase appears to be more than
    five percent. Why is this increase so high?
        Answer. The increase for anticipated rate adjustments was
    calculated at approximately three percent of the fiscal year
    1998 base. A separate portion of the increase ($700,000) is due
    to the higher security costs that GSA has incurred following
    the Oklahoma City bombing. The increased security costs are now
    starting to be passed through to their tenant agencies.
        Question. For the portion of the programmatic increase
    designated for new parks for which space requirements have not
    been budgeted, why are these costs not made part of the base
    budget for the park unit? Are GSA space costs funded through
    the consolidated account in all cases within the Park Service?
        Answer. It is more efficient to consolidate all GSA space
    rental funding into one account, since GSA sends us a
    consolidated quarterly bill. The bill is then paid centrally.
    Management of the GSA Space Program also is centralized. All
    operational space that is rented and managed through GSA should
    be budgeted in the GSA Space Rental Account. This includes that
    portion of a new park's programmatic increase that requires
    space rental through GSA. If the increase was not budgeted, or
    budgeted but not funded, in the GSA Space Rental Account, then
    the park does absorb the cost until a budget increase is
    approved. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2000 we have requested
    funds (approximately $1.3 million) to bring all outstanding
    space accounts under this single managed budget.
        Question. What has the Service done to respond to the
    recommendations made in the 1997 GAO report on
    telecommunications systems that was referenced in the Senate
    report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act?
        Answer. The May 1997 General Accounting Office report
    entitled ``Telecommunications Management: More Effort Needed by
    Interior and the Forest Service to Achieve Savings'' concluded
    that, while the Department of the Interior had undertaken a
    number of telecommunications initiatives that have resulted in
    significant financial savings, the Department is not
    systematically identifying and acting on other opportunities to
    consolidate and optimize telecommunications resources within
    and among its bureaus or its 2,000 plus field locations.
        The NPS has responded to the GAO report in several ways.
    The NPS uses and contributes management and technical resources
    to the shared Department of the Interior telecommunications
    network called DOINET. The Forest Service has become a customer
    of this DOI Telecommunications service. This means, for
    example, that NPS and the Forest Service now share some radio
    dispatch services, and the North Cascades National Park and the
    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest share telephones services.
        The NPS has also worked to develop other intradepartmental
    resource sharing. The Service has established sharing
    agreements with the Office of the Secretary, Bureau of Land
    Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS) for telecommunications resources. The NPS is in
    the process of concluding additional agreements with the Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the USGS, and the NPS is sharing
    connections with these agencies at 12 DOI hub locations,
    resulting in a significant savings to the Service at 25 sites.
    At one hub in the Hawaiian Islands, the NPS worked extensively
    with USGS and the Department of Defense to join a DOD coalition
    that provides Automated Teller Machine (ATM) access to the
    mainland and high speed access to the ``Hawaiian,'' the local
    inter-island network. The Service is also using a USGS-provided
    router and sharing circuits with USGS at Hawaii Volcanoes
    National Park and at the terminating circuit on the USGS router
    in Maui. Approximately five NPS sites will be up and running on
    May 1, 1998, and other NPS and USGS sites will be supported by
    this new connection as well.
        The Service will continue to look for cost effective
    opportunities to share telecommunications resources and where
    appropriate request shared and or coordinated appropriations
    requests to fund these cost saving opportunities.

                                Land Acquisition

                               stateside program

        The Administration has submitted to the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees its proposal for the distribution of
    the $362 million in `special' land acquisition funds that were
    not allocated to specific projects in the fiscal year 1998
    bill. The Committees are currently reviewing this proposal.
        Question. Why did the Administration not request any funds
    for the ``Stateside'' grant program as part of this process?
        Answer. ``Stateside'' grants were not requested because the
    Federal need for land acquisition is so great and therefore of
    a higher priority.
        Question. Do you feel that every one of the Federal
    acquisitions that the Administration is requesting are of
    greater importance than the projects that would be conducted by
    the states through the Stateside program?
        Answer. No, we do not think that every proposed Federal
    acquisition is more important than potential projects in a
    possible renewed Stateside program. However, we do continue to
    request funds for specific known Federal needs.
        Question. Does the Administration continue to support the
    Stateside program in concept?
        Answer. The Department continues to support the Land and
    Water Conservation Act with a Stateside program concept.
    However, since the Congressional hiatus in Stateside funding
    has provided a period of analysis of the program, we would
    prefer to assure that Stateside projects focus more on funding
    natural recreational opportunities in place of a perceived
    growing emphasis on building more structures like swimming
    pools.

                      national recreation and preservation

        The budget request includes an increase of $3 million and
    30 FTEs for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
    Program.
        Question. Assuming that the purposes for which the increase
    is proposed are justified, wouldn't the $3 million have greater
    impact if given to local communities in the form of matching
    grants, rather than spending a large portion of the increase on
    salaries and benefits for 30 FTEs?
        Answer. The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
    Program (RTCA) is a technical assistance program and does not
    provide grants. In fact, the National Park Service believes
    that the program's value to the communities it assists is
    actually enhanced by the fact that it makes no grants. Since
    the main element of value that NPS can offer through the
    program is the time and attention of its staff, the NPS staff
    is able to help their partners focus on quality planning and
    entrepreneurial approaches to funding their implementation.
    RTCA projects have a strong history of leveraging the
    relatively small investment by NPS many times over; RTCA
    partners and communities go on to obtain needed financing from
    a wide range of sources and programs some Federal, many state
    and local, and others non-governmental. More partners will be
    able to do far more with $3 million worth of NPS assistance
    than would be the case through single one-time grants.
        Question. Is there any evidence an additional Federal
    `coordinator,' as opposed to additional financial resources, is
    what is needed to accomplish the objectives of this program?
        Answer. The RTCA staff will not have official Federal
    `coordinator' roles outside the Park Service; they will seek to
    coordinate and thereby maximize the benefits available through
    the assistance of the Service's various programs. This staff
    also will act as catalysts to identify community needs and work
    with communities to develop action plans addressing
    conservation and recreation needs.
        Every evaluative effort undertaken to help shape the
    program has identified a similar response: RTCA partners report
    that the program's assistance in helping them examine their
    options, organize effective public involvement, and strengthen
    local institutions and organizations was what they needed.
    Furthermore, partners report that NPS has been the one Federal
    agency where those kinds of resources could be found.

                    revolutionary war and war of 1812 study

        The Omnibus Parks and Land Management Act of 1996
    authorized a Revolutionary War and War of 1812 historic
    preservation study.
        Question. Why have funds not been requested to conduct this
    study?
        Answer. Given the current fiscal constraints level, the
    National Park Service was forced to prioritize its identified
    budgetary needs. The NPS did not include funds for this study
    in the fiscal year 1999 request to Congress as this was a lower
    priority item than issues for which funds were included.
        Question. How would this study differ from inventory and
    planning activities undertaken generally with funds provided
    for Resource Stewardship?
        Answer. The requirement for this study is specifically
    authorized in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act
    of 1996 (Title VI, Section 604, Public Law 104-333). The NPS
    has limited funds available for required cultural resource
    studies within its central office base budget. The scope and
    cost of this study is beyond the amount of funds generally
    available.

                             heritage partnerships

        The Administration is requesting an additional $1 million
    for Heritage Partnership Programs. The funds are to be
    allocated on a competitive basis to the five heritage areas and
    one historic district that are not already receiving the $1
    million maximum funding.
        Question. Does the Service feel the three areas that are
    already receiving $1 million are necessarily more justified
    than the other areas in continuing to receive that funding in
    fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The three areas that received the $1.0 million were
    in a state of readiness to spend the authorized funds
    effectively. Several of the other areas were, and remain, at
    initial stages in their process and would be unable to
    effectively spend $1.0 million.
        Question. Would the Service prefer to see the $5.5 million,
    if funded, available for distribution to any of the authorized
    areas based upon the quality of the proposals submitted?
        Answer. If the $1.0 million increase requested is
    appropriated, the Park Service expects to distribute the $1.0
    million increase based upon the quality of the proposals
    submitted. The Park Service does not expect to reduce the
    amount of funds now currently being provided to areas.

                          statutory or contractual aid

        An increase of $20,000 is requested for the Roosevelt
    Campobello International Park Commission in order to maintain
    the 50 percent cost share requirement.
        Question. What process is used to set the overall budget
    for the Commission? For what purpose will the apparently
    $40,000 increase be used?
        Answer. Public Law 88-363, the Roosevelt Campobello
    International Park Act, authorized establishment of a
    commission to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International
    Park as a memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The legislation
    states further that * * *. ``There are hereby authorized to be
    appropriated to the Department of the Interior without fiscal
    year limitation such sums as may be necessary for the purposes
    of this Act and the agreement with the Government of Canada
    signed January 22, 1964, article 11 of which provides that the
    Governments of the United States and Canada shall share equally
    the costs of developing and the annual cost of operating and
    maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello International Park.''
        Based on specifics of the legislation and the 1964
    agreement, the budget for the site is prepared by the
    commission and submitted to the governments of each country.
    The budgets for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park
    Commission for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 consist of the
    following.

        BUDGET FOR THE ROOSEVELT CAMPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL PARK COMMISSION
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year budget--
                    Receipts                 -------------------------------
                                                   1998            1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. grant..............................        $650,000        $670,000
    Canada grant............................         650,000         670,000
    Provincial grants.......................           3,000           3,000
    Conference income.......................          20,000          20,000
    Sale of memorabilia.....................           9,000           9,000
    Other income............................          40,000          30,000
    Donated assets..........................           5,800           5,800
    Visitor donations.......................           5,000           5,000
    Program assistance......................          24,003          24,804
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       1,406,803       1,437,604
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Funding provided in fiscal year 1999 will be used for
    personnel services ($1,050,676), other operating expenses
    ($299,928), and equipment replacement ($87,000). The net
    personnel increase of $32,000 over fiscal year 1998 is for pay
    and other benefits of the administrative, security,
    maintenance, guide, and gardening staff. The net operating
    increase of $7,120 above fiscal year 1998 is attributable to
    the increased costs for commission expenses, publications,
    utilities, insurance, cottage and grounds maintenance, and
    supplies.

                           Historic Preservation Fund

                  historically black colleges and universities

        The Administration is requesting a $9.8 million increase
    for Grants-in-Aid to Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities.
        Question. What success has the Park Service, the individual
    schools and cooperating entities had in generating non Federal
    cost share for projects for which monies have been allocated in
    fiscal year 1998?
        Answer. Within the $5.422 million appropriated in fiscal
    year 1998 for restoration at Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities, $4.0 million is being awarded directly to five
    schools at $800,000 each: Fisk University (TN), Knoxville
    College (TN), Allen University (SC), Selma University (AL), and
    Tougaloo College (MS). An additional $1.4 million in fiscal
    year 1998 HBCU grants is being awarded to the United Negro
    College Fund (UNCF). The UNCF has, in turn, subgranted these
    funds to Morehouse College (GA) and to Hampton University (VA)
    to repair Graves Hall and Virginia Hall, respectively. The UNCF
    will assist Morehouse and Hampton in obtaining the required
    matching share. The matching share must be contributed during
    the grant period. However, to ensure that the matching share
    requirement is met, the Park Service will only reimburse 50
    percent of the costs incurred as the projects proceed. To date,
    every school funded appears to be able to contribute the
    required nonfederal share.
        Question. Does the Park Service feel there is capability to
    match a significant amount of funds requested for fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. Yes; to the best of our knowledge, HBCUs can
    provide the required nonfederal matching share over the three-
    year period of the grant.
        Question. Does the Park Service anticipate making any
    grants in fiscal year 1999 to schools not specified in the
    Omnibus Parks Act (up to the authorized level of $6.1 million)?
        Answer. Section 507 of the Omnibus Parks Act authorizes $29
    million for the preservation of HBCU buildings. Specific
    amounts totaling $22.9 million were allocated in the Act for
    each of 12 HBCUs identified in Section 507--leaving $6.1
    million of the authorization level not earmarked. $4.0 million
    of the authorization in the Omnibus Parks Act was used by the
    funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998, so $25 million remains.
    The Park Service does not anticipate awarding grants to any
    HBCU not specified in the Omnibus Parks Act until the $22.9
    million earmarked for the twelve identified HBCUs is fully
    appropriated.
        Under the authority of Section 101(e)(3)(B) of the National
    Historic Preservation Act, an additional $1.422 million has
    been included in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request to provide the final funding needed for a grant to the
    United Negro College Fund to complete the Secretary's HBCU
    Preservation Initiative begun in fiscal year 1995. The $1.422
    million would complete work at Hampton University and fund
    repairs at Spelman College and Delaware State University as
    well.
        The Park Service was provided with $200,000 in the fiscal
    year 1998 appropriation to conduct onsite assessments of the
    twelve HBCUs identified in Section 507 of the Omnibus Parks
    Act. A contract with the Georgia Institute of Technology has
    been executed by the NPS, and a report assessing and ranking
    the significance and structural condition of the major
    historical buildings on the campus of each of the twelve HBCUs
    will be issued by June 1998. This report will be used to guide
    future budget requests.
        It should be noted that there are 103 HBCUs. The General
    Accounting Office recently completed a survey of all HBCUs and
    the schools' responses estimated that $755 million is needed to
    repair all of the HBCUs' historic buildings.

                                  Construction

                         federal lands highways program

        The Senate has passed an ISTEA reauthorization bill that
    includes funding for the Federal Lands Highway Program. The
    House is expected to pass a reauthorization bill this week.
        Question. Based on the funding levels included in each bill
    for the Federal Lands program, how would funds be allocated for
    specific Park Service projects?
        Answer. A list identifying the Administration's proposed
    funding of projects for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
    at $161 million annually was provided to the Committees with
    the NPS fiscal year 1999 Budget Justifications pages 280 to
    283. At the lower funding levels proposed by the House and
    Senate passed bills, roughly half of the projects planned for
    fiscal year 1998 would have to be deferred to fiscal year 1999.
    That, in turn, would delay the start of projects planned for
    fiscal year 1999, deferring them to out years. The Service
    would conform to the current Servicewide priority list in
    determining what projects would be deferred to future fiscal
    years.

                                Land Acquisition

                             civil war battlefields

        A number of Senators have expressed an interest in
    providing funds for land acquisition to protect Civil War
    battlefields. While in many cases a straight Federal
    acquisition is the logical and appropriate choice, there is
    also interest in providing funds for non-Federal acquisitions.
    Funds would be used by preservation groups to leverage private
    funds, particularly at important sites that are not part of a
    Federal park unit.
        Question. In your view, what would be the most appropriate
    mechanism for executing this type of program assuming funds
    were to be provided?
        Answer. The National Park Service's American Battlefield
    Protection Program (ABPP), funded in the Cultural Programs
    activity of the National Recreation and Preservation
    appropriation, would be the most appropriate mechanism for
    administering such a program. The ABPP is specifically mandated
    by Congress under Public Law 104-333 to assist non-Federal
    public and private entities in identifying, evaluating,
    interpreting, and protecting historic battlefields. The ABPP is
    also specifically authorized to use cooperative agreements,
    grants, contracts, or other means of financial assistance in
    order to carry out its mandate. Current law authorizes
    appropriations of $3 million per year for the ABPP, but the
    program does not include assisting in land acquisitions at
    present. In fiscal year 1997, ABPP distributed $745,775 in
    various grants; ABPP distributions in fiscal year 1999 will be
    about the same. If current grant levels continue into fiscal
    year 1999, that would leave slightly over $2 million in
    authorized funds for other purposes, including land
    acquisition. Any programs requiring funds in excess of that
    amount, which is a likely scenario in the case of land
    acquisition, would require a change in the authorizing language
    to raise the statutory ceiling.

                           Fish and Wildlife Service

                                    general

                     government performance and results act

        Question. Does the agency's performance plan link
    performance measures to its budget?
        Answer. Yes, the FWS fiscal year 1999 annual performance
    plan links performance goals and performance measures to the
    FWS fiscal year 1999 budget request. The annual performance
    plan provides a crosswalk that aligns each activity for each
    appropriation or fund account with each annual performance
    goal. In addition, the Budget Justifications provide additional
    breakdowns of the performance goals associated with various
    budget activities and subactivities, accompanied by a short
    discussion of the goals.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. Currently, each account does not have annual
    performance measures. The FWS collects and uses a large amount
    of performance information at various organizational levels.
    Selecting the right performance goals and measures is an
    iterative process that will improve with each planning cycle.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. Performance measures were chosen using the
    following guidelines:
      --Measures were developed hierarchically so FWS managers and staff
            would know how their daily activities contributed to
            achievement of performance goals.
      --Measures were limited to the ``vital few'' that covered the key
            performance dimensions for the FWS.
      --Measures were tied to a mission or program goal in the FWS
            strategic plan.
      --Measures had to be flexible and adaptable to changing imperatives.
            For example, the measures had to be effective, yet simple to
            understand and credible and readily available to those who
            would need them.
      --Measures had to be cost-effective and easy to collect; whenever
            possible, existing performance measures and data were used.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data
    collection and verification with the need for reliable and
    valid performance data?
        Answer. The FWS is developing a performance data management
    evaluation model to ensure that all performance data is
    reliable and valid. Of the 96 performance indicators currently
    in the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, all but 9
    indicators have defined performance measurement data,
    verifiable data sources, and program data managers. The FWS is
    currently developing baseline data for the remaining 9
    indicators.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for
    which reliable data are not likely to be available in time for
    your first performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. The FWS is confident that performance data
    essential to assessing the progress the FWS is making in
    achieving the strategic goals will be available by March 2000.
    The FWS considers the implementation of the performance
    management system an iterative process and, for this reason, is
    conducting an intensive review of the strategic and annual
    performance plans to improve and streamline goals and measures.

                         new california regional office

        Question. Given the denial of the reprogramming request,
    does the Service have an alternative plan that might be less
    cost prohibitive such as a modest enhancement of key staff
    (including a high level person with Regional Director
    authority) at the California Office?
        Answer. On April 17, 1998, the Department proposed a scaled
    back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide line
    management and supervision of all field offices in California
    (including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada. The annualized
    costs of the office will be $1.2 million and the funds and
    staffing to establish and operate the office will be
    transferred from the regional office in Portland, Oregon. By
    letter of April 23, 1998, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
    approved this new office. By letter of May 6, 1998, the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee approved this new office.
        Question. Is creation of a new Regional Office with
    associated costs of staffing and moving employees warranted
    during times of streamlining and flat budgets? Would
    restructuring of the existing regions be more feasible?
        Answer. The Department strongly supports the establishment
    of a senior level management position in California to provide
    hands-on leadership and improved service to the public for the
    Bay/Delta ecosystem restoration initiative, the Central Valley
    Project Improvement Act, the ongoing Salton Sea effort,
    endangered species issues, the public demand for habitat
    conservation planning assistance, and meeting the rapidly
    increasing expectation of refuge and fisheries facilities in
    California and Nevada. At the same time, the new office will
    allow the Portland Regional Office to be more responsive to the
    public and the Department's partners in the Pacific northwest
    and the Pacific basin. The Department thoroughly evaluated the
    costs of restructuring the existing FWS regional offices and
    they exceeded the costs of the alternative selected and thus
    were not proposed.
        Question. What other strategies that do not involve major
    restructuring has the Service explored to meet the needs
    identified in Region 1?
        Answer. The FWS has taken several steps in recent years to
    meet growing workloads in Region 1 (and all its regions)
    without involving restructuring. First and foremost has been
    the increased collaboration with other Federal agencies to
    implement the President's Forest Plan through streamlined
    Section 7 consultations. This approach has reduced the amount
    of time previously required for timber sale consultations from
    over 130 days to under 45 days, on average. Second, the FWS has
    published an HCP handbook to guide private landowners who seek
    to implement a Habitat Conservation Plan which would allow
    economic development (such as timber harvest) to proceed while
    at the same time conserving habitat and species. The
    development of multi-species HCPs has also facilitated greater
    impacts. Third, the FWS has vastly improved its data collection
    abilities and has been able to document operational and
    maintenance requirements--particularly for the refuge system--
    which have been used to justify funding needs in the budget.
    This approach will also come on-line in the near future for the
    hatchery system and will be used to help guide future budget
    formulation processes and support potential budget requests, if
    approved.

                          ecosystem management review

        We understand the Service recently contracted with Ohio
    State University to review the ``ecosystem management
    approach'' as currently implemented within the Service. The
    results of the Survey indicate a need for more consistency and
    clarity Service-wide as well as better leadership and program
    representation. It is clear changes are needed, however, the
    creation of new positions at high levels concerns us given that
    the Service currently has over 200 facilities either unstaffed
    or below adequate levels. It seems questionable that creating
    new positions has a higher priority than say, directing funds
    to the field.
        Question. Will this require any new FTE's?
        Answer. No additional staff will be required to implement
    this approach. The FWS is not expected to realize a net
    increase in staffing as a result of the ecosystem approach,
    though the FWS will fill vacant field positions as funds become
    available to address expanding workload requirements in the
    field.
        Question. How much will this plan cost and how does the
    Service plan to pay for these positions? Will existing programs
    (core programs) be ``assessed?'' If so, how will these programs
    be impacted?
        Answer. The FWS plans to implement this effort through the
    use of funds which currently exist in regional offices. The FWS
    underwent a downsizing during the mid-1990's that
    disproportionately affected its regional offices, adversely
    affecting some regional program staff and management. The FWS
    intends to rectify these over-corrections as necessary;
    however, this effort is ongoing and distinct from the
    stabilization efforts being employed under the ecosystem
    approach implementation. The FWS has no reason to believe that
    continuing to implement the successful ecosystem approach that
    had already begun years ago will require additional funds. No
    existing programs (core programs) will be assessed.
        Question. What is the rationale for funding these positions
    rather than recruiting the right kinds of staff (with specific
    program expertise) more able to provide better leadership and
    program direction?
        Answer. The FWS strongly supports expanded career
    opportunities, such as upward mobility career tracks, to best
    prepare promising employees and new hires for future senior
    management positions. One of the criticisms leveled at the FWS
    in the past had been that employees remain ``locked'' in their
    respective programs for most of their careers and when--and
    if--promoted to senior positions they had not been exposed to
    the very broad FWS mission responsibilities. Charging
    enterprising ``rising stars'' in the agency with broader
    landscape-based responsibilities will allow them to call on
    their in-depth knowledge of one program while coordinating all
    of the FWS programs towards an integrated accomplishment of the
    agency's goals. It will also help the various programs
    communicate better and focus efforts on overall
    responsibilities instead of fragmenting program implementation.
        Question. Given the level of frustration, lack of success,
    lack of support of rank and file, and general ineffectiveness
    of the Ecosystem Approach (as implemented in the Service), is
    the Service willing to reconsider further implementation of
    this process?
        Answer. The FWS is committed to effectively implementing
    the Ecosystem Approach to manage the nation's wildlife and
    fisheries resources.
        The FWS formally adopted an Ecosystem Approach to Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation in the Spring of 1994. This calls for a
    landscape approach to resource management decision-making,
    emphasizing cross-program collaboration, and increasing
    attention to the establishment and nurturing of partnerships
    with other agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
    landowners. To fully implement this approach, the FWS realigned
    its operations at the level of the Assistant Regional Director,
    and these individuals were given responsibility for leading one
    of three programs (Refuges and Wildlife, Fisheries Resources,
    or Ecological Services), and asked to supervise all individuals
    (except the law enforcement program) within a geographic
    ecoregion.
        As is the case with all organizational changes, some
    friction has occurred in the field during the transition
    period. In general, implementation of the Ecosystem Approach
    has improved collaboration between the various FWS programs and
    significantly enhanced partnerships with other groups. However,
    regional offices have developed organizational schemes that
    differ from one another, and from the headquarters office
    organization. This organizational inconsistency has yielded
    confusion in line supervisory relationships and raised concerns
    about consistent implementation of nationwide program policies.
    The solution to this problem is to implement the Ecosystem
    Approach consistently Servicewide.
        Question. What steps are being taken to ensure a cost
    effective approach and that resource benefits will actually
    accrue when the recommendations made by the Survey and by the
    Directorate of the Service are implemented?
        Answer. The FWS has taken several steps to ensure a cost
    effective approach and to ensure that resource benefits will
    actually accrue. First, no additional headquarters or regional
    staff will be required to implement the ecosystem approach.
    (However, the FWS intends to fill vacant positions as funds
    become available to address expanding workload requirements in
    the regions). Second, while staffing levels are expected to
    vary as a function of regional workloads, leadership positions
    will be consistent across regions to ensure strong programmatic
    and geographic management capabilities to best support field,
    headquarters, and external partnership needs. Also, expanded
    career opportunities, such as upward mobility career tracks,
    will help align the FWS for the future by increasing the pool
    of talent to help fill any leadership vacuums.

                                brown tree snake

        I am increasingly concerned by reports that, despite
    efforts by your Department and DOD, the brown tree snakes have
    gotten entirely out of control on Guam and are a very serious
    threat to Hawaii and some of our close friends and neighbors in
    the Central and South Pacific Ocean.
        Question. What are you doing to eradicate this pest on Guam
    and prevent its spread to Hawaii and other U.S. territories and
    commonwealths?
        Answer. The control of the brown tree snake is a major
    priority of the Department and we continue to increase the
    resources we devote to this problem. We requested and received
    a $1 million increase in the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and
    we are requesting an additional $1 million increase for fiscal
    year 1999. At a March conference in Hawaii chaired by Assistant
    Secretary John Berry, we clarified our priorities for the brown
    tree snake program. The first priority is to contain the snake
    on Guam and prevent dispersal to other areas. More than $2
    million is dedicated this year to this effort in the form of
    inspecting cargo leaving Guam or arriving on other islands from
    Guam. Our research program also complements these operational
    efforts by improving engineering and development of snake
    barriers, attractants for traps, and toxicants.
        Our second priority is to develop a capability to eradicate
    new incipient populations of snakes when detected so that what
    has happened on Guam is not repeated anywhere else. Our third
    priority is to reduce existing brown tree snake populations
    over large geographic areas on Guam. We see this as a long term
    effort as we search for a toxin or biological control that is
    effective and environmentally acceptable. Reducing snake
    populations over large geographic areas is also a necessary
    step to our other major priority, which is to protect
    endangered species and other wildlife from brown tree snake
    predation. Through efforts coordinated under an interagency and
    intergovernmental memorandum of agreement on brown tree snake
    control, we are also trying to get state and local governments
    and other Federal agencies to commit more resources to this
    effort and become more active in the program.
        Question. What are you doing to raise awareness and
    coordinate actions regarding such pests with our allies and
    international organizations?
        Answer. Last December (1997) we worked with the Department
    of State to have United States diplomatic missions throughout
    the Central and South Pacific contact all host countries,
    including small island developing States, to alert them of the
    environmental crisis on Guam as a result of the infestation by
    the Brown Tree Snake (BTS). We explained our desire to work
    with them in coordinating activities, collecting and sharing
    information, increasing public awareness, and other actions
    aimed at protecting the ecology and biological diversity of the
    region from the threat of BTS and other invasive alien species.
        We followed this up in April by proposing that a U.S.
    delegation headed by the Department of the Interior travel to
    (Western) Samoa to meet with the South Pacific Regional
    Environment Program (SPREP), and to New Caledonia to meet with
    the South Pacific Community (SPC), to inform each of these
    organizations of our desire to work more proactively with them
    to heighten international awareness and to promote cooperation
    in meeting the threat posed to fragile island environments in
    the region by invasive alien species.
        We are also working with other agencies and non-government
    organizations (NGOs) to help bring more international focus to
    this issue. In addition, the draft Executive Order that we are
    presently coordinating with other agencies in response to Vice
    President Gore's initiative on invasive alien species will
    address our desire to pursue international cooperation on a
    global basis.
        Congress included the Brown Tree Snake among the species
    covered in the ``Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
    Control Act of 1990.'' An interagency Brown Tree Snake Control
    Committee was formed in 1993; and in 1996 the Brown Tree Snake
    Control Plan was issued by the Department.
        Question. Is this plan still current? What is the current
    estimated budget requirement for the Plan's implementation?
        Answer. The framework of the approved Brown Tree Snake
    Control Plan remains appropriate and useful, but specific
    actions and tasks need to be updated and refined, additional
    actions added, and cost estimates revised. Substantial
    additional research and studies suggesting new avenues for
    addressing this problem and refinements of previously
    identified approaches has been completed since the plan was
    formulated. In addition, experience implementing the existing
    plan has resulted in refinements of on-going activities and
    tasks and provides an improved basis for estimating their
    costs.
        The Department and other State and Federal agencies
    continue to use the Brown Tree Snake Control Plan as the guide
    for control and research activities. The plan outlines total
    funding needs for five years. Through fiscal year 1999, those
    needs are as follows:

                      BROWN TREE SNAKE CONTROL PLAN FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year      Millions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Year:
        1...................................            1997           $4.48
        2...................................            1998            4.70
        3...................................            1999            4.50
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If funding requested is appropriated, the current plan is
    likely to be fully funded in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. Last year, Vice President Gore called on the
    Administration to mount efforts to address the threat posed by
    the inadvertent spread of non-indigenous pest species. Could
    you provide the Committee with a status report on this
    initiative?
        Answer. On June 17, 1997, Vice President Gore directed
    preparation of the Administration's strategy to combat
    introduction and spread of plants and animals that are not
    native to ecosystems in the United States and which are now
    causing or could potentially cause great economic and
    ecological harm to our nation. The Vice President asked the
    Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce to
    prepare the strategy in consultation with the Council on
    Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology
    Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
        A draft Administration action plan (``Draft Action Plan'')
    has been prepared which responds to the Vice President's
    request and recommends steps to address all invasive alien
    species (``IAS''). The Draft Action Plan is the work product of
    the Administration's ad hoc Invasive Alien Species Task Force
    (``Task Force''). The Task Force members represent the federal
    agencies above and other federal agencies with interests in
    invasive alien species. Most of the participants are already
    involved in one of two standing federal committees addressing
    invasive alien species: the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task
    Force and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management
    of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW).
        The Draft Action Plan briefly describes the problems caused
    by IAS and reviews needs, shortcomings, and key issues. It then
    sets forth goals, objectives, and principles for actions to be
    taken. Next are eight recommendations addressing management and
    policy, followed by a list of recommendations organized by
    types of actions needed to address IAS. These are (1) listings,
    (2) preventing entry, (3) detection, (4) rapid assessment and
    eradication, (5) control, restoration, and monitoring, (6)
    cross-cutting research and technology, (7) national information
    needs, (8) partnerships, education and outreach, (9)
    international cooperation, and (10) fund raising and financial
    responsibility. A draft summary of legal authorities follows at
    the end of the document.
        The Draft Action Plan has been prepared by the Task Force
    with anticipation of public dissemination and comment through a
    national council called for in Recommendation 1.
        To accelerate action and increase awareness, the Task Force
    is recommending that an executive order on the topic be issued
    in the next few months. We expect that the executive order will
    establish a national council on invasive alien species and will
    mandate several tasks, including preparation and annual
    revision of an interagency management plan. The plan will
    specify actions and resources needed for implementation and is
    to be submitted to OMB for consideration in the budget process.
    The order is expected to set specific due dates for completion
    of the management plan and for review of authorities and
    recommendations to agencies on priority actions to be taken
    within existing authority. The council will produce an annual
    report and advise Congress of gaps in authority which may
    hinder accomplishment of the management plan goals and
    objectives.

       fws veto power over states in issuance of point source discharge
                                    permits

        In July, 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA
    released a draft Memorandum of Understanding which would
    require all states with delegated National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs to enter formal
    Section 7 consultations with FWS prior to issuing any NPDES
    permits. As a result, the fear is that FWS is gaining a veto
    power over the issuance of point source discharge permits in
    every state.
        Question. Is that what the FWS intends to do? Under what
    authority?
        Answer. The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), was based
    on interagency negotiations between the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS), and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Negotiations
    were conducted over six months and the draft was sent to the
    regional offices of FWS, NMFS, and EPA for internal review. A
    number of misconceptions about the document, which is still
    under negotiation, have since emerged. There was never any
    intention on the part of FWS and NMFS to establish any ``veto
    power'' over state-issued NPDES permits. The draft MOA is
    strictly a coordination mechanism between federal agencies and
    does not impose any obligations or requirements on states,
    tribes, or permit holders.
        The role of FWS and NMFS is to comment on state-issued
    draft permits under existing Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations
    as part of the federal review necessary to avoid substantial
    impairment of fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources,
    including threatened and endangered species, under 40 CFR
    124.59 (b). EPA may object to a permit under existing CWA
    authority if a permit does not support the objective of the CWA
    to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
    integrity of the Nation's waters, including the goal of
    providing water quality which provides for the protection and
    propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
        Where a federal action occurs, such as the EPA approval of
    a state's assumption of NPDES permitting authority, EPA
    approval of new or revised water quality standards, or EPA's
    issuance of NPDES permits where state assumption has not
    occurred, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
    consultation with the FWS and NMFS if listed species may be
    affected by the action. The ESA further prohibits all federal
    agencies from taking any action that will likely jeopardize the
    continued existence of a listed species. EPA has consulted
    numerous times with the FWS and NMFS on this basis in relation
    to CWA programs.
        Separate consultations on state-issued NPDES permits is not
    the goal or the purpose of negotiations on the MOA. Where
    endangered species impacts are identified, the FWS and NMFS
    will work with the state and EPA to lessen such impacts. If the
    FWS and NMFS determine that a NPDES permit is likely to
    jeopardize a listed species and EPA agrees, EPA may use its
    existing authority under the CWA to review the permit and
    federalize it.
        Question. What is the status of the MOU between FWS and
    EPA?
        Answer. The draft MOA (July 1997) is still being
    negotiated. At the present time, the federal agencies are
    focusing on coordination procedures for EPA approval of state
    assumed Section 402 (NPDES) and Section 303 (Water Quality
    Standards) of the Clean Water Act, the review and comment on
    draft permits under existing CWA regulations, and a joint
    research initiative to better evaluate risks to endangered
    species posed by activities authorized by water quality
    programs. The EPA, FWS, and NMFS hope to conclude the
    negotiations on these sections of the CWA soon and then in
    turn, the coordination procedures for EPA approval of State
    assumed Section 404 (Wetland Dredge and Fill program) and
    Section 405 (Sewage Sludge program).
        Question. What sort of public participation or outreach
    does the Department/FWS intend to use to educate state or other
    impacted stakeholders?
        Answer. The EPA, FWS, and NMFS are considering the
    possibility of publishing a joint Notice of Availability and
    perhaps a revised MOA in the Federal Register to facilitate
    public review and comment on the agreement. We understand that
    EPA has coordinated extensively with state and tribal CWA
    program partners to fully explain the agreement and to clarify
    the implications (which the federal agencies believe are
    minimal) for state assumed NPDES programs.
        Question. Isn't this contrary to Congress' intent to
    delegate permitting authority to the States?
        Answer. The states unquestionably have the authority to
    issue Clean Water Act program permits once EPA has approved
    their application to assume the program. The FWS and NMFS
    provide input to EPA in two circumstances:
        (1) under existing CWA regulations, by reviewing and
    providing comments on state-issued draft NPDES permits as part
    of the federal review envisioned as necessary to avoid
    substantial impairment of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
    resources, and
        (2) under existing ESA regulations, when EPA undertakes a
    federal action, such as approval to permit program assumption
    by a state or tribe, approval of new or revised state water
    quality standards, or EPA's issuance of NPDES permits where
    state assumption has not occurred.
        Both statutes complement each other and are intended to
    assure that sensitive wildlife resources, including biological
    communities in the aquatic environment, are adequately
    addressed. The draft MOA does not add any new requirements
    beyond what is already present in existing CWA and ESA
    regulations and it will provide for consistency in federal
    interagency coordination under ESA and CWA programs. Finally,
    the MOA should provide for more effective protection of listed
    species during the review and comment process under CWA
    permitting programs, as well as for EPA approval of State Water
    Quality Standards.

                                   Fisheries

                           fisheries program--general

        Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
    1998 for Refuge operations has been used specifically to
    improve fishery resources, fishery management, and fishing
    access on refuges? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. The Refuge Operations budget was increased $19.75
    million in fiscal year 1998 over the President's Budget request
    to complete specific projects. Of that amount projects with a
    combined value of $2.25 million are oriented predominately to
    fishery benefits. In addition, because the majority of the
    remaining $17.75 million in projects combine a mix of visitor
    improvements, comprehensive planning, enhanced biological
    surveys, wetland management, habitat restoration, or facility
    improvements, they have multiple benefits that include
    fisheries and aquatic resources. It is conservatively estimated
    that a minimum of 10 percent of the value of these projects
    contribute directly to fisheries conservation and enjoyment.
        Combining these two elements ($2.25 million predominantly
    fisheries projects plus 10 percent of $17.75 million in
    remaining projects) results in a total of $4 million or 20
    percent of the value of the projects accruing to fisheries
    benefits. It is expected that approximately this same
    proportion will continue in fiscal year 1999. Projects
    currently underway include initiating instream and riparian
    habitat improvements for Columbia River Basin salmonids,
    improving water management in the Klamath Basin and Central
    Valley of California, assisting in the recovery of endangered
    Colorado River fishes, conducting fisheries studies at several
    Alaska refuges, and expanding the number of access sites and
    facilities to increase angling opportunities in all Regions.
        An aquatic resources challenge cost share component is
    funded at $600,000 to provide access and facilities for
    increased recreational fishing and improvements to aquatic
    habitats on refuges through expanded partnerships (50 percent
    cost share) with cooperating non-Federal agencies and
    organizations.
        Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
    1998 for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used
    specifically to support involvement of the Fisheries Program in
    these activities? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. None of the increase received in fiscal year 1998
    for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used to support
    the Fisheries program. None of the increases requested in
    fiscal year 1999 for listing and recovery will support the
    Fisheries program.
        The FWS was appropriated an increase of $190,000 in fiscal
    year 1998 for the listing program, an increase of 4 percent.
    This increase has been critical to help the FWS dig out of the
    backlog created by litigation resulting from the fiscal year
    1995-1996 listing moratorium and reduction of listing funding.
    Listing is the mechanism through which plant and animal species
    are afforded the full range of protections available under the
    Endangered Species Act including: prohibitions on taking,
    import/export and commerce, and possession of unlawfully taken
    endangered species; recovery planning and implementation; and
    Federal agency consultation requirements.
        During fiscal year 1998, the listing appropriation of $5.2
    million will be used to: propose approximately 70 species for
    listing; add 100 species to the list; and process approximately
    25 petition findings. The FWS will also reduce its outstanding
    obligation under the settlement agreement in Fund for Animals
    vs. Babbitt by resolving the conservation status of many high
    priority candidate species through the issuance of proposed
    listings or findings that proposed listing is not warranted.
        The Department has requested a general increase of $1.7
    million for the listing program in fiscal year 1999. None of
    this funding will support the Fisheries program. The FWS
    requires this increase in fiscal year 1999 to return to a more
    balanced listing program and to complete overdue listing
    actions that are prompting lawsuits, many the continuing result
    of the listing moratorium and elimination of funding. During
    1999, the FWS expects to add approximately 100 species to the
    lists of endangered and threatened species, issue proposed
    findings for approximately 100 species, and process petition
    findings for 30 species. The Department has also requested an
    increase of $0.4 million for the listing program to support the
    Southwest Ecosystem Initiative; this is one component of a
    package totaling $3.0 million which includes an increase of
    $0.7 million for the Fisheries program.
        The FWS was appropriated an increase of $2.8 million for
    the recovery program for fiscal year 1998, or 7 percent. The
    ultimate goal of threatened and endangered species conservation
    is to recover listed species to levels where protection under
    the Endangered Species Act is no longer required and they can
    be removed from the list. During fiscal year 1998, the recovery
    appropriation of $42.5 million will be used to develop some 25
    Safe Harbor Agreements, complete draft and final recovery plans
    for at least 50 species, and evaluate and propose for delisting
    some 29 species.
        The Department has requested a program increase of $10.5
    million for the recovery program in fiscal year 1999. None of
    this funding will be used to support the Fisheries program. The
    FWS requires this increase in fiscal year 1999 to more
    efficiently and effectively implement the Endangered Species
    Act reforms to increase stakeholder involvement in both
    recovery planning and implementation and by increasing recovery
    actions by involving more private land owners through the Safe
    Harbor program. In addition, the Department has also requested
    an increase of $0.7 million for the Southwest Ecosystem
    Initiative discussed above and an increase of $1.0 million for
    a Platte River Recovery Implementation Program; both of these
    increases are included in the recovery program.
        The FWS Fisheries program supports the recovery of nearly
    one third of 108 fish species listed under the ESA. Program
    activities include stock assessment/identification, habitat
    restoration, captive propagation, and refugia for at least 32
    aquatic species listed under the ESA. These activities are
    specified in approved recovery plans. Fisheries biologists also
    serve as members of Recovery Teams for listed fish species.
    This will continue in 1999.
        The Department has requested increases for the Fisheries
    program in fiscal year 1999 that directly support the recovery
    of listed species. For example, an increase of $0.5 million
    will support on-the-ground projects that restore and enhance
    native trout habitats on Federal, state, and private lands
    nationwide. Many of the target species are listed or under
    consideration for listing. An increase of $0.7 million will
    support the Southwest Ecosystem Initiative to reestablish
    native vegetation, restore pool habitats, improve water quality
    and quantity to support endangered fish species such as the
    loach minnow, spidedace and Gila topminnow; the threatened
    Apache Trout, endangered Gila trout and at-risk Rio Grande
    cutthroat trout. An increase of $0.9 million will fund on-the-
    ground fish passage in high migratory corridors for proposed
    and listed species including the Atlantic Salmon and Pacific
    Northwest anadromous species; this increase is tied to a
    parallel increase in the project planning function for
    additional FERC relicensing evaluations to support fish passage
    solutions. The Department also notes that a modest amount of
    base Endangered Species program funding ($10,000 to $20,000) is
    made available to support specific fisheries projects.

                              hatchery operations

        Question. How much of the increase received in fiscal year
    1998 for recovering species listed under the ESA was allocated
    to the National Fish Hatchery System to expand and improve
    production of listed species? How much of this funding will the
    System receive in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The National Fish Hatchery system has not received
    any portion of the fiscal year 1998 increase for recovery under
    the ESA and there are no plans to transfer recovery funding to
    the fisheries program in fiscal year 1999. As discussed above,
    the funding appropriated to the recovery program is used for
    very specific purposes and is critically needed to recover
    listed species to levels where protection under the Endangered
    Species Act is no longer required and they can be removed from
    the list.
        However, the National Fish Hatchery System is working with
    30 species listed under the ESA, representing over one quarter
    of listed North American Fish species. There are currently 75
    approved recovery plans, many of which specify developing
    captive propagation and refugia technology at fish hatcheries.
    There are 20 FWS hatcheries involved in these efforts, along
    with the FWS's Fish Technology and Fish Health Centers, which
    provide technology support to the hatcheries. Currently, 19 of
    the listed species held within the Hatchery System are being
    propagated for release into the wild. The fiscal year 1999
    President's Budget requests an increase of $0.5 million, or 7
    percent, to implement projects to reduce the backlog of
    critical health and safety projects. In addition, the
    President's Budget requests full pay and uncontrollable cost
    increases for the hatchery program.
        Question. How will the FWS's hatcheries, as well as State
    and Tribal hatcheries, be affected by the proposal of the
    Biological Resources Division of the Geological Survey to
    terminate its drug and chemical registration research?
        Answer. Of the twelve drugs and chemicals that have been
    identified as essential to FWS Fisheries operations, only three
    are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use
    in aquaculture. BRD is performing the research, in cooperation
    with states, necessary for approval of several of the drugs
    that have been identified as essential to FWS Fisheries
    programs. As part of this research effort, the FWS is using
    these drugs under FDA authorized Investigational New Animal
    Drug (INAD) exemptions to provide field efficacy data on use of
    these non-approved drugs. This data is being provided as part
    of the BRD drug approval research package.
        Curtailment of research could decrease chances of interim
    use of essential unapproved drugs during the annual process.
        If the Biological Resources Division (BRD) terminates its
    aquaculture drug and chemical approval research, it may be
    difficult for FWS to obtain approval for drugs necessary for
    fish production programs, including its endangered and
    threatened fish production and refugia programs. Fish
    production at most National Fish Hatcheries could be reduced,
    including production at hatcheries involved in the restoration
    of nationally significant fishes such as Atlantic and Pacific
    salmon, striped bass, sturgeon species, and endangered and
    threatened fish species. State, Tribal, and private producers
    will be similarly affected.
        Question. We understand the Fisheries Program is developing
    a Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS) similar to the RONS
    used by Refuges. How will the Fisheries Program use this
    information and, assuming there is a compelling need to create
    this System, why hasn't the FWS requested additional operating
    funds for its hatcheries in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The FWS has documented the operating needs of the
    National Wildlife Refuge system through the Refuge Operating
    Needs system. The FWS has begun to use a similar tool called
    the Fisheries Operational Needs System as a systematic method
    for collecting data on unmet federal fishery resource needs.
    The FWS plans to begin using the FONS to collect data on unmet
    fishery resource needs by midsummer 1998.
        Once the FONS is in place and unmet needs are identified
    and prioritized, the FWS will use the FONS-generated data to
    identify and support additional funding needs and requests for
    internal budget formulation priority setting and for possible
    documentation of fisheries increases if the FWS leadership
    includes fisheries increases in future budget requests to the
    Department. These operational needs would then be evaluated
    against all the other priorities and all the other unmet needs
    in the FWS, including the endangered species program, when the
    Department formulates future budgets. This same evaluation will
    then be conducted by the Office of Management and Budget.
        The Department did not request additional operating funding
    for the National Fish Hatchery system in 1998 for several
    reasons, primarily:
        The Department placed a higher priority on the need to more
    efficiently and effectively implement the Endangered Species
    Act and on the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge system.
        In regards to fisheries restoration, the Department placed
    a higher priority on on-the-ground habitat restoration
    activities. The fisheries specific restoration increases
    included in the FWS budget are for native trout restoration,
    fish passage, FERC relicensing, etc. Other FWS increases for
    fiscal year 1999 directly support the restoration of fisheries
    resources, notably the FWS component of the Administration's
    ``Clean Water and Watershed Restoration'' initiative. This
    includes a $2.5 million increase for riparian habitat
    restoration projects in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program and an increase of $3.0 million in the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Fund.
        Question. The National Wildlife Refuge System received
    substantial increases for its operational needs in fiscal year
    1998. How is the National Fish Hatchery System addressing these
    same kinds of needs in the absence of any substantial increases
    in appropriations?
        Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge system received
    substantial increases for its operational needs in fiscal year
    1998 because there was a national consensus that the refuge
    system was broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration
    and the Congress recognized this by working together to pass
    the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and
    to secure additional operations and maintenance funding.
        The National Fish Hatchery system has not received major
    funding increases in recent years (nor, for that matter, have
    the majority of the programs in the FWS or the Department).
    Given ongoing budgetary pressures, the hatchery system worked
    during fiscal year 1996 and 1997 to align fish production with
    Federal priorities and transferred to the respective states six
    National Fish Hatcheries that primarily produced fish in
    support of state programs. By the end of 1998, the production
    of the remaining 65 NFHs will be aligned with Federal
    responsibilities. Savings realized by the transfer of these
    hatcheries totaling $1.1 million were left in the hatchery
    program to provide some operational relief.
        The savings from hatchery transfers has been reinvested
    into the fisheries program in an effort to restore the FWS's
    ability to meet high priority Federal responsibilities. Had the
    FWS not done this, the Fisheries Program would have continued
    to fall substantially short of fulfilling its core
    responsibilities.
        The Department has requested full funding for pay and other
    uncontrollable costs for the hatchery system for both 1998 and
    1999; this funding was appropriated in 1998 and is pending for
    1999.
        The National Fish Hatchery system is currently addressing
    its operational needs by ensuring that its various warm, cool,
    and cold-water Hatcheries, Fish Health Centers, and Fish
    Technology Centers are fully integrated and are aligned with
    Federal responsibilities and priorities. This is now being
    accomplished by a Three A's survey (alignment, appropriate,
    adequate) of its 80 facilities.
        The Fisheries program is also nearing completion of its
    Fisheries Operating Needs System to identify the most critical
    operational needs for Fisheries facilities, with quantified
    benefits identified at the outset. Data entry is planned to
    begin this summer. This tool will help in future priority
    setting within the FWS and the Department.
        Question. How many positions are vacant in the National
    Fish Hatchery System because of insufficient funding? Identify
    them by job series and location, and explain how those
    vacancies have affected the operation and performance of the
    System?
        Answer. There are no vacancies in the hatchery system
    because of insufficient funding. Vacancies that do exist are
    because of the priority placed on the needs of the Endangered
    Species program, the National Wildlife Refuge system, and on-
    the-ground fisheries restoration projects. The hatchery system
    is able to meet its highest priority mission needs with the
    funding included in the President's budget.

                              fish health program

        Question. Provide a detailed accounting of how the FWS is
    spending the $1.8 million it received for whirling disease in
    fiscal year 1998, and identify specific progress made in
    combating this disease.
        Answer. The funds received for fish health in fiscal year
    1998 are being spent as follows:
      --$300,000 to the USGS Biological Research Division and the
            University of California-Davis to improve detection techniques
            and conduct strain susceptibility studies;
      --$100,000 to support cooperative studies at the FWS Bozeman
            Fisheries Technology Center focusing on whirling disease
            control;
      --$700,000 to support the activities of the National Partnership for
            the Management of Wild and Native Cold Water Fishes housed at
            Montana State University;
      --$600,000 to support the National Wild Fish Health Survey operated
            by the FWS nationwide; and
      --$100,000 to support the compilation and maintenance of an Internet
            accessible National Fish Health Database.
        While the effects of whirling disease are both significant
    and widespread, multi-agency resources are being rallied to
    eradicate and control it. The scientific community and fishery
    resource agencies have made impressive strides in their efforts
    to combat whirling disease, but lack the means to easily
    control the disease. For example, with the $300,000 allotment,
    the Biological Resources Division and its partners developed a
    new, more precise detection technique to assist in identifying
    the distribution of the disease. The method is also used as a
    research tool. A significant portion of the $1.8 million
    allocation is devoted specifically to whirling disease projects
    with another portion addressing the larger issues of pathogens
    and parasites in wild populations.
        The National Wild Fish Health Survey was initiated in
    response to our lack of information about diseases and
    pathogens in wild fish. This was glaringly apparent in the
    whirling disease crisis seen in the intermountain west. The
    National Wild Fish Health Survey, while begun only last year,
    has proven remarkably successful. State and Tribal fishery
    management agencies have applauded the FWS's leadership in
    stepping forward and establishing the Survey as a critical link
    necessary for effective management of wild stocks. Last year,
    over 5,000 fish were sampled from over 190 sites on Federal,
    State, Tribal, and private lands across the country. This was
    accomplished by forming collaborative partnerships with more
    than 72 different groups, through which States, Tribes, and
    private groups participated in determining sampling sites and
    providing resources for fish collections. The FWS has requested
    an increase of $200,000, or 33 percent, for this survey for
    fiscal year 1999.
        Question. Why hasn't the FWS requested additional funding
    so its fish health capabilities can be brought to bear on the
    Pfiesteria problems in Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina?
        Answer. The lead for Pfiesteria activities in DOI resides
    with the Biological Resources Division of the United States
    Geological Survey.
        The FWS has been and will be contributing significantly to
    the management of this particular fish health problem by
    supporting other DOI and state Pfiesteria activities. For
    example, the devastating whirling disease crisis of the
    intermountain west prompted the FWS to initiate a National Wild
    Fish Health Survey in 1997. The Survey has the potential to
    help fishery management agencies understand and control a
    number of diseases afflicting wild fish stocks, including
    Pfiesteria. The FWS has requested an increase of $200,000 for
    the Wild Fish Health Survey in 1999.
        Question. The FWS budget request suggests the FWS is not
    interested in providing the same kind of aggressive leadership
    in combating Pfiesteria as it has in addressing whirling
    disease. Why?
        Answer. The Department is actively involved in the overall
    effort. Because of the nature of the disease (its affect on
    humans as well as wildlife, and ties to agricultural practices)
    the Pfiesteria effort is managed collectively by several
    federal agencies. The DOI lead rests with our science agency,
    the United States Geological Survey. The FWS is an active DOI
    cooperator and had had critical input into DOI plans and budget
    initiatives.

                            fish technology program

        Question. Why does the FWS need three Fish Technology
    Centers in the Southwest United States? What actions would be
    required to place the former San Marcos National Fish Hatchery
    and Technology Center in caretaker status as a unit of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System?
        Answer. The FWS presently has two Fish Technology Centers
    in Region 2, the Southwest Region, which consists of the States
    of Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. San Marcos is a
    warm-water Fish Technology Center located in central Texas. The
    Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center has two units in New
    Mexico: Dexter, a cool-water facility in southern New Mexico
    and Mora, a cold-water unit in northern New Mexico.
        The Southwestern Region encompasses a diverse and broad,
    expansive area that contains at least eight dynamic ecosystems.
    Aquatic habitats range from warm to cool and cold-water.
    Terrestrial habitats range from arid deserts to moist Rocky
    Mountains, with many stages in between. Additionally, many of
    the ecosystems in the Southwest are extremely altered by
    perturbations ranging from construction of dams on the Colorado
    River to agriculture and urbanization in Texas and Oklahoma.
    Also, the Southwest Region has a very large number of
    threatened and endangered species and the FWS recognized early
    on that progressive recovery efforts and water conservation
    development would require additional facilities.
        In the early 1990's the FWS had only San Marcos FTC and
    Dexter FTC. Realizing the need for water conservation and
    related technology development, the FWS developed a plan to
    construct Mora FTC, which has been fully funded and almost
    completed. The Dexter, San Marcos, and Mora Units were planned
    to be combined under one administrative unit, the Southwestern
    Fisheries Technology Center. At about the same time, the
    Biological Resources Division assumed operational
    responsibility for the San Marcos facility. The Dexter and Mora
    FTCs were combined into the Southwestern Fisheries Technology
    Center. The FWS and the Biological Resources Division have
    subsequently entered into an agreement whereby the FWS will
    resume the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
    the San Marcos FTC facility.
        Placing San Marcos into caretaker status as a unit of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System would diminish the abilities of
    the FWS to use the facility for resource conservation,
    restoration, and recovery. Historically, San Marcos has made an
    important contribution to the FWS Fish Technology Development
    program. In addition, San Marcos has a court ordered mandate of
    being a refugium for endangered species of central Texas and
    conducting technology development studies.

                              hatchery maintenance

        Question. Is the maintenance situation on National Fish
    Hatcheries, in general, more urgent than that on National
    Wildlife Refuges? Compare the capitalized values of both
    systems to their maintenance backlogs and maintenance
    appropriations.
        Answer. By several standards, most National Fish Hatchery
    and National Wildlife Refuge facilities (as well as National
    Park units and facilities managed by the BLM) are in need of
    additional funds for their maintenance needs. While industry
    standards call for funding maintenance at 2 percent to 4
    percent of the replacement value of facilities, over the last
    decade Hatcheries and Refuges have received only about 1
    percent of the replacement value of their facilities for their
    maintenance needs. As a result, the lists of deferred
    maintenance projects in both Hatcheries and Refuges have grown
    substantially.
        Using a Facility Condition Index (FCI), which is the cost
    of deferred maintenance projects as a fraction of the total
    capitalized value of a facility, the average facility in both
    the Hatchery and the Refuge system must be characterized as
    being in poor condition. Facilities are judged to be in good
    condition if their FCI is 0 to 5 percent, in fair condition at
    5 to 10 percent, and in poor condition if over 10 percent With
    a fiscal year 1998 backlog of $599 million and a capitalized
    value of approximately $4.5 billion, the National Wildlife
    Refuge System has an aggregate FCI of about 13 percent. The
    National Fish Hatchery System, with a re-estimated $151 million
    backlog and a capitalized value of approximately $800 million,
    has an aggregate FCI of about 19 percent. Given this overall
    situation, the Department has proposed a 5-year plan to
    systematically address the maintenance backlogs in the three
    land management agencies. This includes the FWS refuge and
    hatchery systems, and is discussed in detail below.
        Question. The National Wildlife Refuge System received
    substantial increases for maintenance in fiscal year 1998 to
    attend to unmet needs. How is the National Fish Hatchery System
    addressing those same kinds of needs in the absence of
    substantial increases in appropriations?
        Answer. The National Fish Hatchery System is currently
    provided $6.9 million annually for maintenance needs. The
    Department has requested an increase of $0.5 million, or about
    7 percent, for the highest priority critical health and safety
    and natural resource maintenance backlog needs in the fiscal
    year 1999 budget. The Department will evaluate the needs of the
    hatchery system against other priorities during the fiscal year
    2000 budget formulation process.
        Question. Why is the Fish and Wildlife Service spending so
    much more on maintaining its refuges than its hatcheries at a
    time when the FWS's own data indicate that its hatcheries are
    in far worse shape physically than its refuges? Aren't the
    operating needs of refuges also getting much more attention
    than those of hatcheries? Why?
        Answer. The maintenance funding levels for both the
    National Fish Hatchery System and the National Wildlife Refuge
    System are both under 1 percent of the capitalized value of the
    facilities in each System. The FWS is cooperating with the
    Department in the development of standardized definitions and
    consistent criteria for tracking and evaluating the maintenance
    needs of all its facilities. The FWS is confident that these
    efforts will help identify critical FWS maintenance needs.
        Regarding the operating needs of Refuges and Hatcheries,
    both Systems are struggling to use their finite financial
    resources effectively in managing natural resources under their
    stewardship.
        The operating needs of the refuge system have been treated
    as a higher priority by the Administration and by the Congress
    because there was a national consensus that the refuge system
    was broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration and the
    Congress recognized this by working together to pass the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and to
    secure additional operations and maintenance funding. This
    priority is also reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's
    budget request.
        Question. We understand that the most recent estimate of
    the hatchery maintenance backlog is $151 million, and that
    hatcheries as a whole are in far worse shape physically than
    refuges. Why then is the Fish and Wildlife Service claiming
    that the hatchery maintenance backlog is only $115 million, and
    more important, why isn't the FWS requesting increases for
    critical hatchery maintenance rather than refuge maintenance
    that isn't in as bad shape?
        Answer. As discussed previously, the National Wildlife
    Refuge system received substantial increases for its
    operational and maintenance needs in fiscal year 1998 because
    there was a national consensus that the refuge system was
    broken and needed fixing. Both the Administration and the
    Congress recognized this by working together to pass the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and to
    secure additional operations and maintenance funding. This
    priority is also reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's
    budget request.
        Both the refuge system and the hatchery system--as well as
    the Park system and the public lands--face maintenance backlogs
    beyond current funding levels. However, the Department is not
    engaged in a ``dueling'' match among the various backlog needs.
    As in any budget, priorities are set within the Administration.
    For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the Department has
    considered the needs of the refuge system as a priority.
        For fisheries programs, the Department has focused on
    habitat restoration and on-the-ground activities as a priority,
    which are not funded through the hatchery system.
        The President's Budget was submitted to the Congress in
    February 1998, and at that point in time the estimated hatchery
    backlog was $115 million. In the months following the release
    of the President's Budget, and as part of the follow-on effort
    to formulate the fiscal year 2000 budget and five-year plan
    Departmentwide, the hatchery system has estimated a new backlog
    inventory of $151 million. The other programs in the Department
    have also reestimated their identified backlogs during this
    time frame.
        The President's Budget includes $7.4 million for hatchery
    maintenance, an increase of $500,000 over the fiscal year 1998
    enacted level.
        Question. We understand that refuges received $10 million
    in additional maintenance appropriations under Title V in
    fiscal year 1998, while hatcheries received no additional
    maintenance funding. Given that the current hatchery
    maintenance backlog exceeds $150 million and involves more than
    1,700 projects, why didn't hatcheries receive some of the $10
    million available under Title V?
        Answer. Faced with burgeoning backlogs in all three land
    management agencies, the Department prioritized bureau critical
    health and safety projects as priorities for the fiscal year
    1999 budget and the use of the fiscal year 1998 Title V
    Funding. The Department's limited construction, maintenance and
    Title V funding was targeted to this inventory. This
    combination of 1999 construction and maintenance funding and
    1998 Title V funding will eliminate 98 percent of the inventory
    of FWS critical health and safety projects.
        The Department decided to focus on critical health and
    safety projects first to ensure safe visits for the visitors to
    the national parks, refuges, fish hatcheries, and public lands,
    and to make sure that the 45,000 Department employees who daily
    work at BLM, FWS, and NPS facilities have safe working
    environments.
        For the hatchery program, the $7.4 million requested for
    hatchery maintenance will fund all critical health and safety
    maintenance projects and the first increment of natural
    resource projects. The $7.7 million requested for hatchery
    rehabilitation and construction will fund the three critical
    health and safety projects that require construction funding as
    well as natural resource projects. Combined, these requests
    address the critical health and safety projects at hatchery
    facilities that had been identified in the most recent listing
    of MMS projects.
        For the refuge system, the $46.6 million requested for
    refuge maintenance will fund all critical health and safety
    maintenance projects as well as the first increment of natural
    resource projects. The $10 million in Title V funding and the
    $12.5 million for refuge construction projects will fund all
    but two construction projects identified in the backlog of
    critical health and safety projects.
        The Department plans to aggressively address the remaining
    backlogs in the FWS and the rest of the Department through a
    five-year plan which will be first addressed in the fiscal year
    2000 budget. The three land management bureaus are currently
    working closely with the Department on this process.
        Question. President Clinton's Executive Order on
    Recreational Fisheries challenges all Federal agencies to do
    more to conserve and restore fishery habitat and promote
    recreational fisheries. How can the Fish and Wildlife Service
    meet this challenge when its Fisheries Program continues to
    have a much smaller budget than the Refuges and Ecological
    Services Programs, whose budgets have increased dramatically in
    recent years?
        Answer. Every year the Department has to prioritize its
    limited funding to meet national level policy goals. For the
    FWS, these priorities have been, and will more than likely
    continue to be, centered on the effective and efficient
    implementation of the Endangered Species Act. That said, over
    the last five years, the Department has implemented three large
    scale watershed restoration efforts using new methods,
    partnerships, and renewed public participation which directly
    restore fisheries habitat and promote recreational fisheries.
        The 1999 budget continues implementation of the California-
    Bay Delta Ecosystem Restoration program--which directly
    benefits anadromous fisheries resources--with a request of
    $143.3 million, an increase of $58.3 million over the 1998
    enacted level. Central to this effort is significant funding
    for fish screen improvements ($19 million); improved instream
    flows ($20 million); and fish passage improvements ($3 million)
    and fisheries hatchery support $3 million); as well as
    significant funding of river channel changes ($58 million) and
    habitat restoration ($27 million).
        The Everglades watershed restoration effort continues in
    1999 with a request of $144 million to reverse manmade changes
    to waterflows which have had deleterious effects on native
    flora and fauna and fisheries resources. And, the Department
    continues to support the President's Forest Plan with a request
    of $68 million to allow for sustainable timber production on
    Federal lands while fully protecting and restoring critical
    wildlife and fisheries resources. In fact, much of the focus on
    the Forest Plan has shifted to aquatic conservation efforts for
    anadromous fisheries, and the BLM Jobs in the Woods program is
    being directed at coastal coho habitat projects.
        Within the FWS budget, the fisheries program has a smaller
    budget than the Refuges and Ecological programs because it is
    less costly to conduct. The National Wildlife Refuge system
    manages over 93 million acres on 514 refuges, 38 wetland
    management districts, and 50 coordination areas; as discussed
    previously, recreational programs on the refuge system have
    been targeted for increased funding. The Fisheries program, by
    contrast, manages a system of 65 National Fish Hatcheries, 64
    Fish and Wildlife Assistance Offices, 9 Fish Health Centers,
    and 6 Fish Technology Centers, with much less land and
    property. Ecological Service requires much higher staffing
    levels, with the correspondingly higher personnel costs,
    particularly in the Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation
    programs.
        Several FWS programs contribute to the Executive Order on
    Recreational Fisheries. Since 1994, the FWS Fisheries program
    has redirected nearly $6 million toward its highest priority
    programs, many of which support recreational fisheries. These
    funds were made available by transferring several National Fish
    Hatcheries to States, recovering mitigation costs from project
    beneficiaries where feasible, completing portions of major
    programs such as restoration of Atlantic coast striped bass,
    and internal management decisions. The funds are being used to
    improve restoration and recovery programs for recreational
    salmon, migratory striped bass other than the Atlantic coast
    population, lake trout, and shad, and mitigation programs using
    inland trout.
        Some of the fiscal year 1998 budget increases that were
    appropriated to the Refuges and Wildlife program and to the
    Ecological FWS program support recreational fisheries.
    Approximately $1 million of the Refuges and Wildlife increase
    and $540,000 in Refuge MMS projects contribute to improving
    recreational fishing on refuges. The increase of $750,000 for
    Ecological Services to improve passage of fish beyond FERC
    licensed dams will increase both the number and range of fish
    available to recreational anglers.
        In 1999, among other increases in the fisheries program, an
    additional $900,000 is requested to improve fish passage in
    high migratory corridors for important recreational species
    including shad and stripped bass; an additional $900,000 will
    support additional FERC relicensing; an additional $500,000
    will support native trout reintroduction efforts; an additional
    $700,000 will support fisheries reintroductions in the
    Southwest; an additional $200,000 will support the Wild Fish
    Health Survey; and an additional $1.0 million will support
    increased aquatic nuisance species control efforts to in part
    protect recreational fisheries values. In addition, the FWS
    will participate in the Administration's Clean Water and
    Watershed Restoration Initiative with an increase of $5.5
    million to restore riparian habitat through the Partners for
    Fish and Wildlife Program and the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund.
        Question. On the basis of the budget increases requested
    for the Refuges and Endangered Species Programs in the Fish and
    Wildlife Service budget for fiscal year 1999, what reason would
    Americans have for believing the FWS is prepared to put ``the
    fish'' back into the Fish and Wildlife Service?
        Answer. The Department would argue that not only has this
    Administration put the ``fish'' back into the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the Administration has revolutionized the stewardship
    of aquatic landscapes: the rivers, lakes and wetlands that link
    and nourish the watersheds we inhabit.
        As discussed above, the Department's first priority was to
    restore the Everglades ecosystem by reconnecting the hydrologic
    arteries by bringing all the Federal agencies together behind a
    common restoration plan. This effort continues today.
        The watershed restoration of California joined together
    state agencies, irrigation districts, farmers,
    environmentalists, and fishermen to negotiate a restoration
    framework--known as the Bay Delta Accord. Coordinating efforts,
    the legislature in Sacramento placed a restoration bond issue--
    almost one billion dollars--on the ballot in 1996. Armed with
    such strong public support, the Department went to the Congress
    which in 1997 provided matching funds. The result was, again, a
    massive restoration program to bring California rivers and
    wetlands back to life by dedicating water to restore and
    maintain stream flows, re-watering wildlife refuges, moving
    levees back so that rivers can flow free across their natural
    floodplain, and screening irrigation canals to protect
    migrating fish.
        In the Pacific Northwest the Department has aggressively
    participated in the President's Forest Plan to replenish trout,
    coho, chinook and sockeye salmon by looking past the water's
    edge to create large connective forested buffers along banks of
    streams and tributaries in 14 million acres. The Department is
    also negotiating large scale multi-species Habitat Conservation
    Plans with nonfederal landowners towards the same purpose.
        In the Sierra, Rockies, and Appalachians the Department is
    replenishing native aquatic species in a quarter of a million
    miles of streams by matching federal funds and land management
    experts with local private and nonprofit projects to restore
    the damaged mountains which bleed into them.
        On western rangelands, the Department is working to bring
    back rare native trout in cooperative range partnerships to
    modify livestock grazing rotations, build riparian fences, and
    replant willows and aspen.
        The Department has also evaluated the systemic costs of
    building more than 75,000 dams in this country in this century
    alone with the concurrent destruction of salmon runs in New
    England and the West and the crashing shad and herring runs of
    the Susquehanna, for example. For these reasons it is
    appropriate to think of dams as having a ledger with both
    benefits and environmental costs. And as part of watershed
    restoration efforts it is always appropriate to ask whether a
    given dam can be operated in a more river friendly mode.
        The Grand Canyon is one place where we have asked that
    question and answered in the affirmative. The Bureau of
    Reclamation opened the gates and sent a huge surge of water, an
    artificial flood, crashing down through the Colorado River. The
    idea behind that was to mimic the natural spring flooding of
    the pre-dam river so as to stir sediment up and rebuild eroded
    beach habitat downstream in the Grand Canyon.
        In 1992 Congress authorized a study of the removal of two
    small 70-year-old dams at the mouth of the Elwha River. These
    dams blocked salmon runs of 300,000 from spawning up 70 miles
    into the heart of Olympic National Park. The Park Service,
    after careful study, has concluded that, forgoing a small
    amount of energy in an area where electric power is now in
    surplus, would be a small price to pay for restoring one of the
    great wild salmon runs.
        And, the Department has moved to engage the hydro-power
    industry in developing fish passage solutions through the FERC
    relicensing process and the implementation of on-the-ground
    fish passage projects.
        The Department has requested increases for all of these
    programs in the fiscal year 1999 budget or held funding
    constant from 1998, and stands by its demonstrated commitment
    to the American public to protect and restore the nation's
    fisheries resources.
        Question. We understand the Fish and Wildlife Service is
    undertaking a critical ``Three A's'' evaluation of its
    hatcheries to more accurately document their operating needs,
    which preliminary estimates place as high as $50 million. Given
    the magnitude of those needs and the questions surrounding
    hatcheries, why hasn't the FWS requested more funds in fiscal
    year 1999 to ensure its hatchery programs are based on the best
    possible science available?
        Answer. The FWS has initiated a ``Three A's'' evaluation
    (alignment, appropriate, adequate) of all production programs
    in the National Fish Hatchery (NFH) System. The evaluation will
    be used in ensuring that production programs conducted by the
    FWS are aligned with one or more of the Fisheries program
    priorities; are appropriate for meeting the desired fishery
    management objective; and are supported by adequate facilities,
    equipment, and personnel.
        The ``Three A's'' evaluation program will assess if each
    production program has been preceded by analyses indicating
    whether it is the appropriate management tool for achieving the
    stated fishery management objective. A key element of the
    assessment will determine whether a program will cause unwanted
    ecological harm. It will also assess if production programs
    have adequate support in planning, implementation, and
    evaluation for the present and the future. By the end of fiscal
    year 1998 production programs at all 65 facilities will be
    aligned with the FWS Fisheries Program Priorities and all
    production programs initially will have been evaluated for
    appropriateness and adequacy.
        The results of the ``Three A's'' evaluation will be
    integrated into the existing Fisheries Information System (FIS)
    during fiscal year 1999 to enhance and complement ongoing
    efforts to ensure that the NFH System fulfills federal fishery
    responsibilities. Completion of the 3A's process in fiscal year
    1999 will provide the FWS with the tools and capabilities to
    identify potential budget needs for the NFH System in a more
    reliable manner.
        Question. What involvement does Fish Hatcheries have in the
    restoration and recovery of imperiled sea-run fish species,
    most notably Atlantic and Pacific salmon and several sturgeon
    species?
        Answer. The National Fish Hatchery system contributes to
    the restoration and recovery of at least 12 imperiled
    anadromous species (3 endangered, 3 threatened, 2 proposed, 4
    state-protected). For some of these species, such as the
    endangered shortnose sturgeon and threatened Gulf sturgeon,
    fish hatcheries and technology centers are developing
    techniques for holding and spawning. These hatchery tools are
    being developed for use in conjunction with habitat restoration
    to recover listed populations. Hatcheries are also producing
    several listed anadromous species for release into the wild, as
    called for in recovery plans, including the Snake River and
    Sacramento River strains of sockeye salmon.
        Restoring imperiled populations of anadromous fish not yet
    listed under the Endangered Species Act is critical to
    precluding further listings and is an important aspect of the
    FWS's Fisheries Program. The FWS works closely with the states,
    tribal governments, and other federal agencies to evaluate and
    restore habitat, and to produce captively propagated fish to
    assist in restoring wild populations and prevent these species
    from being listed. Atlantic salmon restoration in New England
    and chum salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest are
    examples of this effort. Other imperiled species, such as the
    Atlantic sturgeon, have been produced by FWS hatcheries for
    experimental release into the wild in cooperation with the
    States of Maryland and New York.
        Question. What is the FWS doing to recover sturgeon? Is
    there cost sharing with the Endangered Species Program for
    these activities? How much of the increase received in fiscal
    year 1998 for listing and recovery under the ESA has been used
    specifically to support involvement of the Fisheries Program in
    these activities? Will this situation continue in fiscal year
    1999?
        Answer. The Fisheries Program is working on projects to
    benefit sturgeon populations in the Pacific Northwest, the
    Mississippi and Missouri River basins, the Gulf of Mexico, and
    Atlantic coast. There is no need for cost sharing between the
    FWS's Fisheries and Endangered Species Programs for sturgeon
    recovery. The sturgeon programs are funded at an adequate level
    within the Fisheries program appropriations.
        FWS Fishery Resources Offices work with state, tribal, and
    other federal agencies on coordinated recovery actions and
    management plans for the recovery and restoration of 8 of the
    10 North American sturgeon species and sub-species. FWS fishery
    biologists assess fish passage and habitat needs of imperiled
    and listed sturgeon species, monitor population size and
    distribution, and identify stocks and critical spawning and
    feeding habitat.
        The National Fish Hatchery System is working with 3 of the
    5 species of sturgeon listed under the ESA (the pallid, the
    shortnose, and the Gulf sturgeon), developing captive
    propagation and holding techniques as specified in approved
    recovery plans. In fiscal year 1998, the Gavins Point National
    Fish Hatchery in South Dakota will introduce captively-reared
    pallid sturgeon into restored habitat in the Missouri River in
    Montana, representing an important step in the recovery of this
    species. The FWS's Warm Springs Fish Technology Center in
    Georgia has made similar progress in developing captive
    propagation techniques for the shortnose and gulf sturgeon, and
    stands ready, along with the Bears Bluff National Fish Hatchery
    in South Carolina, to produce these species when habitat
    conditions become favorable. Several fish hatcheries are also
    working with four non-listed sturgeon, to help preclude further
    ESA listings. The FWS has also worked with the states of
    Maryland and New York in an experimental program to release
    FWS-produced Atlantic sturgeon, an imperiled species, into the
    wild.
        The FWS is also participating in international efforts to
    protect wild populations of sturgeon. The FWS's Division of Law
    Enforcement monitors shipments of caviar to ensure that they
    are accompanied by valid import and export permits as issued
    under the rules of the Convention on the International Trade of
    Endangered Species (CITES). The type of caviar in the shipment
    must be from the same species listed on the permit. If not, it
    can be seized. The FWS's Forensics Laboratory is also
    participating in this effort, and has developed a method of DNA
    analysis which can be used to identify the species of sturgeon
    which produced the caviar being shipped. The FWS plans to share
    the DNA analysis techniques to other countries to assist them
    in their efforts to recover declining sturgeon populations.
        Question. What is the FWS doing to restore other coastal
    fisheries and which of those actions are unique to the Fish and
    Wildlife Service?
        Answer. The FWS Fishery Program has responsibility for
    management of interjurisdictional migratory species such as
    American shad, herring species, Atlantic salmon, Pacific
    salmon, and striped bass. Legislation such as the Atlantic
    Striped Bass, Anadromous Fish Conservation, Great Lakes Fish
    and Wildlife Restoration, Chehalis River Basin, Water Resources
    Development, and Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
    Management Acts direct the FWS to protect, conserve, and
    enhance coastal fisheries, including habitat. The Fisheries
    program assesses fish populations, evaluates and identifies
    quantity and quality of critical habitats for different life
    stages of our trust species, develops techniques to propagate
    imperiled species, and propagates fish for stock
    supplementation and evaluation of wild fish stocks.
        The FWS plays a variety of roles critical to the
    restoration of fisheries, often working in coordination with
    other fisheries entities and strengthening overall efforts on
    common goals of protecting, enhancing, and restoring our
    nation's fishery resources. Aspects which set the FWS apart
    from other agencies include:
        (1) A fiscal year 1999 proposed fish passage initiative of
    $0.9 million which benefits priority coastal species by opening
    access and improving spawning and nursery habitats for
    anadromous species;
        (2) Mass marking of salmon and other species where data
    obtained from these Cooperative Tagging and Regional Mark
    Center programs is used to determine status of important
    economic fisheries on both the eastern and western coasts;
        (3) Genetic evaluations performed on hatchery fish help
    ensure that wild stock recovery is supported;
        (4) The National Fish Hatchery facilities produce fish for
    recovery of listed stocks and restoration of depleted
    interjurisdictional fisheries;
        (5) Administration of the Lower Snake River Compensation
    Plan and its associated hatcheries;
        (6) The Fisheries and Ecological Services programs provide
    a unique expertise in assessing the impacts of land use
    activities on aquatic health, within the watershed recovery
    framework. For example, the FWS has employees devoted full time
    as river coordinators who often act as catalysts to bring
    multi-user groups together to achieve common goals; and
        (7) FWS employees are instrumental in writing Atlantic
    State Marine Fisheries Commission plans where they provide
    anadromous fisheries leadership regarding management and
    habitat.
        Question. There is a name change in the Partners for Fish
    and Wildlife Program (formerly Partners for Wildlife). Does
    this mean we can expect more fisheries related projects? Will
    this program now include some fisheries oversight?
        Answer. The name change does not change the basic program
    tenets, priorities, or direction, but rather reflects an
    enhanced relationship between the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program in aquatic
    restoration. It is intended to better reflect the program's
    accomplishments in the fisheries and aquatic resources arena
    and to emphasize the FWS watershed/ecosystem approach to
    restoration. Fisheries and aquatic habitat restoration projects
    have been and will continue to be an important part of the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. The FWS intends to
    increase the involvement of the Fisheries Program biologists
    and hydrogeomorphologists to expand instream habitat
    restoration capabilities and efforts. Improved coordination and
    technical information exchange in the field will result in
    additional opportunities and partnerships to restore aquatic
    habitats beneficial to Federal trust fishery resources.

                   executive order on recreational fisheries

        Question. What was the outcome of the fiscal year 1997
    stakeholder meetings?
        Answer. At the Stakeholder Meetings held across the country
    in 1996-1997, about 100 Fish and Wildlife Service employees met
    with more than 430 non-FWS fishery stakeholders. Non-FWS
    attendees included nearly 140 State representatives (including
    many heads of State fishery agencies), more than 90
    conservation group representatives, more than 40 business
    people, about 30 representatives each from Tribes and other
    Federal agencies, and several members of the media. The
    purposes of the Stakeholder Meetings were to define the FWS
    roles and responsibilities for fishery resources; to establish
    priorities for the FWS Fisheries Program; to set goals and
    objectives in FWS Regions; and to develop cooperative
    approaches to accomplishing these goals.
        Based on information from the stakeholder meetings and
    considering authorizing legislation, the FWS identified seven
    roles and responsibilities for fishery resources.
        FWS roles and responsibilities for fishery resources:
      --Restoring depleted nationally significant fishery resources;
      --Fulfilling mitigation obligations;
      --Managing and helping manage fishery resources on FWS and Tribal
            lands;
      --Providing technical support and research;
      --Continuing to administer the Federal Aid in Sport Fisheries
            Restoration program;
      --Providing aquatic education and outreach; and
      --Enforcing Federal fishery laws.
        Within the seven roles and responsibilities, the FWS identified six
    priorities for the Fisheries Program:
        Priorities for the Fish and Wildlife FWS Fisheries Program:
      --Recovery of listed and candidate aquatic species;
      --Restoration of interjurisdictional fisheries and aquatic
            ecosystems;
      --Management of interjurisdictional fisheries;
      --Fulfilling mitigation obligations;
      --Restoring depleted aquatic populations to preclude listing; and
      --Providing fish and wildlife management assistance to Tribes and on
            Fish and Wildlife Service lands.
        The relative importance of the six priorities in different
    parts of the country was considered in setting goals and
    objectives in each FWS Region.
        Question. Has the FWS implemented any of the stakeholders
    priorities?
        Answer. The FWS considered the Roles and Responsibilities
    for Fishery Resources and the Fisheries Priorities in
    developing the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
    Based on this input, the FWS has requested an additional
    $500,000 to improve critical health, safety, natural resource,
    and cultural resource protection projects throughout its
    National Fish Hatchery System; an additional $900,000 to
    improve the passage of salmon, trout, shad, and herring beyond
    dams and other barriers to migration; an additional $500,000 to
    restore and enhance declining populations of native trout; an
    additional $200,000 to identify threats to the health of
    valuable wild fish stocks; and an additional $700,000 to
    protect fish and their habitats in the Southwest.
        Question. How do the current fishery Roundtable Meetings
    differ from the stakeholder meetings that were held last year?
        Answer. The Stakeholder Meetings held in 1996-1997 were the
    beginning of sustained communications with recreational
    fisheries stakeholders. The Stakeholder Meetings were hosted by
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and organized by FWS Region. The
    purposes of the Stakeholder Meetings were to define the FWS
    roles and responsibilities for fishery resources; to establish
    priorities for the FWS Fisheries Program; to set goals and
    objectives in FWS Regions; and to develop cooperative
    approaches to accomplishing these goals.
        The Recreational Fishery Roundtable Meetings build on the
    Stakeholder Meetings by developing cooperative approaches to
    accomplishing the goals established in 1996-1997. The
    Roundtables are hosted cooperatively by States and Federal
    agency members of the National Recreational Fisheries
    Coordination Council established under Executive Order 12962:
        Recreational Fisheries. The Roundtables are organized by
    State or watershed. The purpose of the Roundtables is to
    improve recreational fishery resources on the ground through
    identification and commitment of resources for specific
    projects. To achieve near-term results, participants are asked
    to use managerial latitude to redirect existing capabilities to
    cooperative projects and to provide a focal point for partners
    (e.g., local groups with challenge grant money) looking to
    commit existing funds. A secondary mechanism is aimed at mid-
    term results: identify opportunities that require changes to
    policies or additional resources.

                               endangered species

        Question. Why the need for more money in Habitat
    Conservation Planning? Does Habitat and Conservation Planning
    contribute to the recovery of or the long term conservation of
    species? Can you provide some examples?
        Answer. The Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) program has
    grown rapidly in recent years. During 1983-1992, only 14
    incidental take permits were issued under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA). Over the past five years, 216 incidental
    take permits had been issued. By the end of 1998, HCPs are
    projected to cover some 7.3 million acres. The FWS anticipates
    more than 400 new and ongoing HCP consultations by the end of
    fiscal year 1999, covering some 9.2 million acres.. In just a
    few years, the HCP process has been transformed to one of the
    most important and innovative conservation programs under ESA.
    Additionally, HCP development has become a collaborative
    process between applicants and the agency with the FWS
    providing technical assistance to the applicants. Funding is
    critically required to meet this explosive growth in demand
    from private landowners.
        An HCP may contribute to species recovery by providing
    conservation measures for unlisted species that would otherwise
    not be protected. The FWS reviews an incidental take permit
    application and the associated HCP to determine if the taking
    will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
    recovery of the species in the wild. Thus, recovery is often an
    integral product of an HCP but it is not an explicit statutory
    requirement.
        Desert Tortoise HCPs, for example, use the guidelines in
    the recovery plan to direct mitigation of recovery tasks such
    as habitat acquisition and habitat management/enhancement.
    Also, large scale HCPs under California's Natural Community
    Conservation Planning program collectively cover virtually the
    entire range of the coastal California gnatcatcher and provide
    recovery actions for that species. Additionally, red-cockaded
    woodpecker safe harbor agreements provide incentives to
    maintain and enhance its populations which augment recovery
    efforts, particularly those populations on federal lands.
        Question. What is the Department/FWS doing to respond to
    the need to expedite consultation in areas like the Southwest
    where potential conflicts may impact timber and grazing
    interests?
        Answer. The FWS has done, and is undertaking, many actions
    to expedite consultations that may impact resource uses, like
    timber harvesting and grazing, while ensuring that threatened
    and endangered species are not jeopardized. In the Southwest,
    for example, the FWS recognized that a backlog of consultations
    in one of the field offices that were not being processed in a
    timely manner because of the sheer workload and insufficient
    personnel. The FWS formed a team of consultation experts drawn
    from offices throughout the nation to eliminate most of the
    backlog in six weeks. Consequently, in fiscal year 1998, the
    Director provided additional endangered species funding so that
    field offices could hire needed consultation biologists.
        The Department has also recognized the critical need for
    timely resolution of many issues surrounding resource use and
    conservation in the Southwest. The President's fiscal year 1999
    budget includes a $3 million increase for the endangered
    species programs in the Southwest to increase the FWS capacity
    to work with other agencies to solve consultation issues and to
    conserve species before they decline to the point of needing
    the Endangered Species Act's protection. The increased funding
    will hasten the recovery of listed species and remove the need
    for federal agencies to consult on projects they permit, fund,
    or carry out.
        In October 1997, Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman, and
    Under-Secretary Underwood, initiated the Southwest Strategy.
    The purpose of this strategy is to first, bring all federal
    agencies together to craft a better way of doing business when
    dealing with natural resource issues in the Southwest; and
    second, to bring all willing nonfederal partners into the
    process. The federal agencies involved in the Southwest
    Strategy have completed assigning priorities to Section 7
    consultations to ensure the most critical consultations get
    completed first. They have developed methods for streamlining
    the consultation process in the near term and they are now
    developing methods for long-term efficiencies among agencies in
    the consultation process.
        A strategy has been developed by the Forest Service and the
    FWS for handling two pending lawsuits involving compliance with
    the Endangered Species Act and grazing in the southwest. Under
    the strategy, a team of species experts, other biologists, and
    at least one range specialist has been assembled to conduct the
    Section 7 consultations that will cover the allotments
    currently in litigation. This team is working to streamline the
    consultation process on these allotments.
        Question. How many habitat conservation plans exist, and
    how many more does the FWS anticipate in the next year?
        Answer. As of January 30, 1998, there were 230 approved HCP
    permits. The FWS anticipates there will be more than 400 new
    and ongoing HCP consultations by the end of fiscal year 1999,
    and has requested a corresponding budget increase to meet the
    needs of these nonfederal landowners.
        Question. How does habitat acquisition under Section 6 fit
    with carrying out Habitat Conservation Plans?
        Answer. The Section 6 HCP land acquisition program is a
    cornerstone of carrying out Habitat Conservation Plans. Under
    the Land Acquisition Program, the FWS provides grants to states
    or territories for land acquisitions to implement HCPs. States
    and territories are in a unique position to support HCPs
    because of their authorities and close working relationships
    with local governments and landowners. The FWS considers state
    land acquisition for habitat protection within and adjacent to
    HCP areas to be an important and effective mechanism to promote
    the recovery of threatened and endangered species.
        These land acquisitions and exchanges complement, not
    supplant, private and/or local governmental responsibilities
    required for mitigation related to implementing HCPs. This
    support ensures that urban development and other economic
    activities can continue while providing adequate conservation
    measures for listed species. The FWS works closely with local
    government and other groups to establish HCPs to protect
    species and, at the same time, allow development activities to
    continue.
        A number of ongoing HCP efforts such as the Natural
    Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) in Southern California,
    the Balcones Conservation Initiative in Texas, and the Brevard
    County Scrub Jay Initiative in Florida have validated the pilot
    $6.0 million HCP land acquisition grants-to-states concept.
    These locally-driven initiatives have identified land
    acquisition priorities that will support overall conservation
    strategies. The 1999 President's Budget includes a requested
    increase of $3.0 million--or 50 percent--for this growing
    program.
        One of the advantages of the ``no surprises'' coordination
    with the public is that it's supposed to decrease or avoid the
    need for listing species.
        Question. If monitoring shows species are still in decline
    with the no surprises policy, what measures will the FWS take?
        Answer. The FWS intended the No Surprises rule to provide
    regulatory assurances to private landowners with approved HCPs.
    Under the No Surprises rule, the Federal Government will not
    require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial
    compensation or other restrictions on the use of land, water,
    or other natural resources otherwise available for development
    or use under the original terms of a properly implemented HCP
    without the consent of the permittee.
        The FWS allows unlisted species that are adequately
    addressed in an HCP to be listed on a permit with a delayed
    effective date tied to the date of any future listing. Unlisted
    species include candidate, proposed, and any other species
    mutually agreed to by the applicant and FWS. The FWS recognizes
    that the primary jurisdiction over candidate and unlisted
    species generally rests with the state fish and wildlife
    agencies, thereby prompting the need for close coordination and
    active cooperation with state agencies in the HCP process.
    While unlisted species can benefit by being covered in HCPs,
    their inclusion does not necessarily mean that they may not be
    listed in the future if scientific information indicates that
    listing is warranted.
        Within a species range, a number of HCPs may cover a
    species. In addition, each individual HCP will vary in its
    scope and minimization/mitigation measures. An HCP may also
    incorporate measures that in the event of changed
    circumstances, such as species decline, may adjust the
    mitigation strategy to preclude jeopardizing that species. If
    such circumstances were not addressed within an approved HCP,
    the permittee may voluntarily implement measures to reduce the
    species decline. If a species continues to decline, the FWS may
    utilize a number of tools for the conservation and recovery of
    species in decline, including land acquisition, cooperative
    efforts with other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal
    governments, conservation groups, and private entities, and
    other conservation efforts within the scope of the Department
    of the Interior's authorities.
        Question. How does the pilot Safe Harbor Landowner
    Incentive Program achieve resource conservation?
        Answer. The FWS proposes a pilot grant program, the Safe
    Harbor Landowner Incentive Program, to foster private landowner
    recovery efforts for listed species by implementing the Safe
    Harbor policy. The Department has requested $5.0 million for
    1999 for this program. Safe Harbor agreements are voluntary
    agreements between the FWS and nonfederal property owners
    designed to encourage landowners to restore, enhance, manage,
    or improve habitat for listed species on their property. The
    Safe Harbor concept, along with this grant program request,
    responds to the needs of private landowners who are managing
    their lands in an environmentally friendly manner. It aims to
    alleviate their concerns about the potential of future land,
    water, or resource-use restrictions that may result because of
    their proactive initiatives.
        Currently, nonfederal landowners participating in Safe
    Harbor agreements receive no incentives other than the
    assurances provided that their regulatory burden will not
    increase through managing their property for the benefit of
    endangered species. In order to fully implement the Safe Harbor
    policy and increase property-owner participation, the FWS
    proposes to assist nonfederal landowners through the Safe
    Harbor Landowner Incentive Program. This program will provide
    funding to landowners with critical land holdings to conserve
    important habitat for endangered species.
        These agreements will contribute significantly toward the
    recovery of some listed species, especially when it is
    considered that more than half of the species listed have 80
    percent of their habitat on nonfederal lands. For example, the
    Southeastern Atlantic coastal plain was once dominated by vast
    forests of longleaf pine. Only 10 percent of these forests now
    remain. Many of the species that once were abundant in such
    habitats are now endangered or threatened, including the red-
    cockaded woodpecker, the St. Francis satyr butterfly, the
    gopher tortoise, and American chaffseed. The Safe Harbor
    agreements and the grants will be incentives to maintain the
    longleaf forests by providing resources for the controlled
    burning, and other on-the-ground actions that are essential for
    the preservation of this ecosystem.
        This program will be significant to the recovery of many
    species. It will help facilitate and foster partnerships
    between the FWS and nonfederal entities in recovering listed
    species, as well as providing benefits for proposed,
    candidates, and unlisted species that share the same habitat.
    The Administration's success with such creative tools as Safe
    Harbor agreements have renewed cooperation among private
    landowners in aiding threatened and endangered species.
        Question. For every dollar spent in Candidate Conservation
    planning, how much is saved in the listing and recovery
    programs?
        Answer. While such a broad question cannot be answered
    specifically because the complexity of conservation varies
    among species, the Department is confident that candidate
    conservation can be less costly and more effective than listing
    and recovery, especially when costs to landowners are
    considered. For example, the conservation of mammals may differ
    in complexity from that of plants. Furthermore, conservation of
    a mammal with a small range may differ from that of a mammal
    with a large range. Conservation of a wide-ranging species
    occurring on private land, federal land, and tribal land across
    several states would be much more expensive than would
    conservation of a rather isolated species occurring only on
    federal land in a single state.
        Certain general conclusions, however, can be drawn
    regarding the costs of conservation of a candidate species
    compared to the costs of listing and recovery of that same
    species. The earlier species conservation begins, the more
    efficient and effective it will be. Early conservation
    maintains land use and development flexibility for landowners
    and preserves conservation options for the FWS. Many of the
    costs and regulatory restrictions associated with listing can
    be avoided including: the administrative costs of listing; the
    costs of law enforcement; the costs to landowners resulting
    from restricted land use; and the costs to landowners and
    resource users for compliance with Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the
    Endangered Species Act.
        The early establishment of partnerships for conservation of
    candidate species puts in place a network of willing partners
    to address any future conservation needs of the species. States
    and private landowners support the candidate conservation
    program because it gives them opportunities to maintain current
    land uses and to employ innovative approaches to species
    conservation without the burden of regulatory restrictions. By
    addressing the needs of species early, before a species and its
    habitat are critically imperiled, potential conflicts
    associated with listing may be avoided.
        Question. Will litigation cause the Department to change
    the current approach of using Candidate Conservation agreements
    as a tool to avoid listings under the Endangered Species Act?
        Answer. No, litigation will not cause the Department to
    change the current approach of using candidate conservation
    agreements to preclude the need to list the species. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service will continue to use candidate
    conservation agreements as a proactive conservation measure
    where appropriate. Candidate conservation guidance is under
    development that will clarify the steps necessary to
    successfully participate in conservation partnerships and to
    complete candidate conservation agreements that most
    efficiently and effectively reduce or eliminate threats and
    preclude the need to list.
        The Department is concerned about the court ruling in the
    Barton Springs salamander case that the conservation agreement
    among the FWS and conservation agencies in the State of Texas
    (which would have conserved the salamander without Federal
    listing) was not adequate because it had not been proven
    successful for a period of two years. The Department does not
    agree with the court's order, because an arbitrary period of
    two years is not necessary to prove that a candidate
    conservation agreement is or will be successful in meeting its
    goals. The process of reducing or removing threats to a species
    is typically a gradual process; however, each candidate
    conservation agreement varies depending on the complexity of
    the species. The FWS relies on the best available scientific
    and commercial data to determine if a candidate conservation
    agreement is adequate and if it will reduce or eliminate
    threats to an imperiled species. The FWS subjects all candidate
    conservation agreements to public review and solicits comments
    regarding the document. Finally, the FWS typically examines
    candidate conservation agreements to ensure that the signatory
    parties have the authority and funding to fulfill the
    commitment of the agreement.
        Question. Over the years, how many species have been
    delisted? Is our endangered species program working?
        Answer. Yes. The ultimate goal of threatened and endangered
    species conservation is to recover listed species to levels
    where protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer
    required and they can be removed from the list. Since 1973, 27
    species have been delisted or removed from the lists of
    threatened and endangered species. In addition, the FWS has a
    ``waiting list'' of approximately 40 species that are recovered
    or whose status has improved and are awaiting reclassification
    and delisting actions.
        On May 6, 1998, the Secretary proposed that 29 of these
    species (or segments of these species) be proposed to be
    removed or downgraded from the Endangered Species list over the
    next two years.
        Animals/Birds: American Peregrine falcon (North America);
    Bald Eagle (48 coterminous states); Aleutian Canada goose
    (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Canada); Columbia
    white-tailed deer (Washington, Oregon); Tinian monarch
    (Northern Marianas Islands); Guam broadbill (Guam); Mariana
    mallard (Northern Mariana Islands); Hawaiian hawk (Hawaii);
    Brown pelican (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
    Florida); Gray timber wolf (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin);
    Dismal Swamp Southeastern shrew (Virginia, North Carolina); Ash
    Meadows Amargosa pupfish (Nevada); Tidewater goby (California);
    Oahu tree snails (Hawaii); Pahrump poolfish (Nevada); Virginia
    Northern flying squirrel (Virginia, West Virginia); and Island
    night lizard (California).
        Plants: Hoover's wooly-star (California); Truckee barberry
    (California); Three Ash Meadows plant (Nevada); Eureka Valley
    plants (2) (California); Chamaesyce skottsbergii (variation
    kalaeloana) (Hawaii); Loch Lomond coyote-thistle (California);
    Lloyd's hedgehog cactus (New Mexico, Texas); Running buffalo
    clover (Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, West
    Virginia); Virginia roundleaf birch (Virginia); Robbin's
    cinquefoil (New Hampshire, Vermont); Heliotrope milk-vetch
    (Utah); and Missouri bladder-pod (Missouri).
        Since fiscal year 1996, the FWS has prioritized its
    resources so that the majority of the listing resources goes
    towards finalizing proposals to list species and more recently,
    resolving the conservation status of candidates and processing
    petition findings, because such actions provide the most
    conservation benefit. Delisting is a Tier 4 activity and the
    lowest priority under the current Listing Priority Guidance
    issued in fiscal year 1997. The FWS acknowledges the
    conservation benefit of delisting actions (this includes
    reclassifications from endangered to threatened status) and has
    moved delisting and reclassification actions into Tier 2 under
    the fiscal year 1998/1999 Listing Priority Guidance. The FWS
    anticipates publishing seven delisting or reclassification
    proposals in fiscal year 1998 and 20 delisting/reclassification
    proposals in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1999, the FWS
    anticipates finalizing five delisting actions. These species
    are indicated above.
        The endangered species program is working. In fiscal year
    1997, 156 final determinations were published and 23 new
    listing proposals were published. The backlog of proposals was
    reduced from 243 to 100 species, including the 23 new
    proposals. The listing process has been slowed by numerous
    litigation cases resulting from missed statutory deadlines and
    takes precious resources away from the task of returning to a
    balanced listing program. It is important to note that
    delisting statistics do not necessarily indicate the recovery
    of listed species and should not be used as a yard stick to
    measure the success of the endangered species program. The
    recovery program estimates that 36 percent of listed species
    were improving and/or stable in fiscal year 1997, and 44
    percent will be improving and/or stable in fiscal year 1998.

              multinational species conservation rhino-tiger fund

        The Committee understands that the Rhino-Tiger Conservation
    Act was expanded to include Tigers at the Secretary's personal
    request.
        Question. Do you consider the current level of funding
    adequate to meet the demands for worthy tiger and rhinoceros
    conservation projects?
        Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 1999 request of $400,000 for
    tiger and rhinoceros projects is sufficient to make a real and
    effective difference for conservation of these species,
    especially because of the favorable financial exchange rate and
    the low costs of operations in the foreign countries. While
    there will always be more project proposals submitted than can
    be funded in any given year (as in most other FWS programs),
    the President's Budget request of $400,000 will allow the
    highest priority projects to be implemented.
        Sixty eight proposals were received for consideration
    during the 1996-1997 grant cycle; and 80 proposals have been
    received in the 1998 grant cycle. Grant awards have been
    limited to an average of $20,000 to maximize the number of
    suitable projects. Of 148 proposals received, 32 have been
    funded thus far in 10 African and Asian countries, at a cost of
    $613,962. Another 40 grant applicants have been provided
    suggestions about how their proposals can be modified so that
    they might meet the criteria for approval. Remaining balances
    will fund half of these pending proposals for priority
    conservation actions. The FWS expects to receive 80 or more new
    proposals during the 1999 grant cycle.
        Question. There is a disparity between the request for
    rhinos and tigers and the request for Asian and African
    elephants. Do you feel there should be greater parity among the
    funds?
        Answer. There is a great need for the funding levels
    requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for all
    three programs. The programs are managed to ensure that the
    projects complement each other. There are 14 Asian countries
    with tigers, 9 Asian countries with rhinos (which coincide with
    the tiger range countries) and 11 African countries with
    rhinos. The African Elephant Conservation Projects, for
    example, frequently provide significant secondary benefits to
    African rhinos. In several African range countries, anti-
    poaching or habitat protection projects for elephants also
    benefit rhinoceros which share the same habitat. The new Asian
    Elephant Conservation Projects will provide even greater
    possibilities for significant collateral benefits to Asian
    rhinoceros and tigers sharing the same habitat. Thus, a single
    project has the potential to provide benefits for more than one
    of the target species.
        The need for the new Asian Elephant Conservation Projects
    is critical because the species have been seriously neglected.
    Despite all the publicity about the decline of the African
    elephant, the Asian species, numbering only 35,000 to 45,000,
    is sparsely distributed over a huge range encompassing thirteen
    different countries from India through Southeast Asia to
    Indonesia. The decline of Asian elephants due to the ever
    increasing human population of the Asian continent has been
    relatively undocumented. The Asian elephant must share its
    habitat with some of the largest and poorest human populations
    in the world. The combination of pressures on the environment
    brought on by these conditions has resulted in the conversion
    of forest cover to agriculture and villages, fragmenting
    elephant habitat and populations. The Asian elephant is in real
    trouble and the $1 million requested will fill the significant
    void in the current conservation programs for this species
        Continuation of funding for the African elephant at the $1
    million level is essential to maintain the population gains
    that the species is just beginning to show after a dramatic
    decline in the 1980s. This decline has been stabilized largely
    by a successful international effort led by the United States
    to stop the ivory trade and provide anti- poaching assistance.
    Addressing the conservation needs of this species is
    complicated by the complexity of ivory trade issues and efforts
    to work with the 37 range countries with elephant populations.
    Projects made possible by this Fund have been critical in
    assisting rangers fight poaching and maintaining current
    population levels of the species.
        The situation with most of the world's remaining rhinos in
    Africa and Asia is also serious. Poaching for rhino horn is the
    major threat for all five species, and habitat degradation is
    also a significant threat for the Asian species that live in
    tropical rainforests. All three species of Asian rhinos are in
    danger of extinction, two critically so. In Africa, the
    situation for the black rhino and the Northern white rhino is
    similar. Over the past few decades, black rhino populations
    have declined by at least 96 percent due to poaching. The
    Southern white rhino has been well managed in South Africa and
    is not in danger of extinction.
        Wild tigers are in perhaps worse peril. The best estimate
    is that there are no more than 5,000 to 7,500 remaining tigers.
    The $400,000 requested for the Rhino and Tiger Conservation
    Projects, combined with the collateral benefits to these
    species provided from the African elephant and Asian elephant
    conservation projects, will make a real contribution to helping
    range countries deal with the species' conservation needs.
        Question. What would a better split of funding be? Equal
    parts?
        Answer. The Department supports the allocation of funding
    included in the President's Budget request: $1.0 million for
    African elephants; $1.0 million for Asian elephants; and $0.4
    million for rhino and tiger conservation. Rhinos, tigers, Asian
    and African elephants all have threats to their continued
    existence and all are in trouble. Addressing their needs
    includes providing sufficient funds as well as ensuring that
    the funds are used effectively. The President's budget request
    will make a significant contribution to the conservation of all
    rhinos, tigers, and elephants, particularly in view of the
    collateral benefits for other species occurring in the same
    area.
        Question. What accounts for the more than doubling in
    administrative costs for Multinational Species Conservation? It
    is at $30,000 for fiscal year 1998 and proposed at $72,000 for
    fiscal year 1999.
        Answer. Each of the three authorizing statutes provides a
    very modest three percent of the appropriation for
    administrative costs. For fiscal year 1999, the Service is
    requesting $72,000 for administrative expenses, or three
    percent of the combined $2.4 million that would be appropriated
    under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund for the
    African elephant, Asian elephant, and rhinoceros and tiger
    conservation programs. This request will provide for the
    equivalent of a full-time staff position (1 FTE) to administer
    and coordinate the three programs, including the recently
    authorized Asian elephant conservation program, in an effective
    and efficient manner.
        In fiscal year 1998, a technical error in the budget
    request resulted in $12,000 less than the $30,000 authorized
    for administration of the African Elephant Conservation Fund.
    The fiscal year 1999 request corrects this error and restores
    African elephant program administration to the three percent
    level of previous years. The rhinoceros and tiger programs are
    being administered in fiscal year 1998 on a part-time basis as
    collateral duties by International Affairs program personnel.
        Question. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    may not solicit for proposals for the Rhino-Tiger fund in
    fiscal year 1998 because of a large backlog of worthy projects
    that are currently unfunded. Are there any plans to internally
    redirect other funds to reduce this backlog?
        Answer. The FWS has already solicited fiscal year 1998
    proposals for the rhinoceros and tiger conservation program. Of
    the 148 proposals received to date, including the 80 received
    in fiscal year 1998, 32 projects have been funded at a cost of
    $613,962. Another 40 proposals are under consideration with
    requests for additional information to meet criteria for
    funding.
        In fact, the call for fiscal year 1999 rhino and tiger
    conservation program proposals has also been issued. It is
    necessary to issue a call for proposals in advance of actual
    appropriations because of the long lead time required to
    develop projects and secure sponsorship by the foreign
    governments.
        The FWS has no plans to administratively redirect
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund appropriations from the
    African and Asian elephant conservation programs to the rhino
    and tiger conservation program. The fiscal year 1999 budget
    request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund clearly
    identifies the amounts that would be available for the separate
    African elephant, Asian elephant, and rhino and tiger
    conservation programs. As is the case with most Departmental
    programs, each of these conservation programs receives more
    project proposals than can be awarded. The President's Budget
    includes funding for the highest priority projects.

                           Bureau of Land Management

                            wildland fire operations

        The BLM budget justification states that it and the Forest
    Service could feasibly treat (burn or other treatment) up to 5
    million acres annually to address the approximately 95 million
    acres requiring treatment. However the fiscal year 1999 budgets
    for both agencies will result in treating 2.4 million acres.
        Question. What would be the cost of treating the full BLM
    portion of the 5 million acres identified in the BLM budget
    justification?
        Answer. The new funding source to perform prescribed fire
    and mechanical treatments (the Hazardous Fuels Reduction
    Subactivity) has only been available since the fiscal year 1998
    appropriation was passed. It will take several years to build
    the level of expertise needed to develop burn plans, implement
    the burns, monitor and evaluate results, and work out smoke
    management issues with state air quality regulatory programs.
    It will take several years of increased level of operations to
    refine practices and cost estimates. Current cost estimates by
    the five federal agencies (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS and FS) are based
    upon past operations. For example, while the BLM averaged about
    60,000 acres of prescribed burning annually over the past
    decade, current estimates indicate approximately 500,000 acres
    need to be treated each year based on ecological and resource
    management needs. The Bureau's current cost per acre treated
    varies from approximately $10/acre on less complex burns where
    terrain and burning conditions are relatively easy to over
    $500/acre on complex situations. As the BLM workload is better
    defined, we will be able to refine program cost estimates.
        The average cost per acre treated for BLM's fiscal year
    1998 workload is estimated at $23. The current per acre
    treatment cost for the four Interior agencies in fiscal year
    1998 is also $23. To treat 2 to 2.5 million acres per year,
    estimated to be DOI's share of the 5 million acre total, would
    cost between $46 million and $57.5 million. To treat the BLM's
    share (about 500,000 acres per year) would cost $11.5 million.
        A more scientific determination of treatment needs,
    location of activities, impacts, sequencing and scheduling
    treatments, and comparison of alternative practices, impacts,
    and costs, will become available as we gain more experience.
    More information will also be available when the products of
    the Joint Fire Science Program, that Congress initiated in
    fiscal year 1998, become available along with revised land use
    plans that more fully address the role of fire in resource
    management.
        Question. What is the BLM annual treatment share (acres) of
    this five million acres?
        Answer. The BLM Wildland Fire Management budget request
    includes the four Department of the Interior agencies with
    wildland fire management programs (BLM, BIA, FWS, NPS). The 95
    million total acreage figure and the 5 million acre per year
    treatment figure are interagency estimates that include the
    U.S. Forest Service and that were made nearly two years ago.
    They should be viewed as early estimates of the potential
    workload. Interior's share of that estimated workload ranges
    from 2 to 2.5 million acres per year. The BLM portion of this
    workload is estimated to be 500,000 acres per year. We
    recognize that this is an estimate and that additional planning
    and analysis, being conducted through the Joint Fire Science
    Program, will refine this figure.
        The agency is changing its overall fire emphasis from fire
    control to fire management.
        Question. How will the emphasis on fire management likely
    affect annual suppression costs in the context of the ten year
    average which the agency regularly refers to?
        Answer. In the last decade, the ten year average of fire
    suppression costs has been increasing due to the increased
    incidence of larger, more severe and more costly fires. Over
    the long term (more than a decade), we expect to see a leveling
    off of the suppression costs. This should occur as hazardous
    fuel reduction operations begin to break up large continuous
    bodies of fuels, improve the general health of forest and
    rangelands to resist the negative effects of wildfires, and
    improve our ability to keep up with the ever increasing number
    of human caused fires.
        The agency proposes a smokejumper workforce of 120 during
    fiscal year 1999 with half stationed in Alaska. The Forest
    Service has proposed a similar workforce (with none in Alaska).
    The smokejumper program has a long and proud history.
        Question. Has the agency, either cooperatively with the
    Forest Service, or on its own, evaluated the cost effectiveness
    of this program?
        Answer. The BLM and the Forest Service have jointly studied
    and reviewed the national need for smokejumpers several times.
    Through the fire planning process, a qualitative analysis of
    state and local needs are also periodically reviewed. The two
    agencies hold a joint post season program review each year. The
    interagency national smokejumper numbers, operational
    locations, and the numbers and types of aircraft have been
    coordinated and established as a result of these national
    studies and plans. The two programs are designed for ``total
    mobility'' and integration. As a result BLM and FS jumpers
    often end up at the same bases and jumping out of the same
    aircraft as the season progresses. These mixed operations
    generally occur when there is a concentration of dry lightning
    storms and the number of new ignitions overwhelms local initial
    attack remote operations. The few program differences that do
    exist are a result of the land ownership and differences in the
    dominant fuels and terrain.
        In addition, some BLM smokejumpers are diversifying their
    skills so that they can assist in other aspects of the fire
    management program, e.g. prescribed fire, fire management
    training, fire and resource plan development involving fire
    ecology, and detail assignments when critical field vacancies
    occur during the fire season. Expanding the use of these smoke
    jumpers is a cost effective way to increase program
    capabilities.
        Question. With the current transportation system and its
    significantly greater access than existed during the early
    history of the smokejumper program, has the agency considered
    reducing its smokejumper forces in favor of less expensive
    alternative personnel resources?
        Answer. Without a doubt the amount of roads in the country
    has improved the ability to take rapid initial attack actions.
    The majority of the increasing number of ignitions occur where
    humans work and recreate. But the vast roadless areas of Alaska
    and in parts of the western US still dictate the need for a
    highly mobile, rapid attack skilled workforce best served by a
    combination of smokejumpers and helitac crews. Changes in
    technology in the past fifteen years have actually increased
    the ability for jumpers to respond in even the most rugged
    terrain. The total numbers of smokejumpers in the US is
    basically static. The BLM and the Forest Service continue to
    look at alternatives through the fire planning process, but to
    date this technique fills a niche in the total workload and has
    proven to be reliable, safe, effective, and cost efficient.

                                 infrastructure

        The BLM proposes an increase of $6.5 million for facility
    maintenance. This is in addition to infrastructure related
    improvements funded by Construction and O&C accounts.
        Question. Will these program increases reduce the deferred
    maintenance backlog or only slow the growth in the size of the
    backlog?
        Answer. Accomplishing the deferred maintenance projects
    identified in the 1999 budget request will reduce the critical
    health and safety deferred maintenance backlog by about $12.5
    million.
        Question. When new facilities are constructed where there
    were none previously, the need for maintenance expenditures
    will likely increase. How much of the construction line item is
    geared to reconstruction or the construction and replacement of
    facilities, versus construction of new facilities where there
    were none previously?
        Answer. The BLM's total construction request is for
    $4,175,000 or 13 separate projects. Of this amount only two
    projects are new construction: El Camino Real International
    Heritage Center in New Mexico and Devil's Elbow Recreation Area
    in Montana. El Camino funding is the final phase of
    construction of a 50/50 cost share project with the State of
    New Mexico where the State will fund over 75 percent of the
    operation and maintenance costs. Devil's Elbow is a challenge
    cost share project with Montana Power and fulfills the
    requirement of a FERC re-licensing agreement. All of the
    remaining projects are reconstruction or replacement
    construction and are targeted at reducing the risk to public
    health and safety or decreasing environmental degradation and
    will reduce future maintenance needs.
        Question. How is BLM reducing deferred maintenance backlogs
    through disposal or vacating facilities? Please provide
    specific historical data on the number of facilities
    eliminated?
        Answer. The BLM has several projects, mainly roads, that
    should be abandoned. These projects are in competition with
    other public health and safety and/or environmental protection
    projects and generally do not successfully compete for funding.
    The BLM will generally abandons a site for public safety or
    environmental considerations. The BLM does not have a list of
    facilities that have been disposed of or vacate.
        Question. Director Shea, in his statement at the recent
    House hearing on deferred maintenance refers to the Facilities
    Inventory Maintenance Management System (FIMMS). Why does the
    agency maintain a system separate from other Bureaus?
        Answer. The BLM developed FIMMS in response to
    Congressional direction to improve our ability to track and
    report our facilities maintenance needs. FIMMS was developed in
    concert with Congressional review to best meet BLM's mission
    needs. The maintenance system is maintained at our field
    offices where maintenance needs are coordinated with local
    governments and user groups.
        The BLM is working with the Department and the other
    bureaus to develop common facilities maintenance terminology
    and definitions. The BLM is an active member of the
    Department's deferred maintenance working group which is
    developing guidelines and procedures for standardizing
    Departmental systems requirements and developing the five-year
    maintenance and construction project list. In addition, the BLM
    is working with the Department to develop suggestions for
    improving BLM's budget structure in order to improve the
    financial tracking of our deferred maintenance accomplishments.
        Question. Does the Department intend to centrally combine
    infrastructure data into a single data base? If not, why? If
    so, when?
        Answer. As part of facilities maintenance and capital
    improvements initiative, the Department is reviewing bureau
    facilities information systems. The Department hopes to reach
    conclusions on the current adequacy of these systems and any
    needs to reengineer, replace, or consolidate the systems prior
    to the final decisions on formulation of the fiscal year 2000
    budget.

                        realty and ownership management

        The agency refers to an Alaska lands transfer re-
    engineering effort that will be implemented in fiscal year
    1999.
        Question. What specific efficiencies will result from this
    effort?
        Answer. Recommendations from the land transfer re-
    engineering effort included the development of geographically
    related project areas through regional strategic management
    plans. Working in project areas should reduce time and
    resources needed to complete Native allotments, ANCSA
    entitlements, and State entitlements.
        Question. What are estimates for improved unit costs? How
    much more production can be expected assuming unit costs
    improve?
        Answer. Working in project areas will reduce the number of
    trips to the field and reduce redundant and overlapping review
    processes. This should reduce the estimated unit cost by 10 to
    20 percent.
        The budget justification refers to ``better land
    acquisition priorities'' which will be established in fiscal
    year 1999.
        Question. Please explain these new priorities. Why are the
    new priorities needed? What was wrong with the old priorities?
        Answer. The ``priorities'' mentioned in the budget
    justification refer specifically to the long-term goal in the
    BLM's Annual Performance Plan of ``Establish land acquisition
    priorities to conserve and protect heritage resources.'' This
    goal is specific to acquisitions within special designated
    areas. In the past, BLM has not defined land acquisition
    priorities in this context.
        A recent report by DOI OIG, concerning the Del Webb land
    exchange in Nevada, states that the BLM failed to ``fully
    conform to established standards, procedures, and controls for
    appraisals and land valuations and did not justify or document
    the propriety of its actions.'' It further stated that only
    after external pressure, BLM obtained a second appraisal,
    saving the government $9.1 million. The OIG recommended a
    moratorium which was objected to by BLM.
        Question. What specific policies have been changed to avoid
    similar practices in the future?
        Answer. BLM fully conformed to established standards,
    procedures and controls for appraisals and land valuations and
    did document our actions for the Del Webb land exchange. There
    was no loss of $9.1 million because BLM management decided
    early in the process to obtain additional appraisals.
        Question. Why did BLM use an appraiser recommended by the
    company involved in the exchange? Why was this problem not
    intuitively determined to be inappropriate (if not completely
    contrary to policy)?
        Answer. The appraiser the BLM used is a nationally
    recognized authority on the appraisal of Master Planned
    Communities. The BLM determined independently that this
    appraiser was qualified.
        Question. Has this circumstance occurred previously?
        Answer. We always strive to obtain the best appraisal
    services available. In order to be approved by BLM for use in a
    land exchange, an appraisal must conform with the regulations
    in 43 CFR 2201.3. The appraisals approved for the Del Webb land
    exchange met these requirements.

                     government performance and results act

        The agency provided its annual performance plan for fiscal
    year 1999. However there is no crosswalk displaying how the
    President's budget is represented in total for the goals and
    performance indicators, unlike what has been supplied by other
    agencies.
        Question. Has the BLM developed such a display? If so,
    please provide it to the committee. If not, when does it intend
    to do so?
        Answer. The Bureau of Land Management has not developed
    such a table at this time. Two budget crosswalk tables are
    included in BLM's fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan. The
    first table crosswalks program and financing Activities for
    fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 funding levels to strategic
    goals. The second table crosswalks performance goals and
    indicators to program and financing codes.
        The BLM is still refining and improving its Annual
    Performance Plan and the linkage to the current budget
    structure. As we work to make the plan more comprehensive, we
    will be better equipped to develop a performance goal budget
    crosswalk. If such a table is needed, BLM could develop one
    after the 1999 Appropriation Act has passed.
        Question. Does the agency foresee any changes in budget
    structure as GPRA is further implemented within the
    organization?
        Answer. As implementation of GPRA progresses and the Bureau
    gains more experience with the goals and measures that are
    agreed to by BLM, the Department, OMB, Congress, and customers
    and stakeholders, it is possible that the Bureau will propose
    changes in the activity structure to better reflect performance
    goals. At this time, however, the Bureau does not have specific
    changes to propose.

                           ward valley land transfer

        For the last five years, the Department has refused to
    transfer the Ward Valley site to the State of California for a
    low-level radioactive waste disposal site claiming that the
    science doesn't support such a transfer. A 1995 National
    Academy of Science report, which you requested, concluded that
    the site could be operated safely as a low-level waste disposal
    site. Nonetheless, the Department has continued to refuse to
    transfer the property requesting another Environmental Impact
    Statement be prepared and more testing be completed even though
    there has been more than a decade of scientific testing at the
    site, and three NEPA documents.
        Question. Why has the Department not proceeded with the
    transfer of the site?
        Answer. The Department's responsibilities under NEPA and
    FLPMA require us to ensure that the public lands requested by
    the State are safe for the use intended, i.e. a low-level
    radioactive waste facility. Currently, except for finishing
    work already started, we are suspending further work on the
    SEIS and its associated onsite drilling, until the question
    raised by the majority leadership of the California State
    Legislature regarding the legality of the California Department
    of Health Service's land sale application under State law has
    been resolved.
        Question. Why is more testing necessary?
        Answer. The National Academy of Sciences recommended
    further testing at the site to address conflicting data about
    the rainfall infiltration characteristics of the site and
    resolve the issue of the potential for migration of stored
    waste residue as far as the Colorado River. Both the Department
    of the Interior and the State of California plan to conduct
    separate testing to address this issue. The data will be
    analyzed in the SEIS and made available for public review.
        Question. When does the Interior Department plan to begin
    its field tests?
        Answer. The Department will decide when to proceed on the
    field testing following resolution of the legal issue explained
    above.
        Question. How much has the Department spent since 1995 to
    plan and implement the new Ward Valley tests and prepare the
    supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)? Please
    include in the answer the amount spent on the preparation of
    the SEIS and new tests for each fiscal year since fiscal year
    1995 expenditures.
        Answer. The following table summarizes actual and expected
    costs related to tests and SEIS preparation at the Ward Valley
    site. No funds were spent on these activities prior to 1997.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Items                      Activity          Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1997 costs:
        Contract supplement (EIS)...........  ..............        $427,000
        Contract protocol for tritium
         testing............................  ..............          64,000
        Field inspection of site (Army Corps
         of Engineers)......................  ..............          20,000
    1998 costs:
        Conduct tritium drilling............  ..............       1,322,000
        Laboratory Analysis and testing
         report.............................  ..............         500,000
        Independent review of analysis and
         report (peer review)...............  ..............          50,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................  ..............       2,383,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Where are these tests and costs associated with
    the supplemental EIS found in your budget? Please include in
    the answer the specific accounts, and amounts from those
    accounts, which will be used to fund the preparation of the
    supplemental EIS and completion of the new tests.
        Answer. Ward Valley and other land transfer or exchange
    proposals are funded in the Realty and Ownership Management
    Activity in the Management of Lands and Resources Appropriation
    and in the Acquisition Management Activity in the Land
    Acquisition Appropriation. However, Ward Valley is not
    specifically mentioned by name. Congress has provided BLM with
    the flexibility to work on the highest priority lands issues
    recognizing that they generally take several years to complete.
    Anywhere along the process issues can arise that could modify,
    delay, or terminate a realty action. If a specific lands action
    were delayed, BLM would proceed to the next highest priority
    project. The Land and Realty subactivity received $28,622,000
    in the fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act and $29,395,000 in
    the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act. The Acquisition
    Management Activity received $2,500,000 in the fiscal year 1997
    Appropriations Act and $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 1998
    Appropriations Act.
        Question. What contracts, and for what amounts, has the
    Department entered for the development and implementation of
    the test protocol and preparation of the SEIS?
        Answer. Contract costs are summarized in the table below:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Items                      Activity          Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1997 costs:
        Contract supplement (EIS)...........  ..............        $427,000
        Contract protocol for tritium
         testing............................  ..............          64,000
        Field inspection of site (Army Corps
         of Engineers)......................  ..............          20,000
    1998 costs:
        Conduct tritium drilling............  ..............       1,322,000
        Laboratory Analysis and testing
         report.............................  ..............         500,000
        Independent review of analysis and
         report (peer review)...............  ..............          50,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................  ..............       2,383,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the current cost estimate to complete the
    testing and the SEIS?
        Answer. The current cost estimate to complete the tritum
    study and the SEIS is $2.4 million.
        Question. On what date does the Department now anticipate
    transferring the Ward Valley site?
        Answer. Pending resolution of the legality of the State's
    application, we are unable to project a transfer date at this
    time.
        Meanwhile, protestors who were issued a permit by the
    Bureau of Land Management to occupy the site refused to leave
    when the permit expired on January 17. Rather than removing the
    trespassers, BLM law enforcement officials have been ordered
    away. Now the Subcommittee is told that the protesters have
    taken to deciding who may enter the area and who may not. These
    protesters refuse to allow Interior Department access to the
    site, which is Federal land, in order to conduct additional
    tests on site's safety.
        Question. The question must be asked; who is in charge on
    our federal lands?
        Answer. These are public lands under the jurisdiction of
    BLM and the Department of the Interior. BLM, with the
    assistance of the Department and BIA, is working diligently
    with the Native American Tribes involved to bring their protest
    into compliance with the existing permit.
        Question. When, by what means, and at what cost will the
    Department clear protesters from the Ward Valley site in order
    for testing to commence?
        Answer. As stated earlier, BLM is expecting to resolve the
    onsite situation soon and bring the Native American Tribes (led
    by the permittee, the Fort Mojave Tribe) staging the protest
    there into compliance with their existing permit. In addition,
    since the planned drilling activities are suspended pending
    resolution of the question of the legality of the State's
    permit, BLM has also decided to rescind the five-day relocation
    notice given to the Fort Mojave last February, which will allow
    the Tribe to come back into compliance with their existing
    permit. Therefore, no action to remove the protesters will be
    necessary and no additional costs are expected to be incurred.
        Question. There is some indication that government
    equipment is being used by the protesters at Ward Valley. Has
    this allegation been investigated?
        Answer. Yes, BLM has conducted an inquiry in response to
    this allegation. The Inspector General is conducting a separate
    investigation.
        Question. What has been found?
        Answer. The BLM has found that Government Vehicles with
    State of Arizona license plates were being operated at the Ward
    Valley Site. No Federally owned equipment was found to be used
    at the site.
        Question. What action will be taken if this information is
    substantiated?
        Answer. No further action is now planned.

                              backyard discoveries

        The BLM supports a cooperative program through the
    Anchorage Field Office called Backyard Discoveries.
        Question. What are the objectives of this program?
        Answer. Backyard discoveries is a public outreach
    initiative by the Anchorage Field Office to educate current and
    future publics about natural resources management. Additional
    objectives are to provide opportunities for the public to learn
    how to gather resource data and monitor the health of public
    land and to have the data gathered by volunteers available for
    students, teachers, and the general public to use and
    interpret.
        Question. What are the program's components?
        Answer. The program has several components: it allows the
    public to learn how resource data can be used to manage public
    land and gives the public the opportunity for hands-on
    experience.
        Question. How has the program been funded in the past?
        Answer. The outreach effort was funded at $12,000 in fiscal
    year 1997 from within the BLM's base funding level.
        Question. How does the BLM propose to support this program
    in the future?
        Answer. In the future, support would come from the
    Management of Lands and Resources (MLR) activities dollars and
    from local partnerships.
        Question. Based on the agency's experience from this
    program, what long-term benefits and goals does the agency
    intend to pursue for this program?
        Answer. The primary benefit of Backyard Discovery is to
    provide assistance to local school districts in environmental
    education and to provide an understanding of public land
    management programs. The outreach efforts educate the public
    and help recruit volunteers to assist BLM. The initiative will
    continue as a part of public outreach with the goal to educate
    and involve the public in land management.

                  grand staircase--escalante national monument

        An October 1997 GAO report quoted state sources to estimate
    mineral values and economic effects of developing minerals in
    the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The report
    states that the Interior Department took strong exception to
    estimates reflected in the GAO report.
        Question. What are the Departments estimates of mineral
    value and economic effects?
        Answer. The Department has made no comprehensive estimates
    of mineral values and economic effects from developing minerals
    in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The
    Department's objections to the estimates used in the GAO
    report, Federal Land Management: Estimates of Mineral Values
    and of the Economic Effects of Developing Minerals in the Grand
    Staircase-Escalante National Monument, were based on the
    report's reliance on two estimates prepared by the State of
    Utah, one by the Utah Geological Survey and the other by the
    Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, without assessing the
    validity of those estimates. These estimates are significantly
    inflated and overstate the economic effects of developing
    minerals in the Monument. As we stated in our letter to the
    General Accounting Office concerning this report, we believe
    the GAO erred by using this flawed information.
        Recently published information, Kaiparowits Coal Supply and
    Demand, BXG, Inc., (1997), shows that coal resources in the
    Monument could not begin to compete in the coal market until at
    least the year 2020, drastically reducing the present value of
    coal in the Monument. Similarly, estimates for oil and gas in
    the Monument are highly speculative. Yet, the Utah Geological
    Survey values those potential resources as though they were
    guaranteed to exist, were being produced today, and every drop
    could be extracted and sold. Reliable estimates of mineral
    values and economic effects of developing minerals in the
    Monument have not been developed. Using the State's estimates
    without addressing the appropriateness or reasonableness of
    these estimates did not provide Congress with useful
    information on this question. The Utah Geological Survey has
    since decided to revisit the basis of its theories, and now
    believes that far less potential exists than it previously
    believed.
        Question. What is the status of the land exchange program
    relative to ``school trust lands.''
        Answer. On May 8, 1998, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
    and Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed an agreement concluding
    negotiations between the Interior Department and the State of
    Utah concerning state school trust land inholdings throughout
    the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the National
    Park system, National Forest system, and Indian reservations in
    Utah. That agreement has been incorporated in H.R. 3830, which
    was introduced in Congress on May 12, 1998.

                            pm-10 air quality study

        The BLM budget justification states that it will continue
    involvement in the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Air Quality Study
    in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. What level of funding is planned?
        Answer. The President's budget request for the Soil, Water
    and Air program is $31,031,000. Of this amount, $20,000 is
    available for the California Regional PM-10 Air Quality Study.
    The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study is a
    cooperative partnership formed in 1990 among Federal, state,
    and local governments, private industry, and other regional
    organizations. The study is intended to provide information for
    the development of an effective plan for the San Joaquin Valley
    to attain the small particulate (PM-10) national and state
    ambient air quality standards. Eight counties in the San
    Joaquin Valley are in a serious non-attainment area and must
    meet the ambient PM-10 standards by 2001. Several study
    initiatives were continued in fiscal year 1997 and 1998, e.g.,
    further study planning, technical support studies, modeling and
    emissions studies. In 1998, as part of the PM-10 Air Quality
    Study in the San Joaquin Valley, the BLM helped develop the
    Federal Clean Air Partnership (FCAP). This partnership is a
    coordinating and technical advisory group on air quality issues
    in the Sierra Nevada. The FCAP partnership consists of
    representatives from the BLM, U.S. National Park Service, and
    U.S. Forest Service. The partnership pools personnel,
    resources, and expertise to improve, maintain, and protect the
    air quality and associated air quality values of lands managed
    by the FCAP agencies. FCAP also seeks to prevent or minimize
    the threat to public health and safety, damage to natural site
    characteristics, and economic losses due to degraded air
    quality.

                             oil and gas management

        The Department's 1998 report on Oil and Gas Management
    states that ``to ensure accurate royalties for oil and gas
    production on lands under BLM's supervision, the agency is
    implementing plans to re-emphasize and improve its production
    verification program.'' However the Oil and Gas management line
    item reflects a decrease of $2.1 million. Elsewhere in the
    Department's document there is reference to streamlining and
    simplifying oil and gas processes and developing cooperative
    relationships with the States.
        Question. How will the agency reemphasize and improve its
    production verification program while cutting back on funding
    of the overall program?
        Answer. The overall oil and gas program outside of the NPR-
    A effort is not being reduced in 1999, but rather is remaining
    level. The $2.1 million was a congressional increase in fiscal
    year 1998 to complete the environmental review and analysis of
    management alternatives for the Alaska National Petroleum
    Reserve No. 4 (NPR-A). This effort will be completed during
    fiscal year 1998 and additional funding is not required for it
    in fiscal year 1999. The improvements in production
    verification are based on an increased program emphasis on
    review of production records.
        Question. What controls and safeguards will the agency
    maintain during reengineering processes or in developing
    partnerships with states to assure that production verification
    and income to the government will not suffer?
        Answer. BLM's reengineering efforts have focused on
    ensuring the protection of the Federal resource and providing
    full return to the government while implementing measures to
    streamline and simplify the oil and gas program. As noted
    above, the BLM has increased its review of production records.
    Any under-reported production volumes are resolved and are
    shared with MMS to ensure the collection of royalties due to
    the U.S. Other efforts have focused on developing partnerships
    with the States to reduce duplication and increase efficiencies
    in the program for both BLM and the States. Currently, BLM has
    Memoranda of Understanding with the State regulatory agencies
    of Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and
    Utah. Any delegations or partnerships involving the performance
    of BLM functions by States require the State program to meet
    Federal standards to assure that proper royalties are received,
    as well as producing long term efficiencies.

                                     almrs

        The BLM proposes $34.6 million for the Automated Land and
    Mineral Record System (ALMRS), which is an increase of $1.6
    million.
        Question. It appears that ALMRS is intended to contain a
    full range of land and minerals data. Will all resource layers
    be contained in the system including timber, range, wildlife
    habitat, etc. when Release 2 is finalized? If not, what plans
    does the agency have to add this information?
        Answer. ALMRS Release 2 will include the ability to overlay
    a number of reference layers that are geographically
    referenced, such as hydrography, roads, timber, range, and
    wildlife habitat. However, these resource layers will not be
    included and maintained by ALMRS. Each program area in the BLM
    will develop and maintain the resource layers for which they
    are responsible. The schedule for the availability of each
    resource layer will be determined by the responsible program
    area. The BLM will use its ALMRS web pages to indicate the
    availability of resource layers which can be overlaid with
    ALMRS and provide access to the resource data along with land
    and mineral data.
        Question. Will BLM accomplish its goal of every BLM office
    having access by 1999?
        Answer. Yes. BLM is on track to provide access to ALMRS
    from every BLM office in 1999.
        Question. What plans are envisioned for future releases if
    any?
        Answer. Deployment of ALMRS Release 1 is scheduled to begin
    in 1998, and substantial progress has been achieved for Release
    2. A BLM Business Practices Group has been formed which is
    integrating ALMRS with ongoing business processes. This group
    is also assessing how the capabilities of ALMRS Release 1 and
    Release 2 can be leveraged with future enhancements to achieve
    BLM goals for quality, performance, and information
    availability. This assessment is still in its early stages, and
    the nature, schedule, and cost of future releases have not been
    fully addressed.
        Question. Will the ALMRS system be directly utilized by
    other agencies or bureaus to manage their land and minerals
    information? What other agencies currently utilize ALMRS? What
    long term cooperative plans exist?
        Answer. A key goal for ALMRS has always been to become the
    primary system for managing federal land and mineral
    information. Minerals Management Service (MMS) currently uses
    the BLM legacy system, Case Recordation, for managing their
    land and mineral information and is transitioning this use to
    ALMRS. Cooperative plans are being pursued with the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service to interface
    and, where possible, integrate ALMRS with their management of
    land and mineral information.

                                 noxious weeds

        The BLM proposes an increase of $3.3 million for noxious
    weed programs.
        Question. Based on current projections for the spread of
    noxious weeds, what are projections over the next five years
    for program needs to fully address the problem?
        Answer. To fully address the noxious weed problem on public
    lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management would
    require a funding level of approximately $26 million within the
    next five years, based on our present understanding of the
    problem. This money would increase our ability to work with our
    partners-private land owners, counties, states and other
    federal agencies--to further accomplish goals identified in the
    weed management program to prevent and control the spread of
    weeds. This would include prevention and detection, education
    and awareness, inventory and mapping, and project coordination.
    In addition it would provide support for integrated weed
    management, biological control, research, monitoring and
    evaluation, and restoration of priority sites. Future budget
    requests, however, would be fully dependent on a carefully
    considered process of establishing and evaluating priorities,
    determining trade-offs between programs, and making difficult
    decisions in proposing funding allocations.
        Question. The budget justification states that it will have
    cooperative management agreements for the control of invasive
    weeds in place with 46 percent of the counties that have
    invasive weed programs. What are future expectations for such
    agreements with other counties?
        Answer. The BLM's long-term goal is to have cooperative
    weed management agreements by 2002 with 50 percent of the
    counties (with BLM managed Federal lands) that have invasive
    weed programs.

                              portland co-location

        The BLM and Forest Service have been in the process of co-
    locating their offices in Portland, Oregon. Despite an
    appropriation of $5.1 million in fiscal year 1996, this
    collocation has yet to occur.
        Question. There is some indication that BLM is dragging its
    feet and stalling co-location. Is this true?
        Answer. This is not true. Shortly after the 1996
    Appropriation Act, the BLM assigned a full-time project manager
    to the co-location and has actively pursued this project since
    that time. There has been extensive planning and coordination
    between the BLM, Forest Service, and GSA's local and regional
    office which continues to this day.
        Question. Why has the agency not co-located its Portland
    Office?
        Answer. In late 1996, at a time when the BLM and Forest
    Service were close to submitting their construction package to
    the GSA and building owner for the beginning of the physical
    changes which are necessary for this project to occur, we were
    informed by the GSA that the language in the fiscal year 1996
    Interior Appropriations Act did not exempt the agencies from
    the limitations in the 1959 Public Buildings Act and subsequent
    amendments. This act requires further Congressional
    authorization if changes are made to a leased facility which
    exceed $905,000. The changes are expected to exceed $3 million.
    Progress on the co-location project has been halted while
    awaiting this further authorization.
        Question. A briefing paper provided by BLM states the
    agency must seek approval from two Congressional committees to
    make modifications before the co-location can occur. Has BLM
    sought this approval? If not, when will it do so? Is BLM
    aggressively working with GSA to accomplish this move?
        Answer. The BLM has been aggressively pursuing this further
    approval. In early 1997, the proper documentation was forwarded
    through the GSA's Regional Office to their National Office.
    This authorization package was forwarded by the GSA National
    Office to the proper Congressional committees but was not
    considered last year. Currently, the authorization package is
    bundled with the GSA's Capital Improvement Program and is
    before the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic
    Development. Approval is needed there and in the House
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure before
    forwarding to the Senate. Approval is needed by the Senate
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee and the
    Committee on Environment and Public Works. The BLM has actively
    partnered with the GSA regional office to pursue these
    approvals.

                          wild horse and burro program

        The agency is requesting an increase of $2.4 million for
    management of the Wild Horse and Burro program.
        Question. With adoption declining and the population
    increasing, is the agency contemplating new approaches in this
    program?
        Answer. The demand for animals through the adoption program
    declined during the first part of this fiscal year. As a
    result, the BLM had to hold more animals in our facilities for
    a longer period of time than planned. The BLM took the steps
    described below to address this situation.
        In December 1997, the states were asked to add more
    adoptions to their existing schedule. The six western states
    added ten additional adoption events (both facility and
    satellite adoptions) to increase their adoption goals in fiscal
    year 1998. To further increase adoptions, a Western States
    Adoption Strategy was developed to share personnel for gathers,
    preparation, adoptions, and compliance. Sharing personnel
    during peak workloads will enable the states to place
    additional animals this fiscal year. Together, these actions
    increased the adoption goal for fiscal year 1998 to 10,225
    animals. This level of adoptions would clear the holding
    facilities in sufficient time and provide sufficient capacity
    for the planned gathers in fiscal year 1998 to proceed.
        Additional promotion of adoptions in the west is necessary
    to achieve adoption goals. A public outreach plan is being
    developed to locate and take advantage of new markets. A
    marketing analysis will include a long term plan to increase
    the number of adoptions and then maintain that increased level
    in the west.
        The BLM is experimenting with wild horse and burro
    adoptions over the Internet, and the idea of gentling wild
    horses and then adopting them through competitive events to
    enhance their adoptability. The Director is also requesting
    recommendations from the newly chartered Wild Horse and Burro
    Advisory Board.
        The BLM continues to pursue fertility control research as a
    means to deal with the increasing populations. We are focusing
    on an immunocontraceptive vaccine that is proving to be a
    viable, economically effective, and humane tool for reducing
    wild horse reproduction.
        Question. What are the prospects for efforts to reduce
    fertility among the population?
        Answer. Currently the prospects for fertility control of
    wild horse populations look very good. A pilot study of an
    immunocontraception vaccine to prevent pregnancy in mares was
    implemented in northeast Nevada in December 1992. The results
    of this pilot study to date have shown immuno-contraception
    could be a viable, economically effective, and humane tool for
    reducing wild horse reproduction.
      --Researchers have reformulated the vaccine and now have developed a
            single-injection vaccine, which does not require a booster
            shot, that will last for approximately one year.
      --A second pilot project, with a redesigned vaccine that has the
            potential to last for more than one year, was initiated on the
            Nevada Wild Horse Range/Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range in
            January 1996.
      --Field application of the single-injection, one year vaccine began
            in Nevada this January and February. Application of the vaccine
            will be expanded and additional herds will be treated in
            subsequent years.
      --The BLM plans for wild horse and burro immuno-contraception
            research to continue at about $200,000 in fiscal year 1999.
            This research is funded by the Biological Research Division of
            the U.S. Geological Survey, not BLM.
        Question. Based on the sensitivity of this issue, assuming
    the population continues to increase and fertility is not
    reduced, what changes are contemplated to manage this program?
        Answer. Based on the results from the ongoing fertility
    research involving the immunocontraceptive vaccine, the Bureau
    feels that we will be able to use fertility control as one
    tool, together with other management practices, to manage
    animal population increases.
        In addition, based on recommendations of the August, 1996
    Emergency Evaluation, the Director reestablished the Wild Horse
    and Burro Advisory Board. This board is provided for in Section
    7 of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Bureau
    believes that the use of the Advisory Board will help by making
    recommendations to manage this program in a way that will
    better reflect the wishes of the American people.

                             U.S. Geological Survey

                 government performance and results act [gpra]

        Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year
    1999 budget?
        Answer. The USGS Strategic Plan laid out the direction and
    long-term goals of the Survey through the year 2005. These
    goals were the basis for defining the annual incremental
    performance goals required in fiscal year 1999 to attain these
    long-term goals. Review and analysis of program status
    identified certain milestones met from which funding could be
    decreased in order to direct funding to other program phases
    that were scheduled to begin.
        Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or
    down, by this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the
    likely impact the change would have on the level of program
    performance and the achievement of various goals?
        Answer. Yes, the Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year
    1999 was developed on the basis of the GPRA Strategic Plan. The
    strategic business activity goals and performance goals were
    sorted by budget activity before preparation of the Annual
    Plan. The budget presents the Strategic Plan goals with the
    fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan goals, indicators, and
    goal attainment levels in tabular form. These tables are sorted
    by budget activity (P&F Code) to clearly link both Strategic
    and Annual Plans with the fiscal year 1999 Budget
    Justification. In this way, the relationship of annual
    milestones to strategic goals and the impact of funding changes
    can be readily tracked.

                                  new director

        Question. Gordon Eaton retired as director of the Survey
    this past fall. When do you expect to appoint a new director?
    Where are you in the selection process?
        Answer. The process of selecting a new Director to lead
    USGS into the next century began shortly after Dr. Eaton's
    retirement began. Because of the peer consulting associated
    with the selection of a new Director, the completion of this
    process can take a number of months. In the intervening months,
    the USGS has not been a rudderless organization. Dr. Thomas
    Casadevall was named to the position of Deputy Director of the
    Survey. In addition to his new duties, Dr. Casadevall, formerly
    Regional Director of the USGS Western Region in Menlo Park, has
    temporarily assumed the role of Acting Director of USGS. His
    enthusiasm, academic achievement and wise management expertise
    keeps the Survey on a strong and vibrant course as we seek to
    appoint a new Director before the end of the year.

                      core programs versus new initiatives

        The fiscal year 1999 USGS budget justification includes
    approximately $50,000,000 designated for new program
    initiatives; $22,772,000 in reductions to existing programs;
    and $17,495,000 in uncontrollable cost increases.
        Question. Why are special initiatives taking precedence
    over support for core programs?
        Answer. Science is not static, it continually evolves and
    new priorities are established. In order to be useful, the
    questions of science must be constantly rephrased and adapted
    to our changing world. The 20th century was a period where
    physics was the discipline of the day. As we move closer to the
    21st century, our survival becomes more dependent on
    understanding issues related to the natural and biological
    sciences. As our world and its need for knowledge changes,
    scientific research needs to change as well. As such, the USGS
    budget for the last year of the 20th century provides a bridge
    to new science, to understanding how to achieve and maintain
    sustainable development as it relates to our watersheds and
    ecosystems. A redirection of $23 million in a $800 million
    total budget is a relatively small (less than 3 percent) shift
    in the budget priorities of a research organization.
        Question. Given proposed reductions of nearly $23 million
    to existing programs, is it fair to assume that these programs
    are more than sufficiently funded at their fiscal year 1998
    levels?
        Answer. The increases included in the President's Budget
    for special initiatives are reflective of the Administration's
    priorities for the USGS science needs in fiscal year 1999.
        Reductions include a $1.37 million across-the-board cut in
    the Biological Resources Division, a $1.1 million reduction to
    unspecified science programs for absorption of a potential
    increase in GSA rent payments, half a million dollars in
    ``miscellaneous'' reductions to the water program, and
    approximately $5 million in savings from largely undefined
    ``reinventing government'' measures.
        Question. How do you justify program cuts that are defined
    so unclearly that the impact to specific programs cannot be
    readily determined?
        Answer. Given a constrained funding environment, program
    reductions were necessary in order to provide the flexibility
    to address other high priority needs of more immediate concern.

                          disaster information network

        $15,000,000 in new program funds are proposed for a
    national Disaster Information Network. These funds would be
    intended to enhance coordination among Federal agencies and
    other organizations, standardize information collection, and
    improve organization and access to disaster information. A
    multi-agency ``integrated program office'' hosted by GS will
    manage Federal coordination efforts.
        Question. By law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    is the entity responsible for coordinating disaster response.
    This would seem to be the logical home for a multiagency
    program office intended for that purpose. Why is GS the lead
    agency?
        Answer. The USGS is the national leader in research,
    monitoring, and warning of most natural hazards. Information on
    hazards, their likelihood, and how to prepare for them are the
    primary products of the scientific research programs that are
    critical missions of the USGS. It has:
      --Primary national responsibility for research and for providing
            real-time information and warnings for earthquakes, volcanic
            eruptions, landslides, and wildlife disease outbreaks.
      --Primary national responsibility for stream-flow data and works
            closely with NOAA to assist in their role of forecasting
            floods.
      --The USGS works with NOAA and other agencies in monitoring and
            providing warnings for geomagnetic storms (space weather),
            tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds, wildfires, and coastal storms.
      --The USGS is undertaking a major pilot research effort in monitoring
            wildfires and volcanoes using advanced monitoring systems.
      --The USGS programs are divided into four themes: hazards,
            information, environment, and resources. A disaster information
            network brings the first two themes together and plays a
            significant role in many aspects of the latter two themes.
        The USGS is a national leader in the dissemination of disaster
    information:
      --The USGS responds to the requirement for maps and digital data in
            times of natural disasters and other crisis situations through
            a well-coordinated delivery network.
      --The USGS, as the lead civilian mapping organization in the United
            States, is responsible for providing maps and digital data to
            the Department of Defense in times of national security or
            other national crisis.
      --USGS maps are used throughout the country and USGS digital data are
            becoming equally ubiquitous.
      --The Secretary of the Interior chairs the Federal Geographic Data
            Committee.
      --The USGS chairs the Civil Applications Committee and operates the
            Advanced Systems Center for the proper utilization and
            distribution of classified data.
      --The USGS operates the EROS Data Center for delivery of mapping and
            imagery products.
        Strategic Performance Goal BA3-M3 of the USGS GPRA
    Strategic Plan states that ``the Earth Science Information
    Management and Delivery Program will manage and deliver an
    increasing volume of geospatial data, including from classified
    sources, to enable policy officials and program managers to
    make wise and informed decisions when facing critical national
    issues.'' Geospatial data constitute a major part of disaster
    information and mitigating the effects of disasters is a
    critical national issue.
        The disaster information network initiative was developed
    by all appropriate agencies and will involve all of these
    agencies in the operation of an Integrated Program Office
    staffed by detailees from each of the agencies. The USGS will
    host this office and provide national leadership in an area
    that is critical to the utilization of USGS research. The
    proposed disaster information network will not supersede any
    existing roles or responsibilities of the agencies. The
    disaster information network will add value by coordinating and
    integrating critical disaster information so that users can
    quickly locate the information they need without having to
    identify which agency is providing it or where it resides.
        USGS, as host agency, will expend the funds as it does with
    its other programs--in a manner that most cost-effectively
    meets the program mission requirements, including the use of in
    house research, private sector support, and interagency
    expertise.
        Question. What outyear costs are anticipated in the
    implementation of this program?
        Answer. The feasibility study by the Disaster Information
    Task Force suggested a total cost over several years of $50
    million to develop the network and outyear operating costs of
    $10 million per year paid in part from private sources through
    the public/private partnership to be developed. KPMG Peat
    Marwick LLP prepared a benefit-cost analysis based on these
    assumptions and concluded that the ratio of costs to benefits
    over 10 years would be in the range of 12 to 25:1 for Federal
    benefits and 15 to 31:1 for national benefits.
        Question. Approximately $5,000,000 of the total amount
    requested is intended for equipment upgrades. What will the
    remaining $10,000,000 be used for?
        Answer. The budget proposed for the Disaster Information
    Network breaks down as follows:
      --5 million. Establish the Integrated Program Office and address
            primary issues. Staff office with full-time detailees from
            Federal agencies with major rsponsibility for providing or
            utilizing disaster information (Departments of Interior,
            Commerce, Defense, and State, FEMA, and the DCI Environmental
            Program) and with part-time liaison staff from other concerned
            agencies including the NSF, NASA, EPA, and USDA. Develop an
            integrated approach within Federal agencies for providing all
            types of information relevant to disasters in forms most useful
            to the users such as emergency managers and business and
            community leaders concerned with building disaster resilient
            communities. Foster policies and procedures that assure timely
            access to relevant data from all sources. Implement a public-
            private partnership that involves representatives of all stake-
            holders in the specification and implementation of the Disaster
            Information Network. Convene working groups of all stake-
            holders to develop ways to organize and search for information,
            standardize and harmonize data and information, visualize and
            combine data, provide reliable dissemination during disasters,
            specify and assure data quality, and handle sensitive
            information.
      --$3 million. Implement pilot demonstrations of how the Disaster
            Information Network can be used effectively to reduce disaster
            losses and develop prototype training and outreach efforts.
      --$3 million. Adapt, integrate, and leverage new information
            technologies to enhance the quality and reliability of the
            Disaster Information Network and software tools that help
            decisionmakers access and integrate the data and information to
            make decisions critical for reducing disaster losses.
      --$4 million. Assure reliable operation during emergencies by
            connecting key providers and users through existing Federal
            intranets and implementing alternative dissemination strategies
            using such technologies as satellite broadcast.
        Question. The $5 million for equipment upgrades points to a larger
    issue GS faces in its need to keep pace with technological advances
    that have produced new tools with enhanced capabilities. Is the
    Department looking at these potential requirements of GS? Is there a
    comprehensive plan for periodically updating systems independent of any
    new initiative proposed by the agency?
        Answer. Many of the monitoring networks that the GS depends on are
    becoming outmoded because they have not been upgraded for decades. The
    USGS and the Department are looking at options for future budgets to
    provide for enhanced infrastructure.
                         drug registration partnership
        The Biological Resources Division has proposed to save $899,000 by
    withdrawing from the agreement it has with 37 States to conduct
    research aimed at developing safe and effective FDA-approved drugs
    required for use in Federal, State, and private fish culture
    operations. GS has acknowledged that the program will be terminated if
    its support is withdrawn, although work is far from completed at this
    time.
        Question. The original agreement called for a 5-year commitment
    terminating at the end of fiscal year 1999. As the lead agency
    responsible for conducting the research at one of its own labs, why
    doesn't GS feel obligated to honor the terms of the agreement it made
    with the States?
        Answer. The USGS has honored the terms of the agreement it made
    with the States for development of FDA-approved drugs for fish culture
    operations. As a partner in this effort, USGS' Biological Resources
    Division (BRD), budgeted funding starting in fiscal year 1994 for drug
    and chemical registration as a 5-year program. For fiscal year 1994-
    1998, BRD continued support for the program in partnership with the
    States and has successfully registered some of the therapeutic drugs.
        In developing the fiscal year 1999 budget, this program was
    proposed for reduction as the 5-year program was slated to end. After
    completing the budget, the BRD became aware of additional research
    needed to meet FDA requirements to complete registration of all the
    required drugs. Additionally, the original scope of work for a 5-year
    program anticipated $1 million in contributions annually from the 50
    States. Actual contributions have not met this target, thereby slowing
    the process for completing the work and extending the timeframe needed
    for drug approvals. Another factor contributing to this delay in drug
    and chemical registration, has been cooperator-approved changes to the
    original scope of work after the project began (e.g., a better
    anesthetic came on the market and was substituted for the one on which
    work already had been done). Additionally, modifications to the
    original data requirements for other drugs in the study were made after
    the project began.
        Question. States have invested a total of over $700,000 annually
    for work in large part not complete at this time. Does GS plan to
    reimburse the States for dollars expended on products not delivered?
        Answer. No. The USGS does not plan to reimburse the states because
    all parties are committed to seeing the goals of this unique
    cooperative agreement achieved in full measure. Substantial progress
    already has been achieved in the IAFWA Project. For example, FDA has
    approved the use of formalin for the treatment of parasites on fish,
    hydrogen peroxide for use as a fungicide, and copper sulfate as an
    external microbicide. However, completing the full scope of work on all
    eight priority drugs will require an additional three years of effort.
    The extension is needed because the original scope of work was based on
    an expected contribution of $1 million annually from USGS and $1
    million annually from the 50 states. Actual contributions fell far
    below those originally envisioned, with $760,000 annually from the
    federal government and approximately $500,000 to $740,000 annually from
    the states. Moreover, changes in the original scope of work have been
    required as data were reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and
    new drugs came on the market. Recognizing the need for additional time
    and funding, the 30 states present at the IAFWA Inland Fisheries
    Committee meeting in September 1997 agreed to support a three-year
    extension to the project.
        Question. Many State fish and wildlife agencies have expressed
    concern over the BRD's proposal to terminate this project. Some have
    suggested that the Federal agreement be fulfilled by appropriating
    resources to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for contract with
    another lab capable of completing the work. Since GS has demonstrated a
    serious lack of commitment to the program, should this alternative be
    explored?
        Answer. USGS remains committed to the program. The leadership for
    the IAFWA Project should remain with BRD in order to provide continuity
    and efficient use of appropriations. BRD facilities for conducting the
    laboratory studies and clinical field trials are among the only ones of
    their kind in the Nation. Transferring the project to a contract-basis
    managed by FWS would be significantly more costly, in both time and
    money.
                               general statement
        Question. In the General Statement you propose to make development
    of monitoring tools to evaluate Habitat Conservation Plans a major
    focus area. What kinds of tools do you envision in this effort? Aren't
    there many tools already available for this?
        Answer. The USGS proposes three approaches: (1) providing more
    information on a landscape scale which encompasses assemblages of
    species; (2) developing decision support systemstools such as expert
    computer systems or geographic information systems that allow managers
    to easily access information needed for decisions; and (3) employing
    adaptive resource managementa process by which researchers and managers
    work together to measure the effectiveness of management strategies and
    then alter those strategies if the desired response is not observed. It
    is with respect to the latter item (adaptive management) that specific
    projects will be designed to evaluate Habitat Conservation Plans in
    close partnership with FWS, NPS, and State conservation agencies in
    California and Hawaii. Migratory bird management is at the leading edge
    of adaptive management initiatives. Research conducted by USGS
    scientists will strengthen new management initiatives of the FWS in
    monitoring migratory birds using wetlands and grasslands on Refuges in
    the Northern Great Plains and Alaska.
        Land managers in our partner bureaus do not have the tools needed
    to implement management strategies that are ecologically and habitat-
    based, and have requested that the USGS develop them. The USGS has
    responded to this need with a proposed budget increase that supports
    the goal of providing information on the biology and ecology of species
    at risk of highest concern to resource managers. The proposed increase
    will support development of decision support systems related to
    threatened biological communities of southwestern and southeastern
    ecosystems, identification of landscape features important to
    biological communities in grassland ecosystems, and development of
    monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness of habitat
    conservation measures.
        Question. Please describe in more detail the kinds of information
    that would be included in ``Aquatic Gap Analysis.'' Why were
    southeastern aquatic habitats selected for the initial focus? Would
    this be a result of existing resources available there suggesting this
    to be the most cost effective area for focus?
        Answer. The information developed in Aquatic Gap Analysis will
    answer these basic questions: How are important aquatic biological
    resources distributed across the landscape? What types of aquatic
    habitats and species are found in a particular area? Are these
    resources being most effectively managed?
        Are there gaps in our knowledge that significantly limit our
    ability to manage aquatic biological resources? Is there some watershed
    activity that is impacting particularly valuable aquatic habitats.
        The information that will be displayed in the aquatic gap products
    includes:
      --GIS mapping and documentation of land cover compatible with
            terrestial GAP;
      --A nationally standardized depiction of streams and rivers and
            watershed boundaries;
      --Incorporated National Wetlands Inventory digital mapping;
      --Distribution of aquatic species--fish, freshwater mussels, other
            invertebrate species;
      --Amphibians, aquatic vascular plants, aquatic mammals, waterfowl and
            wading birds;
      --Water management information, such as State or EPA outstanding
            water designation;
      --Soil and water conservation district plans, Forest Service or other
            Federal agency;
      --Management plans, etc.; and
      --Habitat quality data.
        This information displayed geospatially will assist land
    and water managers in their management and stewardship
    activities. Portions of this information have already been
    developed through terrestrial Gap Analysis.
        The southeast was selected primarily because it has the
    greatest diversity of aquatic species in the Nation. This
    quality, however, also makes it the area with the greatest
    number of extinctions as well as endangered and threatened
    aquatic species. The data available varies widely among the
    southeastern States; those with the best existing information
    resources offer the opportunity of the most efficient
    development of Aquatic Gap Analysis programs. However, those
    States with aquatic resources and with significant gaps in
    their knowledge base may have the greatest need for Aquatic Gap
    Analysis.

                clean water and watershed restoration initiative

        Question. How will activities under the President's Clean
    Water Initiative be coordinated with other Federal agencies to
    ensure cost effectiveness and avoid duplication of efforts?
        Answer. The Clean Water Action Plan was conceived and
    developed as a collaborative project among a number of Federal
    agencies, to build on their existing watershed assessment and
    management programs in a coordinated manner. A Federal
    Interagency Steering Committee, with representation at the
    Assistant Bureau Chief level, was established to oversee the
    coordination. This Committee currently meets two to three times
    each month. In addition, 11 interagency topical work groups
    were set up during development of the Plan to integrate
    activities from the various agencies. Implementation of the
    Plan is being overseen by another set of 11 interagency work
    groups. Each of the work groups has responsibility for a
    certain group of key actions from the Plan. In addition,
    several of the Departments have their own interagency
    coordinating committees for the Plan. At the State level and
    Regional level, seven regional meetings are being held during
    April-May 1998 to familiarize regional and local Federal
    officials with the Plan. State-level implementation teams will
    involve coordination of multiple Federal agencies.
        Question. What is the proposed Federal/public interface for
    dealing with watershed councils? How will this be funded?
        Answer. Chapter III of the Clean Water Action Plan lists
    the following key actions to support watershed councils:
        Beginning in fiscal year 1999, Federal agencies will
    coordinate with States and Tribes to provide small grants to
    enable organizations to build watershed partnerships and
    advance watershed restoration efforts.
        To support local organizations and citizens in locally
    based watershed protection efforts, and to encourage the
    organization of such groups nationwide, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA), Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other Federal agencies
    will increase information and technical assistance available to
    these groups.
        USEPA, USDA, DOI, NOAA, and other Federal agencies will
    work with the present sponsors of the national watershed awards
    to review options for broadening and expanding the awards
    program, including a watershed award in each State and awards
    for innovative solutions to specific problems.
        The Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture,
    Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and the Administrator of
    USEPA, in cooperation with States and Tribes, will convene a
    National Watershed Forum to coordinate watershed assessment,
    restoration, and protection.
        By July 1999, Federal agencies will use Watershed
    Assistance Grants or other appropriate means to support local
    watershed coordinators and will identify agency staff who can
    help coordinate Federal programs for watershed restoration and
    protection.
        In addition to these specific key actions, watershed
    councils are likely to be represented on State implementation
    teams for the Plan.
        Question. You state that the Federal-State Cooperative
    Water Program will be used to operate and monitor programs,
    pollution sources, etc. and that a $16.5 million increase is
    necessary. What was the previous function of this program? How
    will this new focus affect previous activities?
        Answer. For fiscal year 1999, USGS is requesting $23.5
    million for the Clean Water Initiative and the Water Quality
    Information Initiative. These funds are requested in a variety
    of programs to fund a variety of activities:

    Funds requested for the clean water initiative and the water quality
    information initiative

                                                                    Millions

    National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.................  $6.0
    Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program..........................   3.5
    Water Information Delivery Program................................   3.0
    Federal-State Cooperative Water Program...........................   4.0
    Water Resources Research Act Program..............................   1.0
    National Mapping Geographic Research and Applications Program.....   1.0
    Geologic Division Mineral Resources Program.......................   3.0
    Biological Resources Division Research and Monitoring Program.....   2.0

        The $4 million requested for the Federal-State Cooperative
    Water Program (Coop Program) includes $2 million for the Clean
    Water Initiative and $2 million for the Water Quality
    Information Initiative. These funds would support the following
    activities:
      --Increase water-quality monitoring stations; evaluate the relative
            effects of various pollution sources to determine Total Maximum
            Daily Loads, as required by the Clean Water Act.
      --Provide information about source water protection areas and improve
            approaches to protecting drinking water sources.
      --Target watersheds in NAWQA study areas with follow-up work to
            better: (1) link agricultural practices and pesticides in
            ground water; (2) quantify sources of nutrients entering
            streams; (3) assess impacts of historic land use on water
            quality; (4) understand relations between water quality and
            health of aquatic organisms; and (5) evaluate the effectiveness
            of nonpoint source pollution management practices.
        The increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 will not change
    the function of the Coop Program or affect previous activities.
    Rather, the increase will expand and enhance the types of data
    collection efforts and interpretive studies needed to support
    the two initiatives. By conducting this work through the Coop
    Program, USGS can effectively partner with State and local
    water resource agencies in addressing clean water issues
    important to all levels of government and the public. As with
    all Coop projects the cooperating agencies will provide at
    least half the funding; USGS will do most of the work. The
    result is an effective cost sharing arrangement enabling the
    use of consistent techniques of data collection, archiving, and
    analysis so vital to a national resource assessment.
        Question. You have been investigating the hypoxic zone in
    the Gulf of Mexico for a number of years. How much longer do
    you expect to continue this activity and what products will
    result?
        Answer. USGS investigations have produced a framework for
    understanding the relationships between nutrient loadings and
    delivery in the Mississippi River Basin and hypoxia in the Gulf
    of Mexico. Most of the nutrient load is generated in
    agricultural watersheds of the Upper Mississippi Basin, and
    additional inputs occur in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
    downstream of the Mississippi/Ohio River confluence. It is now
    suspected that the past loss of flood plain wetlands has
    reduced the level of nutrients retained in the river system,
    and has contributed substantially to the transport of nutrients
    to the Gulf. However, scientific understanding of the source,
    fate, and transport of nutrients driving Gulf hypoxia is
    incomplete, and investigations into the role of flood plain
    wetlands in the removal of nutrients from surface waters within
    the Mississippi River system are in their infancy.
        USGS will continue studies related to Gulf hypoxia as long
    as there are significant questions concerning the source,
    within-basin transformation, and transport of water quality
    constituents driving the problem, and sufficient concern to
    warrant funding. For fiscal year 1999, USGS proposes initiation
    of a 5-year investigation to determine the contribution of
    flood plain wetlands to nutrient reduction in the Mississippi
    River Basin. The following products will result: (1)
    information on the retention, transformation, and transport of
    nutrients in flood plain wetlands; (2) decision-support models
    for use by river and habitat managers to predict the best
    hydraulic practices to promote nutrient retention by wetland
    vegetation; (3) a landscape-level model of interactions between
    wetland and non-wetland habitats and water quality to evaluate
    the acreage, relative location, and type of habitat necessary
    to achieve desired nutrient reduction loads.
        Question. Will information gathered in this study be
    relevant or useful in addressing the over enrichment problems
    in Chesapeake Bay?
        Answer. The primary cause of nutrient enrichment problems
    in both the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico is nonpoint
    source inputs from the surrounding watersheds. Consequently,
    information generated within the Mississippi River Basin on
    nutrient source, retention, transformation, and transport will
    be extremely relevant and useful in addressing similar concerns
    within the Chesapeake Bay. In particular, the increase in
    fundamental understanding of these processes generated by USGS
    studies on Gulf hypoxia will be directly transferable to the
    Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the models and decision support
    systems that will be generated for the Mississippi River Basin
    can be adapted to Chesapeake Bay watersheds for use by local
    managers.

                              continuing programs

        Question. How long has USGS been investigating endocrine
    disrupting synthetic compounds? How are the compounds selected
    for testing? What effects have been documented? How have the
    data been used?
        Answer. Because DDT is a classical endocrine disrupting
    compound, the USGS and its precursor organizations have been
    working on these compounds for over 50 years. While the concept
    of endocrine disruptors is relatively new compared to the
    toxicological history of DDT, it establishes a basic premise of
    our contaminant research--there is not a focus on any
    particular mode of action, such as endocrine disruption, but
    more on the ability of a compound to affect fish and wildlife
    resources. The recent emphasis on endocrine disruption, and a
    fiscal year 1998 funding increase, has allowed us focus on some
    of the endpoints and measurements associated with the endocrine
    disruption mode of contaminant action.
        We do not particularly select compounds for testing. Much
    of the work done is field based where the health of wildlife in
    a contaminated environment is examined, or a known health
    problem in a species is investigated to see if contaminants are
    a probable cause. In these cases there are usually multiple
    compounds involved. In laboratory testing scientists use a
    compound that is known to cause an effect, these positive
    controls assure that the experimentation is sensitive. For
    example, in developing a model to test the effects of potential
    endocrine disrupting compounds on fish development, a compound
    such as DDT which has estrogenic properties, would be tested in
    validating the model.
        Definitive evidence of effects caused by endocrine
    disruptors has been limited. USGS scientists have documented
    physical anomalies in reproductive tissues of river otters and
    fish. Observations of altered reproductive hormones and the
    presence of the female egg protein (vitellogenin) in male fish
    have also been made. Neither the cause of these anomalies, nor
    the ramifications to any population have been identified.
    Reduced reproductive success of several species of birds,
    mammals, and fish have been documented that correlate with
    exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds, but specific
    compounds and mechanisms have yet to be determined.
        Based on the results from these initial investigations USGS
    helped identify physiological tests that may be useful for
    identifying endocrine disrupting compounds, and highlighted
    geographic areas where the risk of problems from these
    compounds is high.
        Question. Many of your fisheries projects (Salton Sea,
    Southwest strategy) involve extensive interaction with other
    Federal agencies. How are the needs of other agencies
    identified, prioritized, and selected by USGS? Are the Federal
    agencies satisfied with the process and satisfied their needs
    are being met?
        Answer. The USGS currently uses several approaches to
    identify, prioritize, and address science information needs.
    Biological information needs are addressed through the Bureau
    Information Needs process which compiles information needs from
    annual regional meetings with Interior partner bureaus. To the
    degree that funding is available research efforts are directed
    based on these identified information needs. In addition, other
    Federal agencies contract with us for research support through
    cost-reimbursable agreements. Geologic needs are addressed
    through coordination and consultation mechanisms to identify
    the priority needs of its constituents which include Department
    partner bureaus and others. Mapping needs are addressed through
    the role of the USGS as chair of the Interior Geographic Data
    Committee's Base Mapping Working Group, which coordinates the
    identification and collection of digital geospatial base data
    requirement among Interior bureaus through the Department High
    Priority Digital Base Data Program. Priority water information
    needs are identified via the Water Resources Investigations
    Cost-Share Program conducted with Department Bureaus and
    others.
        The processes by which the USGS meets customers needs
    continues to evolve, as they should, to be more responsive to
    customer needs. As an indication of the responsiveness of the
    USGS, Federal agencies are satisfied with the performance of
    the USGS in meeting their needs. For example as shown in the
    USGS' ``Report to Our Customers'' covering fiscal year 1997, 98
    percent of the customers surveyed indicated they were very
    satisfied with the biological resources program products
    addressing research on management needs and technical
    assistance. Similar endorsements are also provided by customers
    whose information needs are addressed by the other USGS
    disciplines.
        Question. Toxic algae-How does the work investigating
    environmental conditions contributing to toxic algae blooms
    correspond/intersect with EPA's EMAP (Environmental Monitoring
    and Assessment Program)?
        Answer. USEPA's EMAP program focuses on the condition of
    estuaries as evidenced by water-quality and ecological
    monitoring within the estuary. Much of the USGS work on
    environmental conditions contributing to toxic algal blooms
    focuses on conditions in the watersheds upstream from the
    estuaries, as evidenced by land-use factors and water-quality
    monitoring and modeling in rivers and their watersheds. For
    example, the USGS SPARROW (SPAtially-Referenced Regressions On
    Watershed attributes) model used thousands of historic water-
    quality analyses, streamflow data, time-of-travel data, and
    watershed characteristics to simulate the source, occurrence,
    and transport of nutrients that contribute to algal blooms
    downstream.

                              biological research

        Question. Besides continually documenting the spread of
    zebra mussels, what purpose does this research serve? Have any
    useful control strategies been developed? How much money has
    been spent on zebra mussel research?
        Answer. USGS research is part of a coordinated effort
    involving Federal and state agencies, universities, affected
    industries, and Canadian agencies to assess pathways for the
    spread of zebra mussels, monitor existing populations, develop
    control methods, and reduce the ecological damage and economic
    costs of zebra mussel invasions. USGS contributions (see below
    highlights) focus on understanding the ecology of zebra
    mussels, including competition with native species, in order to
    identify characteristics useful in developing approaches for
    preventing the establishment of new populations, including the
    spread to the western states, and lessening ecological impacts.
    To date, effective controls for zebra mussels have been
    developed only in association with engineered structures such
    as water intakes and hatchery raceways. Although much is now
    known about the complex factors influencing the spread of zebra
    mussels, no physical, chemical, or biological control, or
    combination of methods, has yet been discovered that is
    effective and economical for use in the environment. In
    addition to the research efforts, the USGS also provides
    documentation on the distribution and spread of zebra mussels
    through the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Database,
    which is a widely used source of reliable data and information
    on invasive aquatic organisms.
        The annual research budget (through the transfer of
    research programs from FWS to the National Biological Service
    and ultimately to USGS) has remained at about $2 million, with
    the largest programs conducted by the Great Lakes (GLSC), Upper
    Mississippi (UMSC), and Florida-Caribbean (FCSC) Science
    Centers, and the Environmental Management Technical Center
    (EMTC).
        Question. In the recent accomplishments section of
    Biological Research and last year's budget justification you
    describe findings of mercury in tissues of fish and wildlife.
    However, in the program decrease section of Water Resources
    Assessments and Research, Toxic Substances, mercury studies are
    slated for a program decrease with justification that it would
    be a new start. Please explain.
        Answer. The mercury study affected by the proposed
    reduction in the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program is a
    separate effort from the work described in the Biological
    Research Activity. The USGS/Biological Resources Division
    research on mercury in tissues studies is an ongoing program
    based on previous BRD research determining conditions under
    which environmental mercury becomes bioavailable and toxic. BRD
    research and monitoring indicates that when mercury becomes
    bioavailable, it can become bioaccumulated, as it has in
    national parks and refuges in the Northeast, Florida, and the
    Great Lakes. Elevated levels of mercury are found in fish and
    wildlife tissues of species where mercury has become
    bioavailable, and is especially concentrated at the tops of the
    food chains.
        Work described in the budget justification under the Water
    Resources Investigations Activity would be a separate effort
    with a different slant. In recent years, USGS has recognized
    increased public concern for effects on fish, wildlife, and
    human health from environmental mercury contamination, and has
    acknowledged that contamination of aquatic ecosystems by
    mercury is an important and complex global problem. In July
    1996, USGS sponsored a multi-agency workshop to transfer
    information and technology, to identify data and information
    gaps, and to identify specific areas of investigation. Since
    then, USGS scientists investigating the geology, chemistry, and
    biology of this problem have been coordinating with others to
    design a comprehensive investigation of mercury contamination
    of aquatic ecosystems that will provide scientific information
    to fill current critical information gaps. USEPA recently
    released a comprehensive review of the mercury contamination
    problem that identified priority research needs. The USGS
    investigation being designed as part of the Toxic Substances
    Hydrology Program will address an important subset of these
    needs.
        Approximately $90,000 has been invested in information
    reconnaissance, interagency coordination, and planning each in
    fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. USGS will complete the
    design of this investigation in fiscal year 1999, as planned.
    However, the need to limit spending requires us to either stop
    research that is in progress before its planned completion or
    to postpone starting new studies. We believe that the latter is
    more prudent. The planned mercury assessment is certainly
    important, and as other projects within the Toxic Substances
    Hydrology Program come to a close and free up program
    resources, it is likely that we will begin the planned mercury
    assessment. When it is finished, the regional assessment will
    provide information on the occurrence of mercury in water
    sediment and fish in a broad range of representative
    ecosystems, and will provide focused investigations.
        Question. Please provide specific details on the programs
    and activities that are proposed for decreases in Biological
    Research and Monitoring (-1.37M). Broad based cuts. Answer: The
    across-the-board reduction impacts all activities funded in the
    Research and Monitoring subactivity. Given a constrained
    funding environment, these reductions were necessary in order
    to provide the flexibility to address other high priority needs
    of more immediate concern. Specific impacts at each of the
    major research centers include the following:
        National and Regional Programs (-$482,000).--This will
    result in reduced support to the National Park Service for the
    study of fisheries nursery habitat in the San Juan and Colorado
    Rivers; support to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Black
    Duck Joint Venture; support to the Bureau of Land Management
    for the development of wildhorse immunocontraception
    techniques; and a study of predation-caused population declines
    among Hawaiian forest bird species. Reductions to the
    maintenance of facilities will delay the completion of repairs
    to facilities and equipment, which are needed to ensure
    employee and public safety. A reduction to the operational
    budget of the research centers will result in greater
    reductions to science programs, as there are certain fixed
    costs that have to be paid such as utility bills, telephone
    costs, workers compensation, postage, etc.
        Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington
    (-$30,000).--Reduced genetic fish stock examination, wetlab
    trials in support of National Fish Hatcheries, and research on
    aquatic epizootics.
        Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska (-$64,000).--
    Reduced the development and application of inventory and
    monitoring protocols in National Parks in Alaska, the science
    program at the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, and large
    mammal and predator/prey research on National Wildlife Refuges.
        Pacific Islands Ecological Research Center, Honolulu,
    Hawaii (-$29,000).--Reduced cooperative efforts with NPS, FWS,
    State and private entities for the recovery of imperiled
    species on Hawaiian National Wildlife Refuges.
        California Science Center, Davis, California (-$54,000).--
    Reduced support for recovery of imperiled species in
    California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah.
        Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis,
    Oregon (-$76,000).--Reduced protocol development for Northwest
    Forest Plan Effectiveness Monitoring and rangeland management
    and restoration needs on BLM lands.
        Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins,
    Colorado (-$94,000).--Reduced research on terrestrial habitat
    models used by land managers to develop mitigation and
    management plans.
        Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North
    Dakota (-$33,000).--Reduced research for DOI bureaus on
    management of predator populations and best management
    practices for migratory birds.
        Environmental and Contaminants Research Center, Columbia,
    Missouri (-$64,000).--Reduced research on causes of
    environmental degradation in the Lower Rio Grande River.
        National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana
    (-$56,000).--Reduced research on the importance of fresh and
    saline wetlands for migratory birds.
        Florida Caribbean Science Center, Gainesville, Florida
    (-$39,000).--Reduced studies of the life history and habitat
    requirements of Gulf sturgeon.
        Upper Mississippi Science Center. LaCrosse, Wisconsin
    (-$35,000).--Reduced ecological studies of imperiled species
    and habitats in the Upper Mississippi River basin.
        Leetown Science Center, Leetown, West Virginia
    (-$79,000).--Reduced ongoing evaluation of freshwater mussels
    in Appalachian streams.
        National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, Wisconsin
    (-$30,000).--Reduced work in support of DOI bureaus including
    wildlife health disease research.
        Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
    (-$137,000).--Reduced research on coastal habitat requirements
    to restore Atlantic coast populations of black ducks.
        Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    (-$68,000).--Reduced research and populations assessment of
    Great Lakes lake trout.
        Question. Given the apparent increase in fish and wildlife
    mortality occurring in many areas of the U.S. (e.g., whirling
    disease, Salton Sea fish and bird kills, Pfiesteria, eagles,
    coots), what is the USGS doing to determine the causes of these
    outbreaks and what research is being conducted on understanding
    factors that control fish and wildlife diseases?
        Answer. The USGS has research programs addressing fish and
    wildlife health problems underway at two fisheries laboratories
    and one wildlife center. The geographic scope, environmental
    complexity, biological impact, and economic consequences of
    fish and wildlife diseases are enormous. The following are but
    a few examples of USGS' fish and wildlife disease research
    efforts:
        Whirling Disease.--The USGS' Western Fisheries Research
    Center (Seattle) is engaged in cooperative research on whirling
    disease with scientists at its Leetown Science Center (Leetown,
    WV) and the University of California, Davis. Whirling disease
    on a national scope is a re-emerging problem, particularly in
    the West. Current research is directed toward breaking the life
    cycle of this parasite. Both molecular and conventional
    methodologies are being used in ongoing research directed
    toward understanding the mechanisms of disease pathogenesis.
    Except for small portions of Principal Investigator salary and
    some technician time, all of this project ($300,000 per year)
    is funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When this
    project ends (1999), essentially no USGS money will be
    available to support this work.
        Salton Sea.--Over the last five years the Salton Sea has
    been the site of several major die-offs. Disease problems in
    birds have included avian cholera, Newcastle disease, avian
    botulism and undiagnosed mortality in eared grebes. The USGS
    has conducted field and laboratory investigations of the many
    disease outbreaks occurring at the Salton Sea. These studies
    have been brief and in response to specific disease events
    rather than comprehensive research studies because of lack of
    funding specific for the Salton Sea.
        In January 1998, a new outbreak of bird diseases killed
    more than 5,600 birds at the Salton Sea. The USGS diagnosed
    avian cholera, a bacterial infection, as the killer of more
    than 1,800 ducks and geese. More recently, USGS isolated and
    identified Newcastle's Disease virus as the suspected cause of
    death in an estimated 1,600 double-crested cormorants taken
    from the Sea during a die-off. Certain forms of Newcastle's
    Disease are highly pathogenic to poultry and could pose a
    significant economic threat to Southern California's poultry
    industry. USGS and FWS personnel are cooperating with other
    Federal, State, and local agencies to identify the cause of the
    mortality and initiate containment procedures.
        With respect to fish die-offs and disease outbreaks in the
    Salton Sea, USGS spends the majority of its efforts to help
    ameliorate disease problems rather than in more basic research
    to increase understanding of the causes of disease. The Western
    Fisheries Research Center (Seattle) did the initial
    investigation of the Salton Sea fish kills. In fiscal year
    1998, this Center is cooperating with the USGS' National
    Wildlife Health Center (Madison--NWHC) on a 1-year project to
    examine the role of Vibrios spp. (a type of bacteria) in some
    of the massive fish mortalities and its possible link to the
    occurrence of avian botulism at the Salton Sea.
        Dr. Milton Friend, formerly Director of the NWHC, has been
    named to serve as Chairman of the Salton Sea Science
    Subcommittee. The Subcommittee, with representation from 14
    different federal, state, local and tribal organizations, will
    provide the scientific evaluations and recommendations needed
    to help restore the health of the troubled Salton Sea
    ecosystem. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests $500,000 for
    Salton Sea to conduct research to understand the ecology of
    disease causing agents for fish and wildlife in the Salton Sea
    including avian botulism. Studies will investigate the causes
    of mass mortality among fishes and responses of birds and
    native vegetation to biological and physical disturbances.
        Pfiesteria.--As part of its Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
    Program, USGS has begun investigations to determine factors
    contributing to fish lesions in the Chesapeake Bay. USGS
    studies will: characterize the types and causes of fish
    lesions; evaluate fish health with a variety of physiological,
    histological, and immunological techniques; and assess possible
    linkages of fish health problems to land use, history, and
    water quality.
        Eagle and Coot Deaths.--The USGS provides considerable
    technical and diagnostic assistance in response to the major
    mortality occurring in bald eagles and coots in Arkansas, and
    recently discovered in North Carolina and Georgia. The disease
    apparently affects the brain and nervous system by creating
    holes in the myelin layers that insulate the nerve bundles.
    Myelin coats the nerve bundles much like the plastic coating
    around electrical wire, and when the coating is damaged it can
    short-circuit the nervous system. Despite the exhaustive
    efforts of federal, state and private-sector scientists, the
    cause or source of the disease remains a mystery. Field
    investigations led by the USGS' NWHC are under way, and
    scientists are hoping that clues from the new locations will
    help to reveal the cause of the disease. The public is being
    urged to report observations of sick or dead eagles or coots to
    the NWHC.
        Question. Critics of fish hatcheries are saying a major
    problem is that hatcheries produce fish that are not equivalent
    to their wild counterparts, in terms of genetics, behavior, and
    disease. What research is the USGS doing to help hatchery
    managers produce fish that can be used to supplement natural
    stocks without harm--particularly imperiled or listed
    populations?
        Answer. USGS is engaged in research to address this issue.
    The Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC) in Seattle
    evaluates the costs and benefits of using alternative sources
    of broodstock--other than traditional domesticated strains--for
    supplementation. Specifically, the study tests for genetic
    differences in the growth, survival, and reproductive success
    of hatchery and wild steelhead and of hatchery and wild spring
    chinook salmon in both natural streams and hatcheries. Other
    research helps guide hatchery managers in identification of
    hatchery practices that produce juvenile salmonids that are
    more like the wild fish and can be used to supplement wild
    stocks that are declining or listed.
        Scientists at the Leetown Science Center are determining
    the effectiveness of alkalinity on the survival, growth, and
    physiological condition of Atlantic salmon. Low pH, coupled
    with high aluminum ion concentrations in low alkalinity waters
    are suspected as causes of mass mortality of fry at the
    hatchery. Atlantic salmon are an imperiled species currently
    being restored through a joint Conservation Plan administered
    by the State of Maine, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    National Marine Fisheries Service. Researchers are also
    investigating the genetics of several imperiled, declining,
    threatened or endangered species for broodstock development at
    national fish hatcheries including the shortnose sturgeon, an
    endangered species, and the Atlantic sturgeon, a species
    recently proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
    A considerable body of genetics research is now available for
    the imperiled Atlantic salmon. Scientists at the Conte
    Anadromous Fisheries Laboratory in Massachusetts are working in
    partnerships with hatcheries on the Connecticut River and in
    Maine to develop river-specific broodstocks that maximize
    variability in declining populations of this species.
        Scientists at Leetown are determining the effectiveness of
    raising sterile, triploid Atlantic salmon for use by the
    commercial aquaculture industry in Maine. The use of sterile
    fish in aquaculture has been recommended as an alternative to
    rearing genetically distinct salmon of European origin in Maine
    waters. Production characteristics of two sterile hatchery
    stocks reared in the lab and at a commercial aquaculture
    facility in Maine are being compared. Disease research at
    Leetown is developing improved ways for monitoring the presence
    of pathogens in Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon to reduce
    the chances of spreading disease organisms in the wild.
    Treatments of returning sea run Atlantic salmon have been
    improved that will help reduce mortality of these adults until
    gametes can be taken for restoration efforts. A recent CD-ROM
    produced by USGS researchers in Wellsboro, PA provides genetic
    and performance characteristics of various strains of rainbow
    trout to assist hatchery managers in selecting appropriate fish
    for stocking.
        Question. The decline and listing of salmon in Washington,
    Oregon, Idaho, and California is of concern to the Nation. What
    research is the USGS doing to assist in the recovery efforts?
    What work is the USGS funding in the Columbia Basin on this
    issue?
        Answer. USGS scientists at the Western Fisheries Research
    Center, Seattle, Washington are conducting research to address
    declining populations of Pacific salmonids. The Center's Fish
    Health research group is helping managers of both hatcheries
    and wild stocks address disease concerns such as bacterial
    kidney disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, infectious
    hematopoietic necrosis, and whirling disease. Genetic studies
    help fisheries managers distinguish stocks of concern and help
    in captive breeding of listed species. Research directed at
    improving salmon habitat includes assessment of toxic threats
    posed by heavy metal contamination from acid mine drainage and
    by agrochemicals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is our
    primary partner in these studies.
        There are a number of studies and data collection
    activities that USGS is conducting to support information needs
    of agencies addressing salmon restoration in the Pacific
    Northwest. In the lower Columbia River, USGS is measuring total
    dissolved gas saturation, an important indicator for fish
    survival. Also, in Washington State on the Elwha River, USGS
    has recently completed a study related to the possible
    restoration of salmon habitat through the removal of two dams.
    The Elwha River study used GIS and digital elevation models to
    determine river reaches that would be assessable to salmon, and
    also evaluated the impact of restored runs on nutrient dynamics
    in the river. Ongoing steelhead research on the Wind River (a
    tributary of the Columbia River) is examining whether steelhead
    fry and parr must grow to a critical size during summer to
    survive harsh winter conditions. A bioenergetics model will be
    developed using the results to help managers better assess the
    effects of future human impacts and the effectiveness of
    alternative management actions.
        In addition to these studies, USGS produces data on: (1)
    river flows or stream gaging, (2) temperature and dissolved
    oxygen, and (3) land-use which can be related to river habitat
    information. All of these data can be useful in determining
    requirements for salmon population restoration. Also, USGS
    scientists provide technical and scientific assistance to
    Department of Interior bureaus, tribal and state fisheries
    agencies, and non-DOI bureaus such as the Bonneville Power
    Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National
    Marine Fisheries Service. Technical assistance needs range from
    management of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, to
    recreational species and management of major projects (dams)
    and fish passage facilities. A wide variety of technical
    fisheries and ecological issues include such topics as fishery-
    related telemetry and acoustics, laboratory services, salmonid
    physiology (e.g., gas bubble trauma), alien invasives (e.g.,
    introduced predatory game fish), aquatic invertebrates, and
    large river ecosystem issues. Substantial funding to address
    specific issues such as passage at individual dams is provided
    by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power
    Administration (about $6 million in fiscal year 1998). However,
    holistic basin-wide fisheries research studies, as requested by
    our partner agencies to address the larger population decline
    questions and identify factors limiting reproduction and
    survival, have not been funded.
        Question. How does your budget compare to that of the land
    and resource management agencies that you support?
        Answer. The budget for biological research (BRD) decreased
    from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998 by 12 percent. This
    compares to the average increase of 11 percent for this same
    time period for the three land and resource management agencies
    that the research programs primarily support: the National Park
    Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes to begin to bridge the
    gap in funding for science support for DOI bureaus. The budget
    requests increases of $11 million for research programs to
    address issues that are a high priority to DOI bureaus. If the
    fiscal year 1999 President's budget is enacted, the change in
    funding from fiscal year 1994 is a decline of 4 percent as
    compared to the average increase during this same time period
    for the land and resource management bureaus of 21 percent.
        Question. How does this compare with private industry
    investments in research?
        Answer. A conservative or minimum estimate of what most
    corporations spend on research and development is 10 percent of
    the total business. Using this as the goal, the BRD budget
    would be $265.7 million for fiscal year 1998 instead of $145
    million. The enacted appropriation for biological research
    (BRD) is 5.5 percent of the operational portions of the budgets
    for the three land and resource management agencies: the
    National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    Bureau of Land Management.
        Question. Are the research needs of the land and resource
    agencies being met?
        Answer. Through effective resource management, the USGS/BRD
    has ensured that the land management bureaus' highest priority
    research needs are met despite the budget reductions in fiscal
    year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. There is substantial evidence
    that USGS/BRD scientists have been able to mobilize greater
    scientific resources in support of land managers, especially
    the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service,
    than these managers were getting prior to the formation of NBS.
    Furthermore, there is evidence that USGS/BRD scientists are
    doing a better job of focusing their remaining research
    capability on the high priority resource management issues
    through a concerted effort at all levels to coordinate,
    cooperate, and collaborate with the parent bureaus.
    Nevertheless, the increasing responsibilities and complex
    challenges confronting our land managers continue to increase
    their demand for science support. The fiscal year 1999 USGS
    budget request seeks to address this need with the proposed $11
    million increase for species and habitat research.

                             facilities maintenance

        Question. What is the deferred maintenance backlog for
    Biological Resources Division facilities?
        Answer. The deferred maintenance listing for the U.S.
    Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (BRD) is $35
    million, which is part of the $58 million listing of deferred
    maintenance projects identified for the U.S. Geological Survey
    in December, 1997. The $58 million listing includes a
    comprehensive inventory of projects for BRD, and a preliminary
    inventory of the deferred maintenance needs for the other
    divisions in USGS. The USGS is in the process of generating a
    comprehensive listing of deferred maintenance projects for the
    entire bureau.
        Question. Is funding included in the budget adequate to
    address maintenance needs?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Biological
    Research and Monitoring (BRD) includes $2.9 million for annual
    maintenance, which will enable BRD to address the most urgently
    needed health and safety repair projects. The budget request
    includes an additional $1 million to replace incinerators that
    are in violation of state air quality standards at the National
    Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The incinerator
    project is the number one priority on the bureau-wide listing
    of deferred maintenance projects.
        Prior to BRD-wide rescissions and budget reductions in
    fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996, the annual budget for
    maintenance was $5.3 million, which funded annual maintenance
    requirements, but did not address the deferred maintenance
    projects. internal and external customer service
        Question. Why are overhead costs charged for moving money
    between Divisions (not the case in interagency agreements)?
    What is the charge? Is this more than most institutions charge
    scientific agencies with the Federal Government?
        Answer. Effective October 1997, there are no overhead
    charges by the division transferring funding to another
    division. Only the division doing the work charges overhead.
        Question. Recently many complaints have surfaced from
    customers developing MOU's, interagency agreements, and
    research work between their agency and USGS divisions.
    Previously in BRD, these administrative functions were handled
    expeditiously. Now, customers complain that there is an
    exorbitant increase in time it takes for these matters to be
    handled. Please respond.
        Answer. We have not heard any complaints regarding the
    timeliness of interagency or MOU execution and do not believe a
    change has occurred. Authority to approve reimbursable
    agreements continues to be delegated by Division Chiefs to
    their managers. There is no bureau involvement in this process,
    and as such, timeliness should not be impacted for BRD
    customers. There have been no additional requirements imposed
    by the USGS.
        Question. Please explain why assessments charged to BRD by
    USGS for administration and housing exceed costs incurred for
    this agency when they were a separate entity. (6.2M)
        Answer. Upon the merger of the former National Biological
    Service and the USGS, agreements were fashioned to ensure that
    the administrative structure and costs of the merged bureaus
    would not result in a net loss to the funds available for
    science. Since the merger of NBS and USGS, bureau-level costs
    have increased due to the continuing rise in fixed costs such
    as salaries, Departmental services, and unemployment
    compensation. The bureau-level costs are paid for by all USGS
    programs based on a percentage of their total resources. In
    fiscal year 1996 prior to the merger, BRD's administrative
    costs were approximately 8.2 percent of their total resources.
    Currently BRD's administrative costs are estimated to be 8.0
    percent of their total resources. BRD was formerly a bureau
    with no subsidiary divisions or large organizational
    components. As such, all appropriated funding for
    administration paid all indirect costs. When BRD joined the
    USGS, they were required to fund a portion of bureau level
    costs (which include costs previously paid by BRD when they
    were a separate Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior)
    in addition to their division level administrative costs. As
    far as housing (space), each division, including BRD, pays for
    their own space costs.

                        office of the inspector general

        Question. Does your fiscal year 1999 performance plan
    briefly or by reference to your strategic plan identify any
    external factors that could influence goal achievement?
        Answer. Section 4 of our strategic plan references and
    synopsizes the external factors that influence our performance
    goal achievement as follows:
        Budget Constraint.--For several years, the Office of
    Inspector General (OIG) has been subject to severe financial
    constraints because of a constant erosion of its funding base.
    This erosion has resulted from a series of unfunded or
    partially funded pay increases such as ``availability''
    payments to criminal investigators and other uncontrollable
    costs that the OIG has absorbed over the years. The erosion of
    funding has created tremendous operational challenges for the
    OIG because the challenges have occurred notwithstanding ever-
    increasing statutory demands on our work load.
        Legislatively Mandated Work.--Chief Financial Officers
    (CFO) Act requirements, which are legislatively mandated, have
    increased steadily since 1993. The personnel-intensive nature
    of the CFO audits has caused a strain on audit resources, while
    the demand for CFO audit work continues to increase, including
    the implementation of the Federal Financial Management
    Improvement Act, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
    Statements No. 6 and No. 8, Office of Management and Budget
    Bulletin 97-01, and the requirements of the Government
    Performance and Results Act.
        Decentralized Department of the Interior Operations.--The
    fulfillment of our statutory mandate is extremely difficult
    given our limited resources (personnel and travel funds) in an
    agency of nearly 70,000 employees located in approximately
    2,000 locations. Because the Departmental offices are highly
    decentralized, the amount of available OIG staff and travel
    funds has a significant impact on the number, scope, and types
    of audits and investigations the OIG can perform.
        Technological Advances.--With continually changing
    technology, the importance of staying up to date is critical
    but costly.
        Negotiation of Indirect Cost Rates.--In addition to our
    statutory responsibilities, audit resources are used to
    negotiate indirect cost rates with state, local, and tribal
    activities for administering Federal programs, which is a
    program function that reduces the resources available for
    discretionary performance audits.
        Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
    anticipate and plan for such influences?
        Answer. The OIG has and will continue to take a number of
    steps to compensate for the external factors identified
    previously as follows:
        The OIG has absorbed/will absorb cost increases and
    budgetary constraints through a variety of streamlining and
    cost-cutting measures, including not filling vacancies;
    reducing or co-locating office space; and reducing equipment
    maintenance agreements, printing and postage costs, and costs
    for acquisition services and General Service Administration
    (GSA) vehicles.
        The OIG provides comments on proposed legislation that
    affects its resources, but once legislation is enacted, the OIG
    must comply. As a result, resources allocated to discretionary
    audits (economy and efficiency and program results) of
    Department of the Interior programs and operations have been/
    will be reduced to accommodate these mandated requirements.
        To compensate for reduced budgets and the decentralized
    operations of the Department, we have/will reduce the scope of
    our audits from that of Departmentwide or bureauwide coverage
    to field office coverage. As such, we will be frequently unable
    to project audit results nationwide. Instead, we will report
    the monetary and other impacts for the locations visited. In
    addition, we will ensure that the staff have updated computer
    equipment which allows for increased OIG and Departmental
    regional and bureau intercommunications, and when appropriate,
    we will take advantage of the teleconference and video
    conference technology to reduce travel costs.
        We attempted to transfer the indirect cost rate negotiation
    responsibility to the Department in 1989. The Indian tribes
    strongly disagreed with the transfer of this responsibility and
    Congress did not appropriate funds for the transfer. The
    Committee on Appropriations in House Report No. 101-120
    recommended that ``the function remain with the Inspector
    General. Staff from the Inspector General's office can carry
    out this function as part of their other functions.'' As such,
    we continue to perform this program function. We have not made
    subsequent attempts to transfer the function because of the
    Congressional prohibition, continued tribal opposition to a
    transfer, and the Ramah/Navajo litigation. In addition, an
    April 29, 1994 memorandum from the President of the United
    States requires consultation with all tribes before actions
    impacting contracting under Public Law 93-638 take place.
        Question. What impact might external factors have on your
    resource estimates?
        Answer. Because OIG expenditures are personnel intensive,
    the absorption of uncontrollable costs necessitated by
    budgetary constraints has the effect of a reduction-in-force,
    which impacts our mission accomplishment. The mandated
    requirements for both audits and investigations have caused
    resources to be shifted from discretionary or planned reviews.
    Audit staff have been reviewing the financial statements for
    all eight bureaus in addition to auditing the Department's
    consolidated financial statements since 1995, and the
    requirements for financial audits are steadily increasing. In
    addition, audit staff have been performing reviews in response
    to Congressional and Departmental requests. While benefit is
    gained from these reviews, the number of economy and efficiency
    and program results audits performed has declined and will
    continue to decrease as mandated requirements and requests
    increase.
        The Office of Investigations is frequently requested by the
    Department of Justice to participate in matters involving the
    alleged underpayment of millions of dollars in oil, gas, and
    coal royalties and on task forces relating to Indian gaming or
    to allegations of the misappropriation of Federal and tribal
    funds. These are areas that have been determined to be highly
    susceptible to fraud and could potentially result in a
    significant loss of revenues to the Department and the tribal
    organizations. Our investigations in these areas are labor
    intensive and travel intensive; thus, limited travel funds have
    a detrimental impact on the number of investigative activities
    conducted by our agents. Also, the Department's pursuit of
    state-of-the-art systems results in the OIG having to convert
    to compatible technology to communicate and operate effectively
    in conducting reviews of the Department's programs, automated
    systems, and activities, which is expensive.
        Question. For every dollar spent in conducting audit
    activities that identify cost savings, improve efficiency of
    Department of the Interior agencies, measure and detect waste,
    fraud and abuse, how many dollars are saved or recovered as a
    result of these actions?
        Answer. For fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997, the Office
    of Audits made recommendations that identified total savings in
    excess of $1 billion, or approximately 24 times the OIG audit
    budget of $42.2 million for those three fiscal years. These
    savings consisted of $382 million of funds recommended for
    better use, $548 million of potential additional revenues, and
    $78 million of questioned and unsupported costs identified by
    our audits of Department of the Interior contracts. Regarding
    OIG investigations, we provided assistance that resulted in
    recoveries of about $3 million in fiscal year 1997.
        Since 1990, OIG resources dedicated to mandated audits have
    been increasing. The number of audits requested by Congress and
    DOI management has also increased. We have honored these
    requested audits, subject to resource availability, consistent
    with the National Performance Review. Thus, the mandatory and
    requested audits, which have not typically identified monetary
    savings, have reduced the resources available to conduct
    discretionary or planned audits, which historically have
    resulted in significant savings.
        The savings and program improvements reported in the
    semiannual reports are a ``snapshot'' of OIG activities for
    that period. As such, all the savings associated with OIG audit
    activities are not captured because audit recommendations often
    result in recurring savings, cost avoidances and increased
    future revenues, which we do not routinely measure and report
    on except through cyclical followup reviews. For instance, we
    issued a March 1998 report entitled ``Followup of Offshore
    Minerals Leasing Activities, Minerals Management Service,''
    which showed that implementation of our recommendation in a
    1993 report entitled ``Offshore Minerals Leasing Activities,
    Minerals Management Service'' generated additional oil and gas
    lease revenues estimated at $141 million for the Department
    between 1993 and 1997. We also estimated that implementation of
    the recommendation would generate another $194 million between
    1998 and 2001. Also, although we reported on savings identified
    at the audit sites we visited, Departmentwide or bureauwide
    savings resulting from implementation of those recommendations
    could not be readily determined. Finally, OIG proactive efforts
    result in cost avoidances rather than measurable savings.
        Question. Do any of the Interior agencies have the
    expertise or capabilities to ensure proper audits and detect
    waste, fraud and abuse within their own agencies?
        Answer. Although two Departmental bureaus have auditors
    (the Minerals Management Service has 201 auditors and the
    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has 41
    auditors), we believe there would be a lack of organizational
    independence that is necessary to conduct ``proper audits.''
    The Congress created the Offices of Inspector General to be
    independent offices within their agencies for the purpose of
    detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the auditors'
    function in the bureaus has been limited primarily to fee and
    royalty compliance reviews to detect underpayments of royalties
    and fees.
        Question. As ``agents of positive change'' in what ways do
    you guide agencies to remedy problems you identify?
        Answer. To guide agencies in remedying identified problems,
    the Office of Audits (1) makes specific recommendations in our
    reports to address each identified weakness and performs
    cyclical followup reviews to assess implementation of the
    recommendations; (2) participates on task forces and working
    groups such as the Travel Re-invention Lab, Y2K committees, and
    the Management Control Council, that are designed to improve
    Government operations; and (3) responds to requests for advice
    and assistance, such as implementing new financial statements
    requirements. We continue to receive and respond to an
    increasing number of requests from auditees to lend our
    expertise proactively to various projects, programs, and
    activities with which the auditees are involved. In that
    regard, we are providing, or have provided, assistance in a
    variety of areas, including participating in Indian Self-
    Determination Act rulemaking, providing oversight of the
    correction of financial accounting system deficiencies,
    participating in Departmental reinvention efforts, and
    providing an assessment of the Minerals Management Service's
    Royalty Gas Marketing Pilot Program. Also, our audit followup
    program allows us to determine how effectively Departmental
    agencies have implemented our audit recommendations and to
    provide further guidance on needed improvements in program
    operations.
        The information relating to problems identified during the
    course of investigations is communicated to agency officials in
    briefings, management implication memoranda, and reports of
    investigations. Additionally, we have proactive initiatives to
    identify programs that may be vulnerable to fraud, waste, or
    abuse and in many cases have initiated proactive investigations
    designed to detect fraud in these programs. Some of our
    proactive initiatives involve the areas of coal reclamation
    fees, environmental crimes and the government purchase card. We
    also developed an Outreach Program and an Affirmative Civil
    Enforcement (ACE) Program which focus on informing and
    educating Departmental personnel in recognizing and reporting
    suspected fraudulent activity related to their specific program
    areas. We have conducted two nationwide conferences on the ACE
    program, which were attended by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, other
    Department of Justice staff, OIG staff, and Departmental
    program personnel, including the Office of the Solicitor. Also,
    during fiscal year 1997, our special agents made 32 fraud
    awareness presentations to employees in various program areas
    within the Department. Further, the OIG has participated and
    will continue to participate on National Performance Review
    reinvention teams, such as those for travel, Y2K, human
    resources strategic planning, and tenant users activities
    covered by the working capital fund.
        Question. Please explain the cost saving measures that led
    to ``less expensive'' access to the National Crime Center? Has
    this changed or compromised your abilities in anyway?
        Answer. Until 1995, the OIG had direct access to the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information
    Center (NCIC) through the Department of Justice (DOJ). However,
    in late 1995, DOJ wanted agencies to use standard equipment
    which would be leased from the DOJ for approximately $15,000 a
    year. At that time, the OIG discontinued its direct access with
    the National Crime Information Center data base. Subsequently,
    we entered into agreements with both the Rocky Mountain
    Information Network and the Regional Organized Crime
    Information Center (ROCIC) to obtain law enforcement data. Our
    current costs of approximately $250 annually provide us with
    the ability to continue to obtain law enforcement information
    without incurring the NCIC costs of approximately $15,000 a
    year with DOJ. The disadvantage of using these services are
    that (1) the data bases have less current information than the
    NCIC database and (2) on occasions, there are delays in the
    response times to queries.

                            Office of the Solicitor

                                      gpra

        Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency
    leadership to guide decision making? Will this use increase in
    the future and if so in what ways?
        Answer. As a support organization within the Department,
    the Office of the Solicitor's mission is to work to ensure the
    success of departmental and bureau goals and objectives. The
    Office provides legal advice to ensure that positions taken by
    the Department are legally defensible, and it provides legal
    representation to advance the Department's goals in
    negotiation, litigation, and other contexts. The Office does
    not have its own GPRA plan, but it is guided by the bureaus'
    GPRA plans and discussions with departmental and bureau
    officials in setting priorities for the Office's legal work.
    This use of GPRA will continue in the future.

                                computer system

        Question. The OTS requests $520,000 to replace outmoded
    computer and networking equipment. How much additional cost
    either in lost productivity, repairs, or additional resources
    to complete tasks, is associated with outmoded systems, no
    access to DOINET, and system failures?
        Answer. A conservative estimate is that each employee in
    the Office of the Solicitor loses an average of one to two
    hours a week due to the Office's outmoded information
    technology. That lost time translates into a direct salary and
    benefit cost of $0.8-$1.6 million per year, and the amount is
    increasing over time. Not included in these figures are more
    intangible costs such as less complete research and
    communication to assist decision makers, employee frustration
    with system limitations and breakdowns, and the lack of
    computer specialists' time to develop databases and other
    system enhancements rather than having to work full-time just
    to keep the system operational.
        Particularly in the regional and field offices, system
    failures typically mean two to three days of ``down time'' as
    problems are diagnosed, solutions are decided upon, and
    replacement equipment is configured, shipped, and installed. If
    a single workstation fails, one employee will be adversely
    affected during that period; if network components fail, the
    entire office will be adversely affected. Unfortunately, such
    failures are becoming more common as our equipment ages.
        Even when the Office's computers and networks are
    performing to full capacity, productivity is lost in a number
    of ways. Most of our computers are very slow, with limited
    memory. As a result, they often have difficulty even with the
    outmoded (and less demanding) versions of standard software
    used by the Office, and they cannot process at all the current
    (and more demanding) versions of software used by some of
    Interior's bureaus and by organizations outside the Department.
    Solicitor's Office computers frequently cannot ``read''
    documents being forwarded to Office staff for legal review; and
    converting the documents to older software typically causes
    formatting problems that take considerable time to fix.
        The lack of DOINET connections means that most Office
    employees do not have ready access to the growing number of
    Department-wide administrative systems or the Internet. Thus
    the many research and transactional opportunities provided
    through these systems are simply unavailable to most employees.
    Examples include congressional and other agency Web pages,
    GSA's procurement system for supplies, and departmental
    personnel and management systems. In some cases, the Office has
    to do double data entry for the same transactions (e.g.,
    employee time and attendance reporting), with one person who
    lacks DOINET access compiling the data for his/her location in
    one form to send to someone in another location who has DOINET
    access, and the second person re-entering the same data into a
    system connected to DOINET.

                 microbes taken from yellowstone national park

        Question. What is the status of the NPS efforts to develop
    a system to control the use of microbes taken from Yellowstone
    National Park?
        Answer. To date, NPS has entered into a single Cooperative
    Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Diversa
    Corporation. Under the terms of this CRADA, Diversa will be
    permitted to collect small quantities of microbial samples for
    laboratory analysis. If, after replication and testing in the
    laboratory, any enzymes, elements of genetic code, or other
    substances derived from Yellowstone microbes prove to be
    commercially valuable, the NPS will receive royalties from
    Diversa.
        The rights being conveyed under the CRADA with Diversa are
    not exclusive. Approximately 20 other firms have expressed
    interest in similar arrangements at Yellowstone, and NPS will
    consider each research proposal and evaluate the opportunity to
    enter into a CRADA. In the case of the Diversa CRADA, research
    contributing to the understanding and preservation of park
    resources will be conducted and shared with Yellowstone.
        NPS has primarily relied on the Federal Technology Transfer
    Act (FTTA) as legal authority to enter into the Diversa CRADA.
    We anticipate continuing to use the FTTA as a basis for future
    agreements. This position is currently under review in federal
    district court as a result of a lawsuit filed by The Edmonds
    Institute and others, against the NPS, Edmonds Institute v.
    Babbitt, Civ. No. 98-0561 (D.D.C. filed March 5, 1998).
        Under the direction of the Science Advisor to the
    Secretary, the Department of the Interior has established a
    task force to examine issues relating to bioprospecting and
    technology transfer. Future NPS agreements will reflect any
    departmental policies that may be developed to govern
    technology transfer on the various public lands managed by the
    Secretary.

                            filming on private lands

        Question. Will the Office of the Solicitor be involved in
    determining if or how private industry will pay the Federal
    government for filming on public lands?
        Answer. The BLM, through its rulemaking process, determines
    who pays for filming on lands administered by BLM (public
    lands), what type of payment is due, when payment is due, how
    payment is made, and cost recovery requirements (43 CFR Part
    2920). The Solicitor's Office provides legal advice to the BLM
    in the formulation of these regulations. The Solicitor's Office
    does not get involved in determining if or how payment is due
    in a specific case unless the BLM seeks legal advice in
    interpreting or implementing its regulations. No fees are
    currently assessed for filming on other lands administered by
    the Department (e.g., Park System units and wildlife refuges).
    The Department has supported legislation that would authorize
    fees in these cases, and the Solicitor's Office has
    participated in drafting this legislation.

                             clean water initiative

        Question. What is the OTS role in Vice President Gore's
    Clean Water Initiative?
        Answer. The Solicitor's Office has assisted with the Vice
    President's Clean Water Action Plan by participating, along
    with its departmental clients, in various interdepartment
    workgroups involved in the development and implementation of
    the Clean Water Action Plan. Such assistance has included
    advice with respect to the preparation of workgroup papers to
    assure that such papers are consistent with applicable legal
    requirements. We anticipate that Solicitor's Office staff will
    continue to assist the Department through similar efforts on
    workgroups charged with implementing the Clean Water Action
    Plan.
        Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services
    program requests an increase of $2.5 million for increased
    Habitat Conservation Planning in the President's fiscal year
    1999 budget. Will any of this increase be allocated to the
    Solicitor's Office for the increased workload resulting from
    increased numbers of HCP's?
        Answer. No. The President's Budget requests increases
    totaling $12.6 million for the FWS to more efficiently and
    effectively implement the Endangered Species consultation
    program. This includes a general increase of $9.9 million for
    the FWS consultation program to conduct additional Section 7
    consultations and to work on additional Habitat Conservation
    Plans; $1.5 million to support the Interior Columbia Basin
    Ecosystem Management Project; $0.5 million to negotiate Tribal
    Treaty rights; $0.8 million for support for the Southwest
    Ecosystem Initiative; as well as uncontrollable costs. The
    President's Budget requests increases totaling $1.8 million for
    the highest priority needs of the Solicitor's Office. This
    consists of $1.0 million for uncontrollable costs (primarily
    mandated pay raises); $0.3 million for critical legal services
    in the areas of Indian trust fund management and litigation,
    tribal resource protection and management, Federal oil and gas
    development and revenue enhancement, and personnel-related
    matters; as well as $0.5 million to replace obsolete hardware
    and software for use in automated legal research, Local Area
    Networks, electronic mail, and document processing.

                           office of insular affairs

        The CNMI government appears to be fully supportive of the
    present situation regarding the use of non-citizen labor for
    garment manufacture and other services. In view of the fact
    that this workforce is almost three times the size of the CNMI
    population, this seems inconsistent with the best interests of
    this country. While it is proper to fulfill the terms of the
    Covenant, this subcommittee is not inclined to provide taxpayer
    funds for any program or purpose that would tend to support the
    current situation.
        Question. How did we get in this situation?
        Answer. In developing their Covenant agreement with the
    United States, the Northern Marianas negotiators expressed
    concern that the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act would
    permit excessive immigration to the islands from neighboring
    Asian countries that would permanently overwhelm the local
    culture and community. The Federal government, therefore,
    agreed to not immediately extend Federal immigration control.
    Ironically, CNMI policies have resulted in aliens becoming a
    majority of the island's population. These policies include use
    of low-wage temporary alien workers for permanent jobs and
    aggressive promotion of garment manufacturing.
        Question. What action is the Department taking to deal with
    these issues in the Marianas?
        Answer. The Department is taking action on three fronts.
    First, we are working with other Federal agencies to increase
    the Federal presence in the Northern Mariana Islands to deal
    with violations of Federal labor, civil rights, and criminal
    statutes. Second, we are providing technical assistance to the
    CNMI to improve their capacity to deal with these problems
    internally and to track and control the movement of alien
    workers in and out of the Commonwealth. Finally, we are
    supporting reasonable legislation to deal with the fundamental
    problems without causing irreparable harm to the CNMI economy.
        Question. The Insular Affairs budget proposes to earmark $5
    million of the $11 million in Construction funds for a prison
    in the CNMI. Do you expect the need to make further earmarks in
    future budgets to assure funds will be properly spent?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget also proposes to
    earmark $500,000 for a crime laboratory to improve the CNMI's
    capability to enforce criminal laws. Earmarks can be an
    effective tool to ensure effective use of appropriations, but
    we are not contemplating any additional earmarks at this time.
        Question. What action do you believe this Subcommittee
    should take to deal with these issues?
        Answer. We would like the Subcommittee to support our
    request to earmark funds for the prison and crime lab. We also
    would like the Subcommittee to continue supporting the terms of
    the Special Representatives Agreement for Covenant grants as
    included in Section 118 of Public Law 104-134. We understand
    that officials of the CNMI government are seeking exemption
    from the matching requirement contained in the Agreement and in
    the law. We would like the Subcommittee to support proposed
    funding levels for the Office of Insular Affairs and the work
    it performs, even if its policies may sometimes be unpopular in
    the insular areas, such as is the current situation with the
    CNMI. Finally, we would like Members of the Subcommittee to
    support legislation to correct the problems that currently
    exist in the CNMI.
        Question. Why is the CNMI government taking the current
    posture relative to reform?
        Answer. There are a number of reasons, including the fact
    that the CNMI is a small community that can be influenced, and
    possibly manipulated, by a large and economically powerful
    business, such as the garment industry. We think opponents to
    reform are using misinformation and playing on themes such as
    Federal intrusiveness to rally local officials and the public
    and keep facts from the public and the issues from being
    objectively assessed and debated.
        Question. What is the local unemployment situation in the
    CNMI?
        Answer. The 1995 census registered an unusually high
    unemployment rate for U.S. citizens of 14.2 percent, more than
    double the 6.6 percent rate in neighboring Guam and nearly
    triple the rate in the United States. Over 90 percent of
    private sector jobs in the CNMI are held by alien workers. This
    virtually unlimited supply of alien workers drives down wages
    in the private sector and discourages local citizens from
    seeking entry-level positions anywhere except government.
    Although unemployed temporary alien residents are technically
    illegal, the 1995 census showed 1,167 unemployed temporary
    residents, and documentation in the CNMI legislature indicated
    that the true figure of unemployed illegal aliens may be as
    high as 7,000.
        Question. Do you expect the legislation currently being
    considered by Congress to substantially improve the situation?
        Answer. Yes. Experience has shown that the CNMI cannot
    adequately track and control the large number of alien workers
    coming into the Commonwealth. This has led to numerous problems
    including public health problems, human rights abuses, violent
    crime, drug abuse, prostitution, poor living conditions, and
    high unemployment. The low minimum wage is a direct cause of
    high unemployment among young local workers, who are leaving
    the CNMI for higher paying jobs in Guam or the mainland or are
    opting for unemployment and food stamps.
        Residents of Enewetak state their desire to be independent
    of the current food support process. To do so, they state a
    need to purchase and maintain three backhoes in order to
    improve their ability to develop a local food source.
        Question. What action is the Department taking to
    facilitate improved self sufficiency of the Enewetak people?
        Answer. The Department is providing the resources to the
    people of Enewetak to carry out their long-term plan to
    increase food production. The Enewetak-Ujelang Local Government
    Council is implementing its Plan for the Improvement of Food
    Production on Enewetak Atoll. A recent performance review
    conducted by the USDA shows that food security from locally
    grown foods has improved markedly since the plan's adoption.
        Question. Based on population growth and the difficulty in
    developing adequate local agriculture, can it reasonably be
    expected that the food subsidy program can ever be eliminated?
        Answer. The Enewtak-Ujelang plan, initiated in 1993,
    concluded that self-reliance in food production was a realistic
    long-term goal, and could be achieved in about ten years. While
    this goal may not be met by 2003, it is reasonable to expect
    the subsidy will be eliminated at some time. The review of
    activities on Enewetak suggests that increased commitment of
    the community to plan implementation will allow the plan to
    succeed. Although the population of Enewetak grows at a high
    rate, its rate is less than that of the Marshall Islands as a
    whole. The solutions to population growth and agricultural
    production obstacles are for the Republic of the Marshall
    Islands government to carry out.

                          Minerals Management Service

                           offshore leasing activity

        The agency leasing program continues to bring increasing
    bids for offshore resources.
        Question. Has this demand for leases been affected by the
    present reduced prices for oil?
        Answer. In early 1998, oil prices fell to levels that had
    not been reached since the mid-1980's. However, as indicated by
    industry's response to Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 169 that was
    held on March 18, 1998, low current oil prices did not appear
    to inhibit bidding activity or demand for leases. In this sale,
    a total of 1,188 bids were received on 794 blocks with high
    bids totaling $810.4 million. This was the fourth largest sale
    ever held in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of number of tracts
    receiving bids and number of bids received.
        In an auction of rights to explore, develop, and produce
    Outer Continental Shelf oil resources, production of any
    discovered hydrocarbon resources does not occur quickly after a
    sale, but rather with a time-lag of five or ten years or more.
    Therefore, future price expectations are much more important in
    determining demand for leases and tract values than the oil
    price at the time of the sale.
        Question. What are the long term projections for continued
    high interest in offshore oil and gas resources?
        Answer. Long term projections are difficult to make
    accurately, due to the uncertainties regarding future prices,
    geologic potential, and cost trends.
        Oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf offer the
    oil and gas industry perhaps the most stable leasing process in
    the world. Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf are
    virtually free of political risk. The Government is unlikely to
    nationalize oil and gas activities. The lease terms and
    conditions that a lessee receives at the time a lease is issued
    stay in effect through the life of the lease, as opposed to
    some countries where the central authority may adjust terms to
    meet its changing revenue and energy objectives. This factor
    will be a positive indicator for continued high interest in
    Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources.
        The absolute number of tracts leased in future sales is
    likely to decline because fewer tracts will be available to
    acquire. However, if the past is an indicator of the future, as
    leases expire or are relinquished, there is a relatively high
    probability that the previously leased tracts will be re-
    acquired when they later become available for leasing. Although
    the number of tracts receiving bids in Outer Continental Shelf
    lease sales likely will decline somewhat because fewer tracts
    are unleased, interest is expected to remain relatively high
    for bonus projections from future Gulf of Mexico lease sales.
        The agency has recently implemented its current five year
    plan for leasing.
        Question. Based on current demand or other reasons, does
    the agency expect any change in the current five year plan?
        Answer. Our current 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
    Gas Leasing Program was approved in November 1996, and includes
    16 sales in 7 areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. To date, we
    have held two sales in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico,
    respectively. We have delayed Sale 173, Cook Inlet/Shelikof
    Strait from late 1999 to 2001. The Department has determined
    under section 18(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
    that this delay is an insignificant revision of the 5-Year
    Program. The delay allowed the Minerals Management Service
    Alaska Region staff to complete work on the environmental
    impact statement for assessing the impact of oil and natural
    gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The
    first annual review of the current 5-Year Program is scheduled
    for July 1998 and is not expected to result in any significant
    revisions to our current program.

                                west delta field

        The relationship between the Federal government and the
    State of Louisiana over the West Delta field continues to be a
    matter of contention.
        Question. What is the present situation regarding the
    extraction of natural gas from the West Delta Field?
        Answer. Both Federal and State lessees are currently
    producing natural gas and condensate from the West Delta Field.
    To date, Federal leases have produced 63,551 million cubic feet
    (MMCF) of gas and 725,071 barrels (Bbls) of condensate. State
    leases have produced 89,955 million cubic feet (MMCF) of gas
    and 1,468,134 barrels (Bbls) of condensate.
        Question. The State of Louisiana is requesting a $32
    million allocation to repay what it contends is the amount
    owed, with interest, for the drainage of natural gas from the
    West Delta fields. What is the Department's position in this
    matter?
        Answer. When Congress set the level of payment to States
    under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
    Congress intended that the payment would compensate the State
    for drainage, if drainage were to occur. This is an important
    issue and one that affects all States with offshore areas that
    border leased acreage. We believe that the law is clear on this
    matter and the courts have upheld the position that 8(g)
    payments compensate States for all losses they may incur,
    including drainage.

                       national petroleum reserve--alaska

        During fiscal year 1998, MMS employees were supposed to be
    used to support the Bureau of Land Management in preparing an
    integrated activity plan and environmental impact statement for
    4.6 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve.
        Question. What is the status of that effort?
        Answer. Minerals Management Service personnel are
    developing answers to comments on the draft environmental
    impact statement (EIS). They also are writing and editing text
    for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). In
    addition, the coastal zone consistency determination is being
    prepared based on the description of the proposed action and
    the draft text of the final environmental impact statement. The
    Minerals Management Service's Resource Evaluation personnel are
    loading and reviewing National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
    geological and geophysical data.
        Question. Have any MMS programs been delayed or eliminated
    as a result of this support?
        Answer. The Minerals Management Service delayed work on the
    Cook Inlet Sale 173 (originally scheduled for 1999) to
    accommodate the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) work.
    The Department wanted the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
    effort to be performed using the best available scientists with
    knowledge of this part of Alaska. We are trying an innovative
    ``good government'' approach by teaming Minerals Management
    Service experts with the experience for evaluating such a
    project with staff in the Bureau of Land Management. Sale 173
    can still be held within our current 5-Year Plan and is
    tentatively scheduled to be held in the year 2001.
        Question. Will a similar level of assistance be required in
    fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The final economic impact statement is scheduled to
    be completed in July 1998, so the economic impact statement
    writers will be through with their work in fiscal year 1998. If
    the Secretary decides to conduct an oil and gas sale, some
    Minerals Management Service personnel will continue to work on
    the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska activities into fiscal
    year 1999. The Minerals Management Service will assist with
    pre-sale, sale, and post-sale leasing activities. Minerals
    Management Service personnel also will continue evaluating the
    National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska geological and geophysical
    data to prepare for the sale and would work after the sale to
    insure that fair market value is obtained for leases receiving
    bids. Most of the Minerals Management Service's fiscal year
    1999 National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska work probably will be
    completed in the first half of the fiscal year.

                    royalty management program reengineering

        The agency proposes to reduce its Royalty Management
    Program by $2.4 million. Concurrently it is embarking on a
    major reengineering process of the program.
        Question. What safeguards will be in place to assure that
    the necessary controls and standards are retained to assure an
    accurate and responsive program?
        Answer. The proposed budget reduction of $2.4 million will
    be fully achieved with no adverse effects on program accuracy
    and responsiveness. This will be accomplished through reduction
    of the Royalty Management Program's financial services
    contract. While the Minerals Management Service proceeds with
    the reengineering project, it will continue to safeguard its
    ongoing controls and standards.
        The process improvements envisioned by the Royalty
    Management Program's reengineering initiative are being
    designed to ensure that overall program performance is improved
    while continuing to provide the highest levels of operational
    integrity, stability, and internal controls.
        The Royalty Management Program also maintains an aggressive
    control evaluation effort which will routinely examine
    reengineered processes to ensure the adequacy of controls and
    standards. Additionally, the Interior Office of Inspector
    General has plans to audit the reengineering effort beginning
    in fiscal year 1999 as well as to continue its heavy emphasis
    on various aspects of the program.
        Question. What is the total estimated cost of the
    reengineering effort?
        Answer. The Royalty Management Program, in conjunction with
    its technical support contractor Performance Engineering
    Corporation, developed a preliminary estimate of about $26
    million for the systems modernization contemplated by the
    reengineering effort. Implementation of the Royalty Management
    Program's new business processes and automated support systems
    is expected to begin in fiscal year 1999. The reengineering
    changes will be phased in over a two or three year period
    depending upon the implementation strategy selected.
        The Royalty Management Program has begun prototyping and
    testing its proposed new business processes. The final
    reengineering design concepts will be completed in the summer
    of 1998.
        Question. Can the effort be escalated?
        Answer. We are expecting a 2-3 year implementation schedule
    beginning in fiscal year 1999. This plan is quite ambitious
    given the complexity of the current computer system and the
    far-reaching nature of reengineering. Escalation of the
    timetable could risk program integrity.
        Further decisions regarding implementation depend partially
    upon the results of current prototyping and piloting efforts
    that will be completed in the summer of 1998.
        The 2-3 year implementation schedule provides the basis for
    the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal of $5.0
    million for reengineering. We estimate that additional funding
    of about $21 million will be needed to complete the
    implementation.

                              workforce retention

        The agency is experiencing some attrition of its workforce
    due to recruitment by the industry.
        Question. What steps is the MMS taking to retain its
    workforce in the face of this recruitment?
        Answer. The Minerals Management Service grants retention
    allowances (up to 25 percent of basic pay) to a limited number
    of employees who possess unusually high/unique qualifications,
    or meet special needs of the agency, and who are likely to
    leave Federal service if the allowance is not given.
        The Minerals Management Service's awards program is used to
    recognize employee accomplishments. The bureau has authority to
    grant cash awards of up to $5000. Time off awards are also
    granted frequently.
        Some new employees from outside Government are hired at
    salaries above the minimum rate of the grade. Justification is
    based on superior qualifications of the individual or special
    needs of the agency. This authority is referred to as the
    Superior Qualifications Appointment authority. Employees hired
    under this authority are more likely to stay in their positions
    because of higher than minimum rate salaries.
        College students have been converted from the Student
    Career Experience Program to permanent positions following
    graduation.
        Family Friendly initiatives are in place which enhance the
    quality of work life of employees and, therefore, aid in
    retention. Employees are encouraged to use programs such as
    Family Friendly Leave, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and
    the Voluntary Leave Share Program.
        Telecommuting is being used increasingly in offices where
    the duties of the positions lend themselves to an alternative
    work site.
        Alternative Work Schedules are in use by many employees.
    One such schedule allowing employees to work 5-4-9, meaning
    they work 5, 9 hour days one week, 4, 9 hour days the second
    week, with one day off. However, one of the days is an 8 hour
    day so that the hours equal out. Some special case offices
    allow 4, 10 hour days.
        Question. Has MMS pursued, or is it considering pursuit of
    new authorities to aid in workforce retention?
        Answer. The Minerals Management Service has considered
    across the board salary special rates but did not pursue,
    opting instead for more focused retention allowances.

                            royalty-in-kind program

        The 1998 Interior Appropriations report language directed
    the MMS to continue to test its royalty-in-kind program.
        Question. When does MMS expect to make a final decision on
    development of a RIK program?
        Answer. The Minerals Management Service has decided to
    launch three royalty-in-kind pilot projects, which will involve
    crude oil leases in Wyoming, 8(g) leases offshore Texas, and
    leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
        The start up date for the Wyoming and Texas pilots is
    October 1998; the Gulf of Mexico is October 1999.

                     government performance and results act

        Fiscal year 1999 is the first year of planning under the
    Government Performance and Results Act. The Minerals Management
    Service budget justification displays its strategic goals and a
    performance plan summary.
        Question. Are significant changes expected in the agency
    budget structure to be more reflective of the strategic goals?
        Answer. Currently, minimal changes have been incorporated
    to facilitate the transition from the ``traditional'' budget
    structure to a performance-based budget, and the Minerals
    Management Service has integrated both approaches into its
    fiscal year 1999 budget document. While the Minerals Management
    Service presents its budget in terms of activity and
    subactivity categories (e.g. Outer Continental Shelf Lands/
    Regulatory), this presentation is complimented by listing
    strategic objectives associated with each activity and further
    relating these objectives to enacted and requested
    appropriations and full-time equivalent (FTE) levels. We
    believe this approach is responsive to Government Performance
    and Results Act requirements while retaining a familiar context
    for evaluating the budget submission. A Government Performance
    and Results Act crosswalk is also presented in summary fashion
    at the outset of the budget document in addition to being
    interwoven at appropriate intervals throughout the text. This
    overall approach emphasizes the relationship of and acts as a
    bridge between activities, strategic objectives, and funding.
        As the Minerals Management Service becomes more efficient
    in strategic planning and results oriented budgeting processes,
    we will share information, and work with the Department, the
    Office of Management and Budget, and Appropriations committees
    to develop the most effective way to present the agency budget.
        Question. As strategic goals and objectives become more
    integrated with day-to-day operations, what efficiencies in
    operations are estimated to occur?
        Answer. The Minerals Management Service has a clear and
    distinct mission and mission statement. The Minerals Management
    Service from its inception has embraced the strategic planning
    process in guiding, budgeting for, and executing program
    evolution and development. The Minerals Management Service
    strategic goals and objectives therefore are more reflective of
    meeting mission requirements rather than focusing on greater
    operational efficiencies. For example, some strategic
    objectives relate to insuring that fair value is received for
    public Outer Continental Shelf energy resources and to properly
    protecting Outer Continental Shelf environments--basic mission
    elements in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. However,
    reinvention and reengineering teams are analyzing aspects of
    these mission processes to determine what operational
    improvements and efficiencies can be achieved.
        These efforts are likely to produce recommendations that
    could result in future strategic plan objectives and
    performance plan targets or ``stretch goals'' aimed at
    realizing significant gains in operational efficiency. The
    leasing, resource evaluation, and bid auction processes are
    among those being evaluated for improvement potential. The
    royalty management program is also deep into a reengineering
    effort which will result in a more highly integrated, process
    and outcome focused, and less costly program that is fully
    supported by state-of-the-art technology and would be viewed by
    customers and stakeholders as the best in the business.

                     technology and processing enhancement

        The agency has made extensive efforts to replace and
    significantly enhance its technology and processing
    capabilities.
        Question. What is the status of this technology upgrade
    effort?
        Answer. The Royalty Management Program has completed its
    technology upgrades to support compliance activities both in-
    house and with our State and Tribal partners. Through the
    Royalty Management Program's extended network, all State,
    Tribal, and remote Royalty Management Program auditors now
    share the same desktop applications and accessibility to online
    information as their coworkers located in Lakewood, Colorado.
    In addition, the Royalty Management Program has completed
    upgrades to its Lakewood network that has allowed it to
    consolidate its many divisional Local Area Network's into a
    more cost effective centralized facility.
        geological and geophysical data acquisition
        The acquisition of geological and geophysical data was an
    issue during the fiscal year 1998 appropriation process.
        Question. What is the status of agency actions to finalize
    a proposed rule?
        Answer. The final rule for 30 Code of Federal Regulations,
    Part 251, Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Exploration of the
    Outer Continental Shelf was published in the Federal Register
    on December 24, 1997, with an effective date of January 23,
    1998.
        Question. How has industry been involved in this effort?
        Answer. Industry was involved in two ways. The first was
    through the public comment period for the proposed rule which
    was extended twice in order to ensure receipt of industry's
    comments. The first extension was from the original due date of
    April 14, 1997, to May 30, 1997, and the second extension was
    from May 30, 1997, to July 29, 1997. The second way that
    industry was involved was through two public meetings, the
    first of which was held on May 15, 1997, in Washington, D.C.,
    and the second which was held on July 10, 1997, in New Orleans,
    Louisiana. We also continue to have discussions with both trade
    associations and individual companies to make sure
    implementation of the rule is working smoothly.

                           offshore mineral activity

        The MMS has responsibility for offshore minerals
    management. To date, this activity has been a minor part of
    overall MMS operations.
        Question. Does the agency expect to assess fees against
    local governments for sand and other minerals to be extracted
    from the OCS? If so, what are the projections?
        Answer. Yes, the agency expects to assess fees for sand
    from the Outer Continental Shelf. On October 31, 1994, H.R.
    3678, Section 1, Amendments. (2)(B),(a) Section 8 Amendments--
    Section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
    U.S.C. 1337 (K)), authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
    negotiate agreements (in lieu of the previously required
    competitive bidding process) for use of Outer Continental Shelf
    sand, gravel, and shell resources for certain specified types
    of public uses. It states:
        ``In carrying out a negotiation under this paragraph, the
    Secretary may assess a fee based on an assessment of the value
    of the resources and the public interest served by promoting
    development of the resources. No fee shall be assessed directly
    or indirectly under this subparagraph against an agency of the
    Federal Government.''
        Representative Gerry Studds, Chairman of the Committee on
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries, summed up the intent of the law
    regarding fees during his remarks on H.R. 3678 Outer
    Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Resources, House of
    Representatives--October 3, 1994, H.10592.
        ``The bill accomplishes two important things. First, it
    makes OCS hard minerals available for public projects without
    requiring that the State, local, or Federal agency seeking use
    of the resource participate in a competitive lease sale. Under
    current law, these resources could only be made available to
    State and local governments through such a lease sale, which is
    too costly and too cumbersome. However, the minerals are not to
    be given away. The bill authorizes fees to be charged based on
    the value of the resources and the public interest served in
    developing them. This allows a tradeoff between fair market
    value of the resources and the public benefit of the projects
    for which they will be used. Second, the bill clarifies the
    jurisdiction of the Department of Interior over OCS hard
    minerals as was contemplated by Congress in 1953. However,
    Federal Agencies are not to be assessed a fee for the use of
    these resources.''
        The Minerals Management Service has prepared guidelines for
    its use in determining fees for Outer Continental Shelf sand,
    gravel, and shell resources. In October 1997, the Outer
    Continental Shelf Policy Committee adopted a resolution
    confirming their support for the negotiated agreement process
    and advised that the Minerals Management Service guidelines
    provide an acceptable approach for determining fees and is
    consistent with the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.
        At this time, the Minerals Management Service expects that
    each year, on average, one ``medium size'' shore protection
    project would need access to Outer Continental Shelf sand. This
    project size would probably need between 600,000 and 1,500,000
    cubic yards of sand. With these volumes requested for a typical
    storm damage reduction project, Minerals Management Service
    fees generated could be about $100,00 to $300,000 per year. In
    fiscal year 1998, a fee of $198,000 was assessed for 1.1
    million cubic yards of sand for nourishment of Sandbridge
    Beach, Virginia.
        Additionally, it should be noted that a barrier island
    restoration project under consideration for Louisiana (Isles
    Dernieres) could be funded for construction under the Coastal,
    Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. If so, a
    one-time, large volume of Outer Continental Shelf sand could be
    requested sometime between 1999 and 2001. This would be a very
    unusual project because of its size and could result in
    additional Outer Continental Shelf sand fee collections of
    $600,000 to $1,100,000 in one year only.
        Question. Does the agency expect an increased workload in
    offshore mineral activities?
        Answer. The Agency to date has an exceptionally large
    workload relative to the use of Federal sand for beach
    nourishment. Non-competitive negotiated agreements to use Outer
    Continental Shelf sand to restore coastal beaches already have
    been accomplished with Duval County, Florida, the Cities of
    Myrtle Beach and Virginia Beach, and the U. S. Navy. This work
    has involved the review and preparation of National
    Environmental Protection Agency documents and, in the case of
    Virginia Beach, the conduct of a 3-year environmental study to
    assess potential impacts prior to issuance of a lease.
        Beach restoration/coastal replenishment projects have
    traditionally relied upon the sand resources which were
    available in coastal/near shore waters. However, in recent
    years such supplies have diminished due to repeated use and
    pollution. Continual dredging in the coastal area, within the
    influence of the near shore wave base, has also resulted in
    adverse changes in the local wave climate and physical
    oceanographic regime. This has resulted in increased demand by
    coastal States, local communities, and Federal agencies for
    access to Federal sand resources. In addition, in the last
    several years, coastal storms traversing up the east coast of
    the U. S. have caused severe beach erosion and economic losses.
        The severe storm damage inflicted upon the east coast of
    the U.S., along with the environmental implications associated
    with the use of near shore sand and its diminishing supply,
    have increased the demand for offshore sand suitable for beach
    nourishment. Since studies have indicated that there is a
    plentiful supply of clean, compatible sand for beach/coastal
    restoration on the Outer Continental Shelf and that this sand
    is located in areas well beyond the local wave base and near
    shore wave climate/oceanographic regime, the Agency expects a
    significant increase in demand for access to these resources,
    and consequently, a significant increase in workload related to
    these activities.

                       production delivery infrastructure

        In addition to on-site production and exploration
    activities, there is an extensive pipeline infrastructure that
    has been in place for years.
        Question. What is the overall condition of this production
    delivery infrastructure?
        Answer. The overall condition of this production delivery
    infrastructure is very good. There are about 22,000 miles of
    active pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. About two-thirds of
    this mileage represents natural gas pipelines and one-third
    represents oil pipelines. In all, about 26,600 miles of
    pipelines have been approved for construction, and about 4,000
    miles of pipelines have been decommissioned in accordance with
    Minerals Management Service operating regulations.
        Some have expressed concern that many pipeline segments in
    this infrastructure have outlived their original design life;
    but experience has shown that the older pipeline systems are no
    more susceptible to major failure than more recent systems.
    This is not to say that we do not need to improve pipeline
    inspection, leak-detection, or repair systems. But there
    currently does not appear to be any evidence that we should
    have major concerns about the condition of the offshore
    pipeline infrastructure.
        The greatest likelihood of a spill from any offshore
    pipeline system is from ship-pipeline interactions. These are
    usually caused by anchors being dropped on or dragged over
    pipelines. Ship-pipeline interactions usually result in very
    large spills that heavily influence spill statistics. For
    example, one such incident, February 1988, resulted in a spill
    of 15,576 barrels of oil, or about 38 percent of the volume of
    all spills of 50 barrels or greater for the period 1981 through
    1990.
        Corrosion related spills--the most frequent type of spill
    caused by aging--tend to be small. Such leaks are usually
    detected by the presence of gas bubbles or oil slick sheens
    that are highly visible. Pipeline failure statistics since 1973
    show only one spill of more than 50 barrels that was attributed
    to internal corrosion caused by aging. That spill occurred in
    1973 and was estimated to have released 5,000 barrels of oil.
    No corrosion-related spills of that size have been reported
    since, probably because of increased regulatory attention to
    operator inspections and more frequent aircraft observations to
    detect gas bubbles and oil slicks.
        Question. Are monitoring and inspection activities
    associated with these systems adequate to safeguard against
    deterioration and general hazards caused by aging?
        Answer. Yes. The Minerals Management Service closely
    monitors the leak or failure rates of all Outer Continental
    Shelf pipeline segments and may require additional inspections,
    tests, and maintenance procedures for any segment if it appears
    that the segment poses an environmental or safety risk. The
    Minerals Management Service operating regulations under 30 Code
    of Federal Regulations 250.150-164, Subpart J, contain a number
    of requirements for pipelines that serve to safeguard against
    deterioration and general hazards caused by aging.
        First, pipelines must be provided with an external
    protective coating capable of minimizing under film corrosion
    and a cathodic protection system designed to mitigate corrosion
    for at least 20 years. When pipelines are protected by
    rectifiers or anodes for which the initial life expectancy of
    the cathodic protection system either cannot be calculated, or
    for which calculations indicate a life expectancy of less than
    20 years, such pipelines must be inspected annually by taking
    measurements of pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurements.
        Second, the Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor
    may require that oil pipelines be equipped with a metering
    system to provide a continuous volumetric comparison between
    the input to the line at offshore production facilities and the
    delivery points onshore. Such systems must include alarm
    systems that have adequate sensitivity to detect variations
    between input and discharge volumes. Other systems capable of
    detecting leaks in the pipeline may be approved by the Regional
    Supervisor.
        Third, prior to returning a pipeline to service after a
    repair, the pipeline must be pressure tested with water or
    processed natural gas at a minimum stabilized pressure of at
    least one and one quarter (1.25) times the pipeline's maximum
    allowable operating pressure for at least two hours. This
    serves to prove the adequacy of the repair and to test the line
    for other areas of weakness.
        The Regional Supervisor may require pressure testing of any
    pipeline to verify the integrity of the system when the
    Regional Supervisor has reason to believe that the line has
    been damaged or weakened by external or internal conditions.
        Finally, the Regional Supervisor may prescribe that
    pipeline operators inspect pipeline routes at regular intervals
    for evidence of leakage. The operators must maintain the
    results of these inspections for at least two years and must
    make them available to the Regional Supervisor upon request. On
    April 18, 1991, the Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico
    Region issued a letter to lessees and operators that provided
    guidance on various aspects of pipeline installation and
    operation. It specified that each pipeline route under the
    Minerals Management Service's regulation in the Gulf of Mexico
    must be inspected at least monthly for indications of pipeline
    leakage using a helicopter, marine vessel, or other approved
    means.
        Because corrosion tends to occur in certain areas of
    offshore pipelines, such as in risers and small well flow
    lines, specific local inspection measures and repair techniques
    have proven to be highly effective in maintaining the integrity
    of offshore pipeline systems.

                           incidents of noncompliance

        The agency-provided information to the Subcommittee during
    the fiscal year 1998 appropriation process on Incidents of
    Noncompliance (INC) shows that incidents have been increasing
    steadily since fiscal year 1994.
        Question. What is the 1997 data for INC's?
        Answer. For fiscal year 1997, total incidents of
    noncompliance is 5,265, an increase of 439 over fiscal year
    1996.
        Question. What is the future projection for noncompliance?
        Is it expected to continue to increase?
        Answer. Over the past four years, the number of incidents
    of noncompliances issued has increased. The Minerals Management
    Service has not made future projections; however, the current
    trend suggests that an increase is possible.
        As larger operators continue to move to deeper waters,
    properties in shallower waters are assigned to smaller
    operators, many who have not previously operated on the Outer
    Continental Shelf. Unfamiliarity with the operating environment
    and the operating regulations on the part of these ``new''
    operators is expected to result in a higher level of
    noncompliance. As a result of downsizing and restructuring over
    the past several years, the industry has come to rely
    increasingly on contracting. This results in another layer of
    company policies, procedures and practices, that may or may not
    comply with the operating regulations. We have a concerted
    effort underway to impress upon the operators that they are as
    responsible for the performance of their contractors as they
    are for their own employees. Finally, the Minerals Management
    Service has been taking a more proactive role in promoting safe
    practices. We are committed to taking whatever steps we can as
    a regulator to prevent a serious accident on the Outer
    Continental Shelf which would undermine the confidence the
    American public has in the integrity of the program.
        Question. How many additional agency personnel will be
    assigned directly to inspection of operations particularly
    prone to be in non-compliance?
        Answer. We have been attempting to focus our inspection
    resources on the basis of risk. The Minerals Management Service
    inspects problem operators' facilities more often than others
    by redirecting current inspection resources. Conversely, the
    Agency intends to reduce the inspection frequency for the top
    performers.
        At this time, the level of additional follow up inspections
    of less prudent operators requires a minor number of personnel,
    and is being accommodated within the current workforce.

             Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement

                            clean streams initiative

        The agency proposes to increase its Acid Mine Drainage
    remediation and prevention by $2 million.
        Question. How many more Clean Streams projects will be
    accomplished with this increase?
        Answer. It is estimated that up to 30 new Clean Streams
    projects could be initiated if the proposed budget increase is
    provided. In addition, several prospective projects that
    received partial funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 could be
    completed with additional funding from the proposed $2 million
    increase.
        Question. With OSM's proposal to fund the Clean Streams
    Initiative from interest on the Abandoned Mine Land fund, does
    the agency expect greater support for this effort from State
    and Tribal interests?
        Answer. The States and Tribes are generally supportive of
    the proposal to fund activities related to the Clean Streams
    Initiative from interest on the AML fund. While States support
    the goals of the Clean Streams Initiative, they are concerned
    that funds for the program may affect their present and future
    ``regular'' abandoned mine reclamation efforts. By taking these
    funds from the interest remaining after meeting the
    requirements of the United Mine Workers of America Combined
    Benefit Fund, the State and Tribal share of the AML fund will
    not be impacted by the Clean Stream initiative.
        Question. As experience with the Clean Streams activities
    increases, can a more beneficial leveraging ratio be
    anticipated?
        Answer. Yes. OSM anticipates a more beneficial leveraging
    of Federal funds as experience with Clean Streams activities
    increases. There are many variables which may determine the
    ratio of leveraging. These factors include the ability of
    cooperating agencies and organizations to share costs from
    their budgets, continued community support for projects based
    on improvements to their local economies and the environment,
    and the diversification of funding sources by local groups and
    associations. Increased cost-sharing and leveraging of
    appropriated funds also depends on the success of Clean Streams
    Initiative projects. Based on recent experience, it is believed
    that improvements can be made to the ratio of non-Federal to
    Federal funding.
        Question. The agency proposes to use some of the $7 million
    for other than grants to States. How much of these funds will
    be used for this purpose and what benefits can be expected?
        Answer. Of the President's request of $7 million for Clean
    Streams, $5.9 million is requested for State grants and $1.1
    million for the following purposes:
      --$650,000 for direct cooperative agreements with local groups,
            especially watershed organizations, to support local acid mine
            drainage reclamation projects;
      --$100,000 for non-coal mining related reclamation work under the
            Western Mine Land Restoration Partnership;
      --$150,000 for a position and support costs to aid State and local
            watershed groups in partnering and leveraging human and fiscal
            resources for stream restoration projects; and
      --$200,000 for the National Mine Reclamation Center for work on the
            Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, a cooperative effort of
            industry, government, and academia to compile ``best science''
            solutions to acid mine drainage problems and to refine methods
            for predicting acid mine drainage.
                         western mine land partnership
        The OSM proposes to initiate the Western Mine Land Partnership with
    a budget request of $100,000. This program is modeled to a large degree
    after the Clean Streams Initiative.
        Question. How will other agencies such as the Bureau of Land
    Management, National Park Service, and Forest Service be involved in,
    and contributing to, this effort?
        Answer. On June 22, 1996, the Department of the Interior and the
    Western Governor's Association agreed to work together to develop the
    Western Mine Restoration Partnership (WMRP) to jointly pursue the
    restoration of abandoned hardrock mines. Members of the WMRP include
    representatives of OSM, BLM, National Park Service, the Forest Service,
    the USGS and EPA. Since June 1996, the WMRP has developed a Partnership
    Agreement and an Action Plan that calls for coordination among all
    parties. This coordination will be continued through the development of
    projects pursuant to this proposed funding.
        Question. How will project funding occur?
        Answer. The funding will be used for practical, effective on-the-
    ground reclamation of abandoned mines. Efforts will be made to leverage
    funds with private interests and local governments and State AML
    programs. The objects for each project will be to eliminate safety,
    health and environmental hazards.
        Question. What are future budget request projections for this
    program?
        Answer. The $100,000 proposed for fiscal year 1999 is a relatively
    small amount. OSM will attempt to demonstrate effective results
    achieving reclamation and involving State and local entities in each
    project. The results will be assessed toward consideration of future
    funding.
                             minimum state program
        The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 establishes a minimum
    State grant funding level of $2 million per State. However, since
    fiscal year 1995 funding for the program has been limited to $1.5
    million per State. Several States point out that the AML fund balance
    is increasing.
        Question. What is the Department's position on increasing the
    funding level to the authorized minimum of $2 million?
        Answer. OSM is confident that the Minimum Program States could put
    any such increase to good use doing additional reclamation projects.
    The States support such an increase, but only if the funding for the
    Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program is increased at least to cover the
    increased minimum program funding. If the minimum program level were
    raised without increasing the AML grant appropriation, non-minimum
    program States and Tribes receiving Historic Coal Share funds would be
    impacted. The four States with the largest historic coal production
    percentage which would suffer the greatest negative impact are
    Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, and Kentucky.
                           applicant violator system
        Last year the agency had to curtail its use of the Applicant
    Violator System.
        Question. How has OSM modified AVS procedures to make the system
    operational?
        Answer. Use of the AVS was not curtailed as a result of a recent
    court decision, only the application of recommendations in some
    instances. The State and Federal permitting authorities continue to use
    information available only by way of the AVS on all permitting
    decisions. OSM provides over 4,000 recommendations from the AVS to
    permitting authorities annually.
        The court decision directed OSM to discontinue providing permit
    ``DENY'' recommendations to permitting authorities based on entities
    linked to violations ``upstream'' from the applicant. On May 14, 1997,
    OSM issued a System Advisory Memorandum explaining the change and
    effects of the court decision on AVS recommendations. Since that date
    OSM has determined that 1,187 recommendations were based on violations
    linked by ``upstream'' relationships to applicants and informed the
    requesting permitting authority of these findings.
        Question. When will final regulations be in place?
        Answer. OSM has assembled a team of employees to re-design
    ownership or control and related regulations. This team has conducted
    extensive outreach with OSM's stakeholders and has completed a first
    draft of the regulatory changes. OSM plans to complete its review of
    the draft, incorporate modifications as required, and issue a proposed
    rule by the summer of 1998. A final rule will be published as soon as
    possible following normal rulemaking procedures.
                       impact of coal production decrease
        Decreasing coal production has apparently affected the State's
    ability to fund their regulatory programs.
        Question. How has this affected OSM programs?
        Answer. Since OSM must match State program regulatory costs, there
    is continual coordination with individual States. OSM utilizes the
    States' grant requests to develop its annual budget request for State
    regulatory grants. As a result of the program coordination and OSM's
    re-engineered grants and performance review processes, OSM is able to
    meet the States' grants needs.
                                  gpra impact
        The OSM was a leader in integrating its budget structure with GPRA
    strategic goals.
        Question. How is this new structure working?
        Answer. Very well. During fiscal year 1997, OSM dual-coded its
    obligations. Obligations were coded under the existing budget structure
    as well as the proposed budget structure. Questions as to which program
    activities certain workloads and efforts should be classified under
    were resolved, the need for additional account codes was identified
    where appropriate, and minor adjustments to the accounting system were
    made to simplify coding and reporting obligations under the new budget
    structure. This effort allowed OSM to resolve any problems before the
    new budget structure became effective in fiscal year 1998.
        Question. Does the agency expect to recommend changes in the GPRA
    or the structure in the near future to more closely represent the
    agency mission?
        Answer. At this time, OSM expects to make no significant changes in
    its strategic goals or budget structure. Based on actual data collected
    in fiscal year 1998 and questions raised by outside readers during the
    fiscal year 1999 Budget Justification/Annual Plan review, OSM may
    clarify some of its performance measurements and adjust some of the
    outyear estimates for some of its goals, but not the overall goals
    themselves. OSM strategic goals are reflective of the Bureau's mission.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        A major contribution to domestic energy security could come from
    the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which the Energy Department
    estimates could hold 5.5 billion barrels of reserves. In February of
    1997, your Bureau of Land Management sought comment on a draft
    environmental impact statement and a plan of action for leasing up to
    4.2 million acres in what is known as the northeastern planning area of
    NPR-A. At that time BLM also said that a final record of decision on
    leasing in the planning area would be made by August 1998.
        Question. Are you and the Department still committed to that August
    1998 deadline for making a final decision on leasing in NPR-A?
        Answer. The current schedule calls for the Final EIS by the end of
    July with the ROD by the end of August. The comment period for the
    Draft EIS was extended from 30 days to 60 days.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
        Your Department, namely the Bureau of Land Management, has been
    discussing the possibility of purchasing a private property and a
    conservation easement north of Yellowstone National Park. In fact, $13
    million has been included in the supplemental LWCF account for this
    property. ($6.5 million within the Forest Service and $6.5 million
    within the BLM). Last month, the White House Council on Environmental
    Quality hosted a meeting with livestock producers and animal health
    authorities from various states to discuss this issue and how it
    relates to the management of the brucellosis infected Yellowstone
    National Park Bison herd. At the meeting, federal authorities stated
    that this land acquisition would be a major part of the solution to the
    bison situation.
        Question. How does this land acquisition address eradication of the
    disease, something your department has advocated for decades?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior is currently involved in
    negotiations to acquire a portion of the Royal Teton Ranch (RTR) which
    lies directly north of Yellowstone National Park and is owned by the
    Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). This potential acquisition is
    part of an overall scheme for the long-term management of bison in the
    greater Yellowstone area. The development of a long-term bison
    management plan was necessitated by several factors, most notably, the
    need to provide adequate winter range for bison while simultaneously
    protecting Montana's brucellosis class free status, and working toward
    the eradication of brucellosis.
        The Department of the Interior has been working closely with the
    State and remains committed to continue working with the State toward a
    mutually acceptable manner of reaching these objectives. To that end,
    on June 5, 1998, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
    and the U. S. Department of Interior (USDOI) intend to release for
    public comment a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
    Long-Term Bison Management Plan. This EIS was mandated by a settlement
    agreement in Montana v. U.S. which was signed by the State Montana,
    USDOI, and USFS on November 2, 1995. The draft EIS includes various
    alternatives that would provide bison winter range, protect the State
    of Montana's class free status, and move toward the eradication of
    brucellosis.
        The draft EIS Preferred Alternative anticipates the acquisition of
    lands both north and west of Yellowstone National Park for special
    management areas (SMAs) and the Department, therefore, is working with
    the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USFS, the
    State, and the CUT to develop an acquisition proposal that will also
    meet the dual goal of providing bison winter range while protecting
    Montana's brucellosis class free status which will directly enhance the
    eradication of brucellosis.
        It should be further noted that the Department of the Interior
    remains completely committed to working toward the eradication of
    brucellosis irrespective of the EIS, and is currently reviewing all
    possibilities for an increase and acceleration of research on the
    development of a safe and effective vaccine that would prevent
    brucellosis in wildlife. We are also coordinating with USFS, APHIS, and
    the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Bison Committee to make certain
    that all of our resources are utilized in the most efficient and
    expedient manner.
        Your agency's discussion about the land north of Yellowstone
    National Park does not simply deal with an acquisition of fee title.
    The proposed package includes purchase of land, exchange of lands, and
    a conservation easement for wildlife. The details of these are not
    clearly defined. I have two questions:
        Question. How is the Gallatin National Forest going to pay for the
    increased amount of responsibilities of the new land, especially in
    light of Region One's current budget constraints?
        Answer. This question would be more appropriately answered by the
    Forest Service as part of its hearing record.
        Question. How do you plan on including the Montana delegation and
    the Governor in these discussions?
        Answer. The draft Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and
    the Forest Service indicates that the Forest Service will continue as
    the lead Federal agency in maintaining contacts and discussions with
    the Montana congressional delegation and the Governor.
        Question. What authority does the Bureau of Land Management or the
    Forest Service have for the purchase of this land?
        Answer. The BLM's authority for its Royal Teton Ranch acquisitions
    comes from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Land and
    Water Conservation Act. Both laws provide for the acquisition of lands
    which are primarily of value for outdoor recreation.
        The Royal Teton Ranch project clearly furthers outdoor recreation
    purposes by supporting crucial habitat for antelope, bighorn sheep,
    bison, elk, and grizzly bear. The anticipated purchases would offer
    critical public access to the Gallatin National Forest from the west
    side of the Yellowstone Valley.
        Question. It is my understanding that states still own the water in
    their states, yet I recently heard that your agency has decided to
    change that.
        The Bureau of Reclamation recently filed a quiet title suit in
    federal court related to the Elephant Butte project in New Mexico and
    Texas. In that suit, the Bureau asserts that they not only own the
    water rights associated with this project, they also assert that they
    are sovereign owner of waters flowing in the Rio Grande in both Texas
    and New Mexico. Is this correct?
        Answer. While it is correct that, in June 1997, the United States
    filed a civil action to quiet title in its water rights for the Rio
    Grande Project, your description of the Bureau of Reclamation's
    position in that lawsuit is incorrect.
        The Rio Grande Project, which was authorized in 1905, extends from
    the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico to Fort
    Quitman in Texas. In operating the Project for the purposes authorized
    by Congress, the United States relies upon water stored in Project
    facilities, return flows, and inflows to the Rio Grande in both New
    Mexico and Texas. When water stored in Elephant Butte Reservoir is
    released, it is intermingled with project return flows and with inflows
    to the Rio Grande. These intermingled sources of water are then
    diverted for use in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. These sources
    together enable the United States to meet the Project delivery
    requirements of approximately 931,841 acre-feet per annum under normal
    conditions, including the United States' treaty obligation to Mexico.
    The operation of the Project is further subject to the requirements of
    the Rio Grande Compact of 1939 between the United States, Colorado, New
    Mexico, and Texas.
        In January 1906, in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation
    Act of 1902, the United States filed notice with the New Mexico
    Territorial Irrigation Engineer of its appropriation of water for the
    Rio Grande Project. Thus, the United States' claim to ownership was
    acquired through appropriation, filed in conformity with the laws of
    the then Territory of New Mexico, and, with the exception of the water
    for Mexico, not as a consequence of the sovereignty of the United
    States. Reclamation's position in the lawsuit is that the United States
    is the legal title holder of the water rights appropriated for the
    Project, subject to the rights of the water district and the
    landowners. The users of such water own a beneficial property interest,
    provided their use is consistent with the terms of their contracts and
    applicable law.
        Question. In July of last year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    the EPA released a draft MOU which would require all states with
    delegated NPDES permit programs to enter formal Section 7 consultations
    with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior to issuing any NPDES permits.
    This would appear to give Fish and Wildlife Service veto power over the
    issuance of point of source discharge permits in every state. Is that
    what your agency intends to do?
        Answer. The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), was based on
    interagency negotiations between the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), and U. S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service). Negotiations were conducted over six months and the
    draft was sent to the regional offices of FWS, NMFS, and EPA for
    internal review. A number of misconceptions about the document, which
    is still under negotiation, have since emerged. There was never any
    intention on the part of FWS and NMFS to establish any ``veto power''
    over state-issued NPDES permits. The draft MOA is strictly a
    coordination mechanism between federal agencies and does not impose any
    obligations or requirements on states, tribes, or permit holders.
        The role of FWS and NMFS is to comment on state-issued draft
    permits under existing Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations as part of the
    federal review necessary to ``avoid substantial impairment of fish,
    shellfish, and wildlife resources'', including threatened and
    endangered species, under 40 CFR 124.59 (b). EPA may object to a permit
    under existing CWA authority if a permit does not support the objective
    of the CWA ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
    biological integrity of the Nation's waters'', including the goal of
    providing water quality which provides for the protection and
    propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Where a federal action
    occurs, such as the EPA approval of a State's assumption of NPDES
    permitting authority, EPA approval of new or revised water quality
    standards, or EPA's issuance of NPDES permits where state assumption
    has not occurred, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
    consultation with the FWS and NMFS if listed species may be affected by
    the action. The ESA further prohibits all federal agencies from taking
    any action that will likely jeopardize the continued existence of a
    listed species. EPA has consulted numerous times with the FWS and NMFS
    on this basis in relation to CWA programs.
        Separate consultations on state-issued NPDES permits is not the
    goal or the purpose of negotiations on the MOA. Where endangered
    species impacts are identified, the FWS and NMFS will work with the
    state and EPA to lessen such impacts. If the FWS and NMFS determine
    that a NPDES permit is likely to jeopardize a listed species and EPA
    agrees, EPA may use its existing authority under the CWA to review the
    permit and federalize it.
        Question. Under what statutory authority did they claim this?
        Answer. As stated in the answer to the previous question, there was
    never any intention on the part of the FWS to establish any veto power
    over state-issued DES permits.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                     the mescalero apache school situation
        In 1954, the Mescalero Elementary School was built with BIA funds.
    It became a BIA funded public school through the Tularosa Public School
    system. This K-6 elementary school was destroyed by arson in 1990. The
    Tularosa school system collected the insurance and the BIA helped with
    temporary facilities.
        The Mescalero Apache Tribe is now seeking funds for the
    construction of a new K-12 school to serve the entire reservation. I
    understand that the BIA is again responsible for the school, and I am
    very interested in verifying its status as a BIA school, and the
    possibility of its becoming a priority for BIA replacement and new
    construction funds.
        The destruction by fire is normally a cause of high priority
    consideration by the BIA, and I do not yet understand why the Mescalero
    Apache school has not been made a priority in the BIA replacement
    school construction program.
        Question. Your assistance in clarifying this matter will be greatly
    appreciated.
        Answer. The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00)
    to the State of Mexico for a 25 year period. During this period, the
    local school district located, constructed, and operated a public K-6
    grade elementary school on this reservation land. The annual lease
    subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. To
    provide a thorough review of the situation, a chronology of events
    follows:
        February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down.
        February 19, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution
    No. 90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of Education
    and requested portable classrooms from BIA and the State.
        May 20, 1990.--The Albuquerque Area Education Administration
    notified the Tribe that no funds were available from Office of Indian
    Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
        August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met
    with Tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
    determine whether the Tribal community center was suitable for
    conducting classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School District
    had used the community center during part of school year 1989-90. The
    building was found to be seriously deficient for use as a school. The
    Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) looked at options
    to upgrade tribal buildings or acquire portable classrooms.
        August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passes Resolution No.
    90-28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed to
    reach an agreement on location and operation of a public school. The
    school district proposed to build a new school located off tribal
    lands, which would have required student busing and included other
    public students. The Tribe asked BIA to assume operational
    responsibility for a proposed tribal school in 1990-91.
        August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
    erected by the Mescalero Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for review.
        August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between
    the Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan; Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and President of Mescalero Apache Tribe,
    Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position was that BIA would not
    support taking over the education program from the Mescalero Tularosa
    School District until an agreement was reached to operate an accredited
    public school.
        August 22, 1990.--Letter to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
    from Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to renovate tribal
    building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
        August 24, 1990.--The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs sent a
    letter to the President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe specifying
    conditions for granting assistance to tribal schools. The Tribe
    independently obtained facilities and hired teachers for the 1990-91
    school year.
        October 9, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted an interim
    application for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
        April 4, 1991.--A letter was sent from the Assistant Secretary for
    Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees bringing
    the committees up to date on the school. At this time, no agreement
    existed between the Tribe and public school district and the Tribe had
    obtained and erected a building for 250 students.
        April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves Mescalero School to become a BIA
    funded school, effective July 1, 1991. BIA requires that safety
    deficiencies be corrected at the school prior to occupation.
        Nov. 25, 1991.--Mescalero Apache submitted an application to BIA
    for new school construction.
        January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education
    Facilities Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was
    published. Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
    however, because the school was not a Bureau owned or operated facility
    when it was destroyed by fire, the application did not receive a high
    ranking on the priority system. The application was evaluated along
    with 66 other requests. Only the top five schools were added to the
    1992/93 priority list which resulted in 16 schools total.
        The Bureau is concerned about Mescalero and other schools where
    students are being educated in classrooms that do not meet code
    requirements or modern standards. In recognition of the Mescalero
    Tribal School's needs, the BIA's Education and Facilities programs
    provide funding for the annual operation of the school. However,
    because the replacement school priority list was frozen by Congress in
    fiscal year 1993, the BIA cannot provide replacement school funding at
    this time.
        The BIA anticipates completing the list of 16 prioritized schools
    in the year 2001 or 2002. The Facilities Management and Construction
    Center and Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing
    completion of the replacement school projects and looking at a new
    replacement school application process. Depending on appropriation
    levels, the Bureau anticipates being able to solicit replacement school
    applications when the new process is established in 1999. This will
    provide Mescalero with the opportunity to compete for a replacement
    school in a national prioritized ranking process.
                     southwest fisheries technology center
        Since 1993, this Subcommittee has been supportive of this Center.
    When completed, it will be the only facility in the nation dedicated
    exclusively to the breeding and stocking of native, threatened, and
    endangered fish. To date, Congress has appropriated $20 million to
    rehabilitate the Dexter Fish Technology Center, and to construct the
    Mora unit. It is time to complete these facilities.
        In fiscal year 1998, this Subcommittee provided $2 million to
    complete phase three construction at the Mora unit, plus an additional
    $500,000 in operations funding to open the facility. At the Dexter
    unit, there remains a need for $3.3 million to bring the facility
    completely online. This includes $2.9 million to complete phase 3
    construction, $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment, and $227,000
    additional operations funding to fully staff the facility.
        Question. Please give the Subcommittee an update on the status of
    these two units. Does the administration foresee completion of the
    rehabilitation of the Dexter unit this year?
        Answer. The status of construction for the Mora and Dexter units of
    the Southwest Fisheries Technology Center is presented below.
        In fiscal year 1998, the $2,000,000 provided for the Southwest
    Fisheries Technology Center is being used to complete construction at
    the Mora unit. In addition, $500,000 in operating funds were provided
    for start-up operations at Mora. These operating funds have been
    annualized in Service's fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Mora
    management plan, however, assumes $650,000 in annual optimal operating
    expense to fully staff the facility in the future. However, this
    additional funding was not included in the President's Budget request
    for fiscal year 1999 and is not a priority for the Department.

                           SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--MORA UNIT STATUS--APRIL 1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In thousands
                                       Fiscal  -----------------------------------------------
        Construction/operations         year                      Construction      Optimal           Remarks
                                                Appropriations     completed?       funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phase I and II, planning, site        1990         $1,000   Yes.............  ...........  $15,720 sequestered
     work, well fields, and               1991          3,000                                   in fiscal year 1991
     building shells for fish             1992          5,000                                   $63,000 sequestered
     production and storage.                                                                    in fiscal year 1992.
    Phase III, equipping buildings        1997          2,705   No..............  ...........  To be completed in
     and related facilities.                                                                    the fall of 1998.
    Phase III, hatchery and wet lab       1998          2,000   No..............  ...........  Construction to begin
     building, equipment, and                                                                   in fiscal year 1999.
     paving.
    Operating funds to fully staff.       1998            500   ................         $150  .....................
                                               ----------------                  -------------
          Total....................  .........         14,205   ................          150  .....................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Funding for the third and final phase of the construction
    at the Dexter unit is not included in the fiscal year 1999
    President's Budget. Currently, the FWS estimates that
    $2,863,000 would complete rehabilitation of the facility, as
    well as $200,000 to purchase laboratory equipment. However, the
    Department has placed a priority on using limited construction
    funding to reduce existing inventories of critical health and
    safety projects or for mission critical priorities. The FWS
    estimates that $227,000 in annual operating funds would fully
    staff the facility. However, this additional funding was not
    included in the President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
    and is not a priority for the Department.

                          SOUTHWEST FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY CENTER--DEXTER UNIT STATUS--APRIL 1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 In thousands
                                       Fiscal  -----------------------------------------------
        Construction/operations         year                      Construction      Optimal           Remarks
                                                Appropriations     completed?       funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phase I, and part of phase II         1993         $1,428   Yes.............  ...........  $12,138 was
     hatchery building, and               1994  ..............                                  sequestered in
     administration lab building.         1995          2,200                                   fiscal year 1993.
    Balance of phase II storage/          1997            961   No..............  ...........  Construction to begin
     maintenance building.                                                                      fall 1998.
    Phase III, outdoor fish          .........  ..............  No..............       $2,863  Phase III will
     raceways, earthen research                                                                 complete
     ponds, paving/landscaping at                                                               construction.
     buildings.
    Specialized lab equipment......  .........  ..............  ................          200  Equipment needed to
                                                                                                identify and
                                                                                                maintain
                                                                                                biodiversity.
    Operating funds to fully staff.  .........  ..............  ................          227  .....................
                                               ----------------                  -------------
          Total....................  .........          4,589   ................        3,329  .....................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           indian school construction

        Question. Mr. Secretary, the recent GAO report about Indian
    school repair needs concludes that $754 million are needed to
    clear up the entire backlog of BIA school repair needs, and
    bring these BIA schools into code and instructional compliance
    with modern standards. In a footnote to that figure in the GAO
    report, it is noted that eight schools on the construction
    priority list would cost about $112 million to replace.
        I have also heard that if we replace the 50 percent of BIA
    schools that are over 30 years old, the replacement costs would
    be about one billion dollars, leaving about $200 million in
    repair costs for the other half of newer BIA schools. I am
    seeking your assistance in verifying these estimates.
        Answer. If $37.4 million is appropriated in fiscal year
    1999 for the three replacement schools requested in the
    President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, five schools will remain
    on the current school replacement priority list at an estimated
    cost of $89.4 million.
        The Bureau estimates that it would cost, at a minimum, $1.0
    billion to replace the 50 percent plus of Indian schools that
    have exceeded their design life, are in various stages of
    deterioration, and do not meet modern educational needs nor
    current building codes or standards. Further, it is estimated
    that it will take an additional $200 million to bring the
    schools that would not be replaced up to present standards. We
    are in agreement with the figures that you are using, however,
    once the modernization effort the Facilities Management and
    Construction Center has undertaken to update the facilities
    backlog and validate information is completed, more accurate
    cost estimates and other statistics relating to building repair
    and replacement will be available.
        Question. I am also interested, Mr. Secretary, in
    clarifying the BIA's responsibility for the Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges (26) in terms of repair, rehabilitation, and
    replacement. I would also like to know more about the BIA
    operated post-secondary schools, namely, Haskell and SIPI (the
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute) and your plans for
    their campuses.
        Answer. Title 1 of the Tribally Controlled Community
    College Assistance Act, as amended, authorizes grants to the
    TCCC's to defray expenditures for academic, educational and
    administrative purposes, and for the operation and maintenance
    of all the TCCC's. However, given the funding constraints, the
    Department's priority has been the safety of elementary and
    secondary school students in schools funded by the BIA. The
    Bureau's facilities program does not provide construction
    funding for repair or rehabilitation of the 26 Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges. Due to the large backlog in
    facilities improvement and repair, as well as for replacement
    school construction, the Department must continue to focus on
    improving elementary and secondary schools.
        Haskell and SIPI were operated by the BIA prior to
    enactment of the Tribally Controlled Community College Act and
    have always been Federally operated schools, and therefore the
    responsibility of the Secretary. As Federal installations, each
    school has had facility improvement projects approved by the
    Secretary and funded by Congress. Both Haskell and SIPI are in
    the process of improving and implementing master facility plans
    for their respective campuses. In fiscal year 1998, Haskell
    received over $7 million in FI&R funding, and for fiscal year
    1999 FI&R funding has been requested for several buildings on
    the SIPI campus.
        Question. It has been my experience that Crownpoint
    Institute of Technology (CIT) has had a most difficult time
    qualifying for either operational or capital funds from the
    BIA. Your assistance in bringing CIT into the normal budgeting
    process of Interior would be most helpful to CIT's future
    stability.
        Answer. Crownpoint Institute of Technology is not presently
    being funded by either OIEP or the Bureau's facilities program.
    The Bureau has not funded CIT to date, because the BIA's
    limited amount of tribal college funding may be used to support
    only one college per tribe. The BIA already funds Dine College
    on the Navajo Nation.
        Question. My current estimates for physical improvements at
    all BIA school facilities total $1.5 billion. This includes the
    $1.2 billion I mentioned for elementary and secondary schools.
    At this time, I believe the BIA is estimating about $300
    million for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, SIPI
    and Haskell (no estimates exist to my knowledge for CIT). I
    would appreciate your assistance in updating these estimates,
    both for the elementary and secondary schools and for the post-
    secondary Indian colleges and vocational schools I have
    mentioned.
        It is difficult, Mr. Secretary, for us to budget for these
    schools without the full picture of their relationship with the
    BIA and the outlook for their future funding.
        Answer. The estimates noted in the question are, in
    general, accurate at this time. In December 1997, the
    Facilities Management and Construction Center ran a summary of
    backlog items that address the estimated cost necessary to
    bring the existing facilities up to current national codes and
    standards (national fire code, electrical codes, etc.). This
    summary does not include the cost of replacing facilities. In
    the case of education facilities, the summary shows a backlog
    of $695 million for elementary and secondary, plus $64 million
    for education quarters, or a total of nearly $760 million for
    education facilities. However, more than 50 percent of our
    existing schools are 30 years old or older, and have exceeded
    their design life expectancy. It is anticipated that many, if
    not all of these schools, will need to be replaced in the near
    future. The Bureau's facilities program does not provide
    construction funding for repair or rehabilitation of the 26
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. However, the Bureau's
    facilities program has funded repair, rehabilitation, and
    replacement construction for Haskell and SIPI, which are
    included in the above estimates.
        FMCC is currently modernizing the computerized facilities
    backlog program and has also begun an effort to pilot test
    sites as part of a total validation effort to update code and
    standard items contained in the backlog. Once these exercises
    are completed in the next several years, the Bureau will be
    able to provide Congress with more accurate and current
    statistics and costs. The Bureau will also be better able to
    determine which schools need to be replaced and which can be
    repaired and rehabilitated based upon cost benefit
    considerations.
        One of the issues BIA faces is expanding student
    enrollment, which has necessitated immediate solutions in most
    cases, such as the provision of portable classrooms. This, of
    course, is a temporary fix and does not address permanent
    requirements at the schools. Since the early 1990's, enrollment
    and new program requirements are increasingly reflected in
    hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of education
    space being added to the construction and maintenance
    inventory. As a consequence, when replacement schools are
    constructed, they require a substantially larger footprint than
    existing schools. This scenario is reflected in part by the
    current estimate of $1.0 billion for replacement construction
    versus $695 million to bring existing schools up to current
    standards and codes.
        Question. In addition to the physical facilities, I am
    anxious to know about BIA plans for improving the per pupil
    expenditures at BIA schools. As you may be aware, Indian
    colleges average $2,900 per student for operating costs,
    compared to $6,200 for most American colleges. Your suggestions
    and assistance to help us bring these Indian colleges up to a
    higher level of reliable funding would be most helpful. There
    is a similar situation among the elementary and secondary
    schools, and your plans for improving the educational situation
    for Indian children are of great interest to me.
        Answer. The Bureau plans to increase per pupil expenditures
    in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools, while, at
    the same time, requiring more accountability in the management
    of school programs. In terms of improving per pupil
    expenditures at the Tribal Colleges, the Bureau is proposing a
    $5.5 million funding increase in its fiscal year 1999 budget
    request for operating grants from $28.8 million in fiscal year
    1998 to $34.3 million in fiscal year 1999. If the $5.5 million
    increase is appropriated in fiscal year 1999, the Bureau
    estimates that students will be funded at approximately $3,600
    per student.
        At the elementary and secondary school level, BIA schools
    are in the forefront in implementing school reform and
    accountability, as required by the Improving America's Schools
    Act and the President's Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Each
    school has developed a school improvement plan. This school
    improvement plan is a long term planning framework that
    contains specific goals and strategies for meeting those goals.
    Each school will be held accountable for meeting their goals
    which address student learning. In terms of improving the per
    pupil expenditure at elementary and secondary school levels,
    the fiscal year 1999 budget request proposes a Weighted Student
    Unit (WSU) value of $3,124, an increase from $3,062 per WSU in
    fiscal year 1998.
        Question. The highest drop out rate (36 percent) in this
    country is among Indian students. They also have the lowest
    graduation rate from high school and the lowest attendance
    rates for college. With the current studies about the poorest
    facilities in the nation and the lowest per capita
    expenditures, we can only begin to address these vital concerns
    if your Department begins to take the lead in fully explaining
    this situation to us.
        Answer. Education research verifies that the physical
    condition of a school does affect the students' performance.
    Factors, such as inadequate heating systems, inadequate
    lighting and unsafe classroom buildings, all have a negative
    effect on student learning and performance. However, in spite
    of the poor condition of school facilities in Indian Country,
    the Bureau has taken steps to improve academic programs at BIA-
    funded schools. For example, the Bureau is fully implementing
    the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the Improving
    America's School Act (IASA) and the Goals 2000: Educate America
    Act within its school system.
        In accordance with GPRA, Goals 2000, and IASA, BIA schools
    are in the process of reforming their instructional programs.
    Each BIA school has developed and is implementing a
    Consolidated School Reform Plan (CSRP) and is collecting the
    baseline data necessary to establish good annual performance
    indicators. Each CSRP provides a detailed, strategic framework
    for instituting more challenging curriculum standards and
    assessment procedures; creating better governance,
    accountability and management processes; and implementing
    benchmarks, timelines and other monitoring tools. In fiscal
    year 2000, the schools will fully implement their CSRPs and be
    held accountable for their progress.
        BIA schools are also implementing new content standards
    that match national standards, the standards of the state in
    which the school is located or a combination of state,
    national, and locally developed standards. Each school will
    have new standards and a new assessment system in place by the
    Year 2000. BIA schools will follow their state assessment
    system or adopt a system that utilizes authentic assessment and
    the California Learning Record.
        These changes are expected to result in improved student
    attendance and retention, and better overall student learning
    in Indian Country.

                             surplus land disposal

        For several months, I have been working on a proposal to
    provide an incentive for the BLM to sell or exchange lands
    which have been identified as ``suitable for disposal''
    pursuant to section 202 of FLPMA. The vast majority of these
    lands are in small, hard-to-manage tracts, and their disposal
    would benefit the Bureau, as well as the surrounding
    communities.
        In early February, I met with representatives from the
    administration, including the Department of the Interior, the
    Department of Agriculture, the Council on Environmental
    Quality, and the Office of Management and Budget to discuss
    this proposal. At the meeting, I received a very favorable
    response, and I informed those present that I wanted to
    continue to work with the administration on this proposal, to
    ensure not only that it would be a workable proposal, but that
    it would be a program that the administration would support.
        Since that meeting, my staff met with Assistant Secretary
    John Berry, and BLM Director Pat Shea, to review legislation
    that I intended to introduce, and to ask for comments and
    suggestions. To date, I have received no response.
        Question. Do you have any suggestions for developing a
    program to begin the process of selling or exchanging the 4 to
    6 million acres of land that the BLM has identified as
    ``suitable for disposal'' across the west?
        Answer. FLPMA Section 102(a)(1) requires the BLM to retain
    public lands in public ownership unless, as a result of land
    use planning, it is determined to be in the public interest to
    dispose of the lands. The lands you refer to as ``suitable for
    disposal'' are those lands identified through land use planning
    for disposal. Those lands can be exchanged using a public
    interest determination as the guide. The lands can be sold if
    they are determined to be (1) difficult to manage based on
    location; (2) acquired for a purpose no longer needed; and (3)
    more important for local economic development which cannot
    occur on private lands. Based on these legal requirements, the
    BLM is currently selling and exchanging these lands. BLM sells
    an average (3 year average) of 5,000 acres annually generating
    receipts of $2.5 million and exchanges an average of 150,000
    acres valued at $60 million each year.
        It is important to note that those lands identified as
    ``suitable for disposal'' are within areas where the BLM has
    generically determined that Federal ownership is not beneficial
    to the public. The lands identified are not ready to dispose of
    without completing the required resource clearances, hazardous
    materials review, NEPA analysis, appraisal and public review.
    Upon a more detailed review, some of those lands will be
    determined to be better suited to remain in Federal ownership
    due to critical resource values discovered. It may also be
    determined that the lands should be conveyed to local
    government through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act for
    schools, ball fields, parks, hospitals, etc. The remaining
    lands will be considered for disposal after consultation with
    local government. Under current funding this is all of the land
    disposal actions BLM can accomplish in a given year. It is
    important to note that given additional funds land exchanges
    could increase somewhat but land sales can not increase.
        Question. Could the administration support the use of
    proceeds from surplus land sales to fund initiatives such as
    endangered species?
        Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Department
    of the Interior oppose the concept of using proceeds from land
    sales to fund the landowner incentive program of the Endangered
    Species Act. It has been estimated that the receipts needed to
    fund the incentive program amount to $70 million per year for
    five years, totaling $350 million. BLM's current land sale
    program generates $2.5 million annually or $12.5 million over
    five years. To increase the number of land sales to generate
    receipts of $70 million annually would have extreme
    consequences on both public and private land values in the
    western United States.
        Additionally, an increase of sale activity of this
    magnitude (a 30 fold increase) would seriously erode BLM's
    ability to complete other priority work and divert resource
    professionals from processing and issuing important land use
    authorizations and managing other critical resource programs.
    The cost of clearances for cultural resources, hazardous
    materials, and other resource values for much of this land is
    prohibitive to such a sale program. Isolated acreage with no
    access will not only have very low competitive values but will
    have very few, if any, interested purchasers.
        The BLM has a responsibility to the taxpayer to manage the
    public lands for multiple use management. We must assure that
    the natural resources as well as the health and welfare of
    public land users are protected as a part of our day to day
    work. Spending public funds to sell large amounts of public
    lands is in direct conflict with this responsibility. BLM's
    organic act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
    1976, requires these public lands to be retained in Federal
    ownership unless identified through land use planning for
    disposal. A massive sell off of these lands will devalue the
    public's assets. A nation with a growing population can ill
    afford to sell its legacy and its future.

                              vanishing treasures

        Last year, the administration proposed a new initiative
    called Vanishing Treasures, to assist 41 park units in the
    Southwest in the stabilization and maintenance of ruins and
    other cultural resources within the park units. I worked with
    this subcommittee to secure funding for this initiative, and
    Congress provided $1 million in 1998 to get the initiative
    underway, and $2 million for historic structures stabilization.
        This year, I do not find the Vanishing Treasures initiative
    among the administration's funding priorities.
        Question. Does the administration continue to support the
    Vanishing Treasures initiative?
        Answer. Yes. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    continues funding at the $1 million level for the Vanishing
    Treasures initiative, the level appropriated in fiscal year
    1998. Of the total, $453,000 has been included in the base
    operating budgets at eight parks and $547,000 will be used for
    project preservation, training, and project management.
        Question. Have fiscal year 1998 funds been obligated in
    relation to this initiative? If so, how much, and at which
    parks?
        Answer. The $1 million in funding provided for the
    Vanishing Treasures initiative in fiscal year 1998 is being
    spent as follows: $453,000 was transferred to base operating
    budgets of eight parks to hire eleven permanent individuals;
    $40,000 was devoted to training expenses; $497,000 was utilized
    to fund six of the 44 projects which had been identified as the
    most acute needs; and $10,000 was used to provide project
    management, monitoring, and a peer review system to evaluate
    program efficiency and effectiveness. The following table
    itemizes the distribution of operations and project funding by
    park.

             DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONS AND PROJECT FUNDING BY PARK
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Operations
                  Park unit                    funding       Project funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aztec Ruins National Monument.......           $84,000           $75,000
    Mesa Verde National Park............            67,000  ................
    Salinas Pueblo Missions National
     Monument...........................            33,000            25,000
    Chiricahua National Monument........            34,000  ................
    Navajo National Monument............            33,000  ................
    Tonto National Monument.............            51,000           125,000
    Tumacacori National Monument........            91,000            22,000
    Flagstaff Areas (Wupatki, Walnut
     Canyon, Sunset Crater).............            60,000           125,000
    Chaco Culture National Monument.....  ................           125,000
                                         -----------------------------------
          Total.........................           453,000           497,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

        Question. This Appropriations Subcommittee funds Natural
    Resource Damage Surveys for the purposes of Superfund
    evaluations. The funding has been considerable. Please supply
    for the Subcommittee a breakdown of this funding for the past
    five years that includes the specific geographic area surveyed,
    the monies expended by agency with a breakout of any monies
    that were distributed to other entities for survey or other
    work, and the categories of work (water surveys, land surveys,
    remediation work, litigation work, etc.) for which the monies
    were expended, the filing of any claims resulting from these
    evaluations and the settlement of these claims.
        Answer. The purpose of Natural Resource Damage Assessment
    Fund (NRDA Fund) is to provide funding necessary to perform
    natural resource damage assessment activities which provides
    the basis for claims against responsible parties for the
    restoration of injured natural resources. The NRDA Fund
    provides funding to support damage assessment activities for
    the bureaus in the Department with management responsibility
    for natural resources under the trusteeship of the Secretary.
    Assessment activities may include injury determination, injury
    quantification, and a determination of the appropriate
    restoration measures or costs to restore the injured resources.
    Funding provided by the NRDA Fund is restricted to natural
    resource damage activities and is not used to perform response
    activities. Assessments and the development of claims through
    the assessment process ultimately lead to the restoration of
    injured resources and reimbursement of reasonable assessment
    costs from responsible parties through negotiated settlements
    or other legal actions by the Department. To date, the majority
    of natural resource damage claims developed by the Department
    have been settled through negotiated settlements. The only
    claims that the Department has assessed that currently are in
    litigation are U.S. v. ASARCO (Whitewood Creek, South Dakota),
    U.S. v. Montrose Chemical Corp., (Montrose, California), and
    U.S. v. Homestake Mining (Coeur d'Alene Basin, Idaho). The
    following table presents the funding for the past five years,
    fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997, along with the other
    information requested. U.S. v. ASARCO is not shown on the table
    as it was first funded in fiscal year 1998.

                                            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND
                                    [Project allocation of appropriated funds for the past five years, fiscal years 1993-97]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Restoration settlement--
                                                                                                 Settlement                      amount received into court
    Fiscal                                   Type of work       DOI bureaus      Restoration       amount                             registry accounts
     year    Site and State      Amount        conducted     involved at site     settlement      received    Dates  received  -----------------------------
                                                                                                 into NRDAR                                   Other (in-kind
                                                                                                    fund                          Dollars     contributions)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1993American Trader       $98,000  Damage            FWS.............  Shared            $3,017,304      1995 and 1998  ...........  ...............
           oil spill,                     assessment.                         settlement
           California                                                         received in
                                                                              1995 and 1998.
      1994...do                  30,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          128,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Apex Houston           36,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Shared             5,013,930               1994  ...........  ...............
           oilspill,                                                          settlement
           California                                                         received in
                                                                              1994.
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Cantara Loop           79,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Restoration      ...........  .................  $19,000,000  ...............
           train                                                              settlement in
           derailment,                                                        Court Registry
           California                                                         Account.
      1994...do                  25,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  DOI Fund              61,093               1996  ...........  ...............
                                                                              received
                                                                              payment for
                                                                              past costs.
                           -------------
              Subtotal          104,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Cherokee County        30,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Case ongoing, 2  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           NPL Site,                                                          partial
           Kansas                                                             settlements
                                                                              reached.
      1994...do                 150,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Received           1,672,038   Received 1994-97  ...........  ...............
                                                                              proceeds from
                                                                              2 bankruptcy
                                                                              settlements.
                           -------------
              Subtotal          180,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Coeur d'Alene       1,168,000  ...do...........  FWS, BLM, USGS..  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Basin (Bunker
           Hill), Idaho
      1994...do               3,000,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Partial              500,000  .................    8,000,000  ...............
                                                                              settlement
                                                                              (bankruptcy)
                                                                              with one PRP.
      1995...do               2,650,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal        6,818,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Commencement          297,450  ...do...........  FWS.............  Restoration      ...........  .................   12,000,000  ...............
           Bay, Washington                                                    settlement in
                                                                              Court Registry
                                                                              Account.
      1994...do                 300,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...do..........  ...........  .................    1,000,000  Plus
                                                                                                                                            approximately
                                                                                                                                            $6,377,000 in-
                                                                                                                                            kind
      1995...do                 299,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  DOI Fund             538,489  .................  ...........  ...............
                                                                              received
                                                                              payment for
                                                                              past costs.
      1996...do                 230,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal        1,126,450
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1995Clark Fork            200,000  ...do...........  NPS, BLM, FWS...  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           (Grant Kohrs
           Ranch), Montana
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1994Elliott Bay,           50,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Restoration      ...........  .................   17,125,000  Plus $7,000,000
           Washington                                                         settlement in                                                 in-kind from
                                                                              Court Registry                                                PRP's (land
                                                                              Account.                                                      and services)
      1995...do                  55,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          105,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Fox River/Green       105,000  ...do...........  FWS, BIA........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Bay, Wisconsin
      1994...do                 235,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1995...do                 830,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1996...do               1,476,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do               1,783,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal        4,429,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Hudson River,          77,000  ...do...........  FWS, NPS........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           New York
      1994...do                  20,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1995...do                 175,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1996...do                  60,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          332,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Indiana Harbor/       100,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Grand Calumet
           River, Indiana
      1994...do                 135,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1995...do                 205,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do                 280,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          720,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1994Iron Mountain          34,000  ...do...........  FWS, BLM, BOR...  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Mine,
           California
      1995...do                  50,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1996...do                 100,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do                 149,500  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          333,500
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Jamaica Bay/          600,832  ...do...........  FWS, NPS........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Gateway
           National
           Recreation
           Area, New York
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Montrose,             973,832  ...do...........  FWS.............  Case settled     ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           California                                                         with one PRP
                                                                              group--.
      1994...do                 476,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Shared           ...........  .................   12,000,000
                                                                              restoration
                                                                              settlement in
                                                                              court registry
                                                                              account.
      1995...do                  87,203  ...do...........  ...do...........  DOI fund           1,200,000            1993-94  ...........
                                                                              received
                                                                              payment for
                                                                              past costs.
      1996...do                 365,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  2d settlement    ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                                                                              of $23.7
                                                                              million being
                                                                              challenged by
                                                                              group of
                                                                              nonsetting
                                                                              parties.
      1997...do                  85,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal        1,987,035
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1997Niagara River,        145,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           New York
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1996Penabscot River,      185,000  ...do...........  BIA.............  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           Maine
      1997...do                  10,000  ...do...........  ................  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
          Subtotal              195,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Saginaw River          89,781  ...do...........  FWS, BIA........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           and Bay,
           Michigan
      1994...do                 300,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  Agreement in         230,000               1997  ...........  ...............
                                                                              principle w/
                                                                              PRP for
                                                                              dredging work.
      1995...do                 391,000  ...do...........  ................  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1996...do                 280,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal        1,060,781
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1995Santa Clara            40,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Shared             7,285,585  .................  ...........  ...............
           River oilspill,                                                    settlement
           California                                                         received April
                                                                              1997.
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993St. Lawrence           20,000  ...do...........  FWS, BIA........  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           environment,
           New York
      1994...do                  10,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1995...do                  65,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do                 175,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          270,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Tenyo Maru             94,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Restoration      ...........  .................    5,116,000
           oilspill,                                                          settlement in
           Washington                                                         Court Registry
                                                                              Account.
      1994...do                 417,000  ...do...........  ................  DOI fund             161,991               1995  ...........  ...............
                                                                              received
                                                                              payment for
                                                                              past costs.
                           -------------
              Subtotal          511,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1993Upper Arkansas        183,000  ...do...........  FWS, BLM, BOR...  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           River/
           California
           Gulch, Colorado
      1996...do                 161,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do                 220,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          564,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1995Venac/Bayou           185,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Partial              126,000  .................  ...........  ...............
           Meto, Arizona                                                      settlement
                                                                              (bankruptcy)
                                                                              with one PRP.
      1996...do                 220,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
      1997...do                 290,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           -------------
              Subtotal          695,000
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1997Westinghouse            5,000  ...do...........  FWS.............  Case ongoing...  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           PCB's, Indiana
                           =================================================================================================================================
      1994Yavapai-Prescott      120,000  ...do...........  BIA.............  Tribe has        ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
           site, Arizona                                                      settled with
                                                                              PRP, DOI
                                                                              negotiating
                                                                              repayment of
                                                                              DOI-funded
                                                                              assessment
                                                                              costs from
                                                                              tribe.
      1995...do                  60,000  ...do...........  ...do...........  ...............  ...........  .................  ...........  ...............
                           =================================================================================================================================
              Subtotal          180,000
                           -------------                                                     -------------                   -------------
              Total funds    20,765,598  ................  ................  ...............   19,806,430  .................   73,241,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    ------

                      Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd

                                 overall budget

        The proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of
    the Interior, for those programs which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee, recommends increases
    totaling some $473 million above the fiscal year 1998 enacted
    level. Overall, the President has proposed increases across the
    breadth of the Interior bill of nearly $1 billion above the
    comparable fiscal year 1998 levels. (This comparison in terms
    of total changes treats the special $699 million land
    acquisition program as the ``one-time'' initiative it was
    considered to be in the budget agreement.
        Question. If only a small portion of the proposed increases
    can be provided where would you place the Department's
    priorities?
        Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 1999 was
    carefully crafted to fund important priorities for the
    environment and for Indian people, and it fits within the
    context of the President's proposal to balance the budget for
    1999. These priorities include preserving and restoring our
    natural resources and ensuring good science is used in managing
    these resources, ensuring safe visits to national parks,
    refuges, and other public lands, and maintaining our
    commitments to Native Americans, including law enforcement,
    education and trust responsibilities. It provides a blue print
    that if followed by the Congress, will allow the Congress to
    join in supporting these vital programs.
        Question. How much of the proposed increase for fiscal year
    1999 is linked strictly to maintaining current levels of
    service (fixed costs) and is not associated with new or
    enhanced programs?
        Answer. The Department's request for uncontrollable cost
    increases (fixed costs) totals $105 million. The largest item
    in this total is the amount associated with pay raises, $72.8
    million. Other fixed cost increase items include federal
    retirement system costs, workers and unemployment compensation,
    rental payments, facility security, and working capital fund
    charges.
        Question. Are fixed costs a higher priority than new
    initiatives or program expansions?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior is the third most
    personnel intensive agency among all the major cabinet
    departments. It has reduced staff by 15 percent over the past
    four years (1993 through 1997). Covering pay costs to maintain
    our basic operations is one of our highest priorities. On the
    other hand our programmatic responsibilities have grown and
    pressures on the environment have also grown. It is important
    for our Nation and our children's future that in addition to
    continuing to operate our current programs, we make progress in
    restoring and protecting the environment and our heritage
    through our land acquisition programs, Everglades restoration,
    innovative partnerships to protect endangered species, saving
    our historical and cultural treasures, investing in the
    education of Indian children, and providing a scientific basis
    for our land management decisions.
        Question. What does it mean to the Department's field
    units--the parks, refuges, BLM field areas, Indian schools and
    the like--when fixed costs are not addressed?
        Answer. When fixed costs are not specifically funded,
    Bureaus and Offices must reduce programs supported by their
    respective appropriations, with consequent impact on program
    performance. In some cases the only way to meet these increased
    costs will be to reduce employment beyond the 12,000 positions
    already eliminated over the last three-and-one-half years. The
    personnel intensive nature of our mission responsibilities
    makes the lack of funding for uncontrollable costs particularly
    devastating. If uncontrollables are not covered, program
    performance is reduced, often resulting in reduced services to
    the visiting public, natural and cultural resource degradation,
    as well as health and safety concerns at schools, facilities
    and other infrastructure.
        Specific examples of the impact of not funding
    uncontrollables follows:
        In the Office of the Secretary, where the salaries and
    expenses account has absorbed over $23 million in
    uncontrollable cost increases over the past 15 years, absorbing
    an additional $1,860,000 in 1999 will force additional FTE
    reductions. In 1984, 725 FTE were paid from this account; in
    1997 that number had dropped to 389 FTE. Such drastic
    reductions impairs the Secretary in the performance of his
    mission responsibilities.
        In the Bureau of Indian Affairs the effect of absorbing pay
    costs strikes hardest at those programs that are the most
    people-intensive. For example, about 75 percent of the
    operating cost of the BIA law enforcement program supports the
    law officer and detention facility staffs. To offset the
    effective reduction in program funding resulting from absorbing
    pay cost adjustments, reservation police departments will have
    to reduce the patrol hours that they currently log. Other BIA
    personnel-cost sensitive programs are road maintenance
    programs, housing, and natural resource development, all of
    which already have backlogs that will now only get worse.
        The reduction in uncontrollable costs would seriously erode
    program productivity as managers offset the reduction by
    lowering personnel usage in the Bureau of Land Management. Such
    a reduction will affect the timeliness of mining plan reviews
    and oil and gas lease issuance. Fewer rights-of-way and
    withdrawal review cases will be processed. The miles of
    cadastral surveys accomplished will fall. Smaller numbers of
    wild horses will be removed from public lands, thereby
    stressing the health of animal and plant populations sharing
    these lands. In the Wildland Fire Management Program the lack
    of funding for uncontrollables translates into fewer resources
    for fighting fires.
        The impact will be severest on those programs for which
    managers must have staff flexibility at some point in the year
    to carry out. One example of this type of program is BLM's
    Challenge Cost Share program. The reduction in funds through
    failure to offset uncontrollable cost increases will diminish
    the opportunities field managers have to assign staff to this
    program to work along side local-government employees and the
    public, weakening the strong relationship that has been built
    between BLM and the communities that border public lands.
        In the FWS and NPS, the absorption of the federal pay and
    retirement cost increases will make it very difficult for
    programs to maintain their 1998 performance levels in addition
    to new requirements mandated by the 1999 annual plan. Visitor
    contact hours would be reduced and other operational
    requirements would not be met.
        Absorption of uncontrollable costs in the USGS would
    adversely impact ongoing operations and anticipated activities
    and investments. For example, USGS would stop, or not start,
    cooperative hydrologic studies supporting State and local
    agencies and it will shutdown streamflow gaging stations. The
    effective funding reduction would delay by one year completion
    of national coverage of geospatial data. The USGS would also
    reduce field work in all programs, including planned
    installation, maintenance, and upgrading of hazard monitoring
    devices and telemetry systems and reduce ongoing research,
    including research on invasive species. The absorption of
    uncontrollables may also impede Congressional intent in
    providing a programmatic increase for the Cooperative Research
    Unit program to fill vacancies.
        Question. If the Subcommittee is held at an allocation that
    is roughly comparable to the fiscal year 1998 base program,
    what would you consider to be the highest priority issues that
    need to be addressed when the Subcommittee considers your
    proposed fiscal year 1999 budget.
        Answer. If the overall mark were held to fiscal year 1998
    levels, we would still have to cover increased pay costs,
    effectively reducing overall programs by over $105 million. As
    mentioned above the quality of services in parks, refuges, and
    recreation sites would deteriorate, as would the condition of
    facilities. The implications of a continuing decline in park
    and refuge staff, teachers in Indian schools, law enforcement
    personnel, scientists, and land managers would be staggering.
    The Department could not meet its statutory mandates. We are
    hopeful that the President's request can be considered as a
    whole, rather than having to make these difficult choices among
    competing needs.
        Question. What will it mean to the Department of the
    Interior's presence in my State of West Virginia if the funding
    requested in fiscal year 1999 is not appropriated? Do you
    anticipated any changes in staffing, or office closures, or
    program terminations?
        Answer. In our April 1998 ``Distribution of Budget
    Authority by Congressional District/State Report'', the
    Department estimates the State of West Virginia will receive
    $92.5 million in fiscal year 1999, as compared to $102.0
    million in fiscal year 1998. fiscal year 1999 funding is less
    than fiscal year 1998 primarily due to the difference in
    construction and land acquisition project funding in the Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service.
        The Department's request would primarily provide
    uncontrollable cost increases, refuge operations increases, and
    increases in OSM's AML fund. Funding is also included for land
    acquisition at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge and New
    River Gorge National Recreation Site. If the Department
    receives fiscal year 1998 enacted funding plus funding to cover
    uncontrollable costs in fiscal year 1999 in its operating
    programs, we would not anticipate office closures, staffing
    changes or program terminations, except as proposed in the
    fiscal year 1999 President's Budget. Funding below this level,
    however, could lead to such actions, depending upon the
    magnitude of the cuts and the specific programs targeted.

               fiscal year 1998--title v land acquisition funding

        Pursuant to last year's budget agreement, the fiscal year
    1998 Interior bill included a special one-time $699 million
    land acquisition account. While some of the funds were
    identified for particular purchases (Headwaters Forest, CA and
    New World Mine, MT), the remaining funds are to be used for
    traditional land acquisition projects.
        The Administration has forwarded a proposed distribution of
    funding to the Appropriations Committees for review, and the
    next step will be for the House and Senate Interior
    Subcommittees to determine a final approved list of
    expenditures, pursuant to the terms contained in Title V of
    Public Law 105-83.
        Question. Are there any proposed acquisitions in the
    Department's list that are particularly time-sensitive? If so,
    what are the circumstances that would jeopardize the
    acquisition if the list is not approved soon?
        Answer. Yes, a total of $60.9 million in 28 projects on the
    lists of three bureaus are time-sensitive. Often, acquisitions
    have options that will expire, are subject to development, have
    willing sellers who will not wait indefinitely, or will require
    new costly re-appraisals if the delays continue.
        The six BLM projects totaling $8.5 million are Bodie Bowl
    in California, Sacrifice Cliff in Montana, La Cienega in New
    Mexico, Lopez Island in Washington, Upper Snake/South Fork
    Snake River in Idaho, and Three Island Crossing/Oregon NHT in
    Idaho. Additionally, acquisitions at these sites will be
    complete except for La Cienega and Upper Snake/South Fork Snake
    River.
        The four FWS projects, totaling $17.4 million are Balcones
    Canyonlands in Texas, Cabo Rojo Salt Flats in Puerto Rico, Don
    Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR (Bear Island purchase) in
    California and Great Meadows NWR (O'Rouke Farm). The Bear
    Island purchase completes acquisition on the Island.
        The 18 NPS projects totaling $35.0 million are Acadia NP in
    Maine, Channel Islands NP in California, Chattahoochee River
    NRA in Georgia, Cumberland Island NS in Georgia, Delaware Water
    Gap NRA in Pennsylvania, Ebey's Land NH Reserve in Washington,
    Gettysburg NMP in Pennsylvania, Haleakala NP in Hawaii,
    Hopewell Culture NHP in Ohio, John Day Fossil Beds NM in
    Oregon, John Muir NHS in California, Monocacy NB in Maryland,
    Olympic NP in Washington, Pecos NHP in New Mexico, Salt River
    Bay NHP & Ecol. Pres. in Virgin Islands, Santa Monica NRA
    (Completes Backbone Trail), Stones River NB in Tennessee, and
    Voyageurs NPS in Minnesota.
        Question. To what extent do you anticipate any additional
    operational or staffing requirements with the projects that
    have been identified?
        Answer. Each bureau plans for any new operational or
    staffing for identified projects on an annual basis within
    overall funding levels. Often acquisitions add an additional
    parcel of land to an existing unit and may not require new
    operational funds or staff. In some cases, consolidation of
    ownership may save costs that result from fragmented ownership
    patterns. When new staff are required to be added, bureaus
    often assign staff from other existing units.
        Question. Are any of the funds proposed to be used to
    establish new units?
        Answer. Two BLM acquisitions and four FWS acquisitions on
    the Title V lists represent requests for new appropriated
    funding, though not necessarily new units. No funding is
    requested for new National Parks but funds are included for
    acquisition management over the four years that funds are
    available.
        In BLM, Lechguilla in New Mexico is a proposal to acquire
    oil and gas lease interests beneath existing BLM lands; while
    the acquisition at Three Island Crossing/Oregon NHT in Idaho
    would represent a new start.
        In FWS, funding for the North Dakota Prairie and the South
    Dakota Prairie would be for new areas, like a wetlands project,
    but are not new refuges. The Black River proposed acquisition
    is a unit in the Nisqually NWR in Washington. The request for
    the Fort Pierre Eagle Roost in South Dakota would establish a
    new refuge.
        One of the allowable purposes of this account, as provided
    for in the appropriations language, is to address maintenance
    backlogs of the public land agencies. Yet in the proposal, the
    Administration has recommended that just $20 million of the
    $362 million not specified for particular projects be spent on
    maintenance.
        Question. With backlogs for the Department estimated to be
    in the hundreds of millions of dollars, why did you choose not
    to recommend more of the funding for these purposes?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests an increase of
    $82 million over the $464 million appropriated in fiscal year
    1998 for maintenance. In addition, tens of millions of dollars
    of recreation fee demonstration funds collected at NPS units in
    fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 are available to be used
    for maintenance.
        Question. How does the estimated cost of the backlog of
    land acquisitions, defined as inholdings within established
    boundaries, compare with the maintenance and major repair/
    rehabilitation backlogs?
        Answer. We are working to develop more exact numbers for
    maintenance and major repair/rehabilitation infrastructure
    needs. For land acquisition, NPS maintains a list of estimated
    needs that totals $1.3 billion, excluding acquisition needs in
    Alaska. This list is compiled and maintained using a
    computerized database and value estimates submitted by Regional
    personnel. FWS estimates that it has approximately $2.4 billion
    in acquisition needs registered on the Land Acquisition
    Priority System (LAPS) list.
        Question. When there are so many parcels with willing
    sellers at established parks or refuges, what is the
    justification for proceeding with new units? Doesn't this just
    add to the backlog problem?
        Answer. The National Park Service in recent years has been
    concentrating its efforts increasingly on acquiring lands
    within established parks. Only Congress can add new units to
    the NPS system.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service acquires land or interests in
    land to protect wildlife habitat when other options are not
    available. Time delays result in a greater threat to the
    resource and a greater final cost.
        Acquiring new units does add to the backlog of properties
    to be maintained, but sometimes the historic or natural
    resource is of such importance that to fail to secure it for
    future generations of Americans would be an irreversible and
    regrettable action.

                     national conservation training center

        Mr. Secretary, on a glorious Saturday last fall, you and
    Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark joined me in
    dedicating the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC). It
    is truly a spectacular facility and one for which I believe all
    in the Service and the Department can be proud.
        Question. What has been the experience since the facility
    opened last year? Has the NCTC met expectations?
        Answer. Since the facility opened in October 1997, over
    5,000 participants from the United States and a dozen countries
    have attended training programs at the Shepherdstown campus.
    There is a continuing high level of interest in planning and
    scheduling NCTC programs during fiscal year 1999. The FWS
    believes that the NCTC has already exceeded expectations and
    has established itself as a premier conservation training
    facility.
        Question. What response and use of the training center is
    the Service receiving from other entities? Has the Center been
    able to respond to demand?
        Answer. Since the facility opened, over 60 organizations
    have sent students to NCTC. Among the other organizations that
    have programs at the NCTC are the Bureau of Land Management,
    National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Environmental
    Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, The Land Trust
    Alliance, and The Conservation Fund.
        Demand for use of the NCTC has been strong. So far, the FWS
    has managed the many requests for use of the facility, although
    the 100 beds currently available have not been sufficient to
    address lodging needs for all NCTC participants. The NCTC has
    worked closely with area hotels to place overflow business
    offsite. The completion of the third lodging unit will
    accommodate 50 more participants on campus. On campus residence
    is preferable because it promotes communication and networking
    among participants which leads to increased problem solving and
    cooperation on resource issues.
        Question. To assist with phasing of funding, the third
    dormitory is presently under construction and anticipated to be
    completed this winter (February). Are things still on schedule
    for this completion? Are sufficient funds available to furnish
    and equip the dorm once completed?
        Answer. Construction for the third lodging unit is on
    schedule and sufficient funding is available to complete
    construction and furnish the dormitory.
        Question. The fiscal year 1999 budget for the training
    center is essentially level with last year, except for
    adjustments for fixed costs. Will there be additional costs to
    NCTC associated with completion of the third dormitory, thus
    increasing the overnight capacity by a third?
        Answer. No additional appropriations for NCTC operations
    will be required to accommodate the planned increase in
    residential students when the third dormitory becomes
    available. These students will be charged for room and meal
    expenses.
        Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the
    Service remains ``ahead of the curve'' at the NCTC in terms of
    maintenance, upkeep, and fully addressing the operating
    capacities of the Center?
        Answer. The FWS is amending the Maintenance Management
    System to include the NCTC facility and is conducting a study
    to determine the specific maintenance needs of the facility.
    Without giving away the ``inner workings'' of the Department's
    fiscal year 2000 budget formulation process, it is safe to say
    that the Department will be including the NCTC in the
    development of the five year plan for maintenance needs and
    evaluating the needs of the NCTC against other maintenance
    priorities.
        Question. Will BLM and NPS continue their support in fiscal
    year 1999 at a level of $500,000 each, as was first
    appropriated in fiscal year 1997, and continued in fiscal year
    1998? Should the money stay in the bureaus, or be transferred
    to FWS budget so all NCTC funds are in one place?
        Answer. Yes. The FWS anticipates receiving $500,000 each
    from BLM and NPS in fiscal year 1999. This funding is used for
    operational costs of the NCTC facility and to fund liaison
    positions from BLM and NPS. The Department plans to use this
    protocol in the future as well.

                     Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

                                land acquisition

        Mr. Secretary, to date, Congress has provided a total of
    $11 million for land acquisition at Canaan Valley. The
    Department also has identified an additional $1 million for
    Canaan Valley as part of the Title V, $699 million proposed
    list, and $1 million is included in the Department's fiscal
    year 1999 budget request.
        Question. If I recall correctly, Mr. Secretary, the
    boundaries of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
    encompass some 24,000 acres. How many acres have been acquired
    and are expected to be added to the refuge with the funds
    provided in the fiscal year 1998 regular bill?
        Answer. Through fiscal year 1997, the FWS has acquired 825
    acres. The fiscal year 1998 planned acquisitions total 1,875
    acres, including lands purchased with North American Wetlands
    Conservation grant funds.
        Question. So, there is still plenty of acreage within the
    boundary that has not yet been acquired. Has the Fish and
    Wildlife Service identified other important properties with
    high resource values for which there are willing sellers?
        Answer. Yes, the FWS has identified a number a important
    properties with high resource values for which there are
    willing sellers. For example, and for the long-term, the FWS is
    currently negotiating with ten landowners of 1,800 acres with
    an estimated value of $8.5 million. These acquisitions would
    help consolidate and protect the most threatened area of the
    valley and are part of the long-term strategy for land
    acquisition at the refuge. However, the Administration has
    requested $1.0 million for fiscal year 1999 for the highest
    priority acreage, due to competing demands elsewhere.
        Question. How much additional funding could FWS spend for
    land acquisition at Canaan Valley in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The President's Budget request for fiscal year 1999
    requests $1.0 million to acquire an additional 265 acres at the
    Canaan Valley NWR. In addition, the Administration has
    requested a further $1.0 million as part of the Title V funding
    appropriated in fiscal year 1998. This request is also pending
    Congressional approval.
        Last year, as a result of the significant operational
    increase provided for the national wildlife refuge system, the
    FWS received sufficient funds to establish a refuge staff and
    to locate an office near the refuge, in the valley, rather than
    30 miles away.
        Question. What progress is being made to hire a staff at
    the refuge and locate office space in the valley?
        Answer. A maintenance worker was hired and has been on site
    since October 1997. Selection of a manager is imminent. The
    advertisement for an office automation assistant has closed and
    a selection is imminent. A biologist position will be
    advertised for a three week period beginning on May 4, 1998.
        The FWS will establish a local address in the valley in
    June 1998. If a property cannot be purchased, temporary
    quarters will be established in a rental unit; however, a
    property is under consideration for purchase. The property
    includes a residence that can be converted to office space and
    a structure that can be used as a maintenance shop. An offer to
    purchase the property is about to be submitted by The
    Conservation Fund. If the offer is accepted, the closing on the
    property could occur by June 22, 1998. To expedite procurement
    of office furniture and equipment, purchase orders are prepared
    and will be submitted when office space is obtained.
        Question. At the end of last year, the previous refuge
    manager retired. Are efforts underway to hire a permanent
    replacement?
        Answer. Yes, a new manager is expected to be in place by
    August 1998.
        Question. How many refuges are now part of the system? How
    many of these have no or only custodial staffing levels?
        Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes 514
    National Wildlife Refuges and 37 Wetland Management Districts.
    There are 320 staffed National Wildlife Refuges and 27 staffed
    Wetland Management Districts. There are 194 National Wildlife
    Refuges and 10 Wetland Management Districts with no staff on
    the site to manage wildlife resources or public use.
    Approximately 114 of these stations should remain unstaffed
    because they are either a mix of remote islands, small sized
    refuges that lack major resource threats, or refuges that are
    in close proximity to other staffed refuges and can be
    effectively monitored from those locations.
        While there is no standard definition of custodial status,
    many refuges are currently only able to provide the most basic
    services. In addition to the 194 unstaffed National Wildlife
    Refuges, many refuges have fewer than five staff. At the
    beginning of this fiscal year on refuges outside of Alaska,
    there were: (1) 580 refuge managers (1.8 per staffed field
    office or 1 refuge manager per 28,200 acres); (2) 576
    maintenance workers (1.8 per staffed field office or 1
    maintenance worker per 28,500 acres); (3) 305 wildlife
    biologists (1 per staffed field office or 1 biologist per
    53,000 acres); and (4) 254 public use and law enforcement
    specialists (.8 per staffed field office or 1 public use
    specialist per 120,000 visitors).
        Staffing needs have been addressed in both the 1998 and
    1999 President's Budgets, with operations increases targeted
    towards the highest priority on-the-ground needs. Part of these
    projects have involved the hiring of on-the-ground staff. The
    1999 President's Budget includes an operations increase of
    $15.0 million and 84 FTE for the highest priority projects.

                        proposed new fws regional office

        Last summer, Mr. Secretary, you put forward a proposal to
    establish a new regional office for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service in California. The objective of this proposal was to be
    able to respond better to the many endangered species and
    resource issues in California.
        However, there were numerous concerns raised regarding the
    cost of this proposal and whether a regional office would be
    the most effective way to solve the problems.
        Recently, the House Appropriations Committee rejected a
    reprogramming proposal that would have initiated this regional
    office in fiscal year 1998. Additional funds for implementation
    are contained in the fiscal year 1999 budget proposal.
        Question. What are your current thoughts on this matter
    given the House's action?
        Answer. On April 17, 1998, he Department proposed a scaled
    back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide line
    management and supervision of all field offices in California
    (including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada. The annualized
    costs of the office will be $1.2 million and the funds and
    staffing to establish and operate the office will be
    transferred from the regional office in Portland, Oregon. By
    letter of April 23, 1998, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
    approved this new office. By letter of May 6, 1998, the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee approved this new office.
        Question. Have you considered an alternative proposal that
    would be a smaller regional office, but put more people ``on
    the ground'' to address the problems?
        Answer. As discussed above, the Department proposed a
    scaled back operations office consisting of 9 FTE to provide
    line management and supervision of all field offices in
    California (including the Klamath ecosystem) and Nevada.
        Question. What do you see as the consequences if a new Fish
    and Wildlife Service regional office is not established for
    California and Nevada?
        Answer. The California/Nevada operations office is critical
    to provide hands-on leadership and improved service to the
    public for the Bay/Delta ecosystem restoration initiative, the
    Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the ongoing Salton Sea
    effort, endangered species issues, the public demand for
    habitat conservation planning assistance, and meeting the
    rapidly increasing expectation of refuge and fisheries
    facilities in California and Nevada. At the same time, the new
    office will allow the Portland Regional Office to be more
    responsive to the public and the Department's partner's in the
    Pacific northwest and the Pacific basin.
        Question. Why do you view a regional office as more
    important than assigning persons ``on the ground'' to the
    various ecological services offices and affected refuges?
        Answer. The Department considers the regional offices as
    one component of an effective three-pronged strategy to
    accomplish the FWS mission. The headquarters office, the
    regional offices, and the various field stations all perform
    important roles. Thus, the Department carefully evaluates the
    needs of the three interdependent organizational levels within
    the FWS and has requested the preponderance of increased
    funding for fiscal year 1999 for field station level program
    implementation among the various programs.
        In regards to the refuge program, the Administration's
    fiscal year 1999 budget includes a requested increase of $25.9
    million and 84 FTE for the refuge system for critical on-the-
    ground operations and maintenance needs. Refuge staffing has
    gone from 2,224 in 1996 to 2,306 in 1997 to 2,458 in 1998 to a
    proposed level of 2,542 in 1999 to keep pace with burgeoning on
    the ground implementation needs.
        The ultimate goal of threatened and endangered species
    conservation is to recover listed species to levels where
    protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer
    required and they can be removed from the list. The Department
    has spent five years improving the ESA through a series of
    administrative reforms which resulted in the recent
    announcement to move 29 species off the Endangered Species list
    or to the less critical ``threatened'' category during the next
    couple of years. The Administration's budget for fiscal year
    1999 includes a requested funding increase of $35.8 million and
    327 additional FTE (to a total of 1,197) to allow further
    progress with the ESA program to support both economic
    development and species conservation.
        For fisheries programs, the Department has requested an
    increase of $4.4 million and 13 FTE to implement on-the-ground
    fisheries restoration actions including fish passage projects
    in high priority migratory corridors, native trout restoration
    projects, hatchery maintenance, and additional efforts to halt
    the spread of aquatic nuisance species.
        By contrast, the Department has only requested pay and
    uncontrollable cost increases for existing regional offices.
        Question. How much has been spent to date on division of
    the FWS Pacific Region Office?
        Answer. No funding has been spent to date to implement the
    new California/Nevada operations office. As discussed above,
    the annualized costs associated with the nine person office is
    $1.2 million, which will be reprogrammed from the Portland,
    Oregon office. A onetime reprogramming of $0.9 million from the
    Portland, Oregon office will also be effected for relocation,
    furniture, and equipment costs.
        Question. What are your planned outyear expenditures,
    beyond fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. For planning purposes, the California/Nevada
    operations office would need increased funding to meet common
    ``uncontrollable'' cost increases such as pay and retirement.
    There are no plans to expand the office at this time.
        Question. What are the staffing requirements of the new
    office(s)? Will the creation of the Pacific Southwest Regional
    Office require additional FTE's? If so, how many?
        Answer. As discussed above, the office will be established
    with nine FTE, transferred from the current Portland, Oregon
    office.

                                disaster funding

        Last week, the Senate completed action on the emergency
    supplemental appropriations bill for disaster relief. The
    Senate bill recommends some $46 million for disaster recovery
    for your Department. Most of this is due to winter storms,
    flood damages from El Nino, and storm recovery from tornadoes,
    typhoons, and other weather-related events.
        Question. The Senate bill declares these funds to be an
    emergency, and does not identify offsets to pay for these
    unanticipated costs. What would be the consequence to the
    Department of the Interior if offsets from within the
    Department are necessary to deal with the damages?
        Answer. The Department proposed fiscal year 1998
    Supplemental contained rescissions totaling $9.4 million.
    Offsets were proposed to the non-emergency elements of the
    supplemental request. The $9.4 million represented the entire
    amount identified through a thorough review of the Department's
    available balances. Further offsets would cause viable projects
    for which Congress previously appropriated funds to be reduced.
        Question. Are there damages in excess of what the Senate
    recommended funding level will address? If so, how much?
        Answer. The Department's current assessment of its storm
    related damage to date totals $67,748,000. S. 1768 approved
    $46,424,000 for the Department. The difference will be managed
    through shifting maintenance priorities or stabilizing sites
    until a regular appropriation can be requested.
        Last year, funds were provided to address damages at
    Yosemite National Park, considered to be one of the ``crown
    jewels'' of the system.
        Question. How is the recovery effort progressing? Will
    there be any disruptions for visitors this summer?
        Answer. The recovery effort is fully engaged. Most projects
    are on schedule with the Yosemite Flood Recovery Action Plan
    submitted to Congress in November, 1997. That plan outlines a
    four-year timetable for substantial completion of flood related
    repairs. Throughout the past year, most NEPA compliance,
    emergency repairs, and preliminary planning for permanent
    repairs have been completed. A flood recovery management team
    is established in the park and reports to the Superintendent. A
    support and oversight process has been established at the
    Regional Office and Washington levels, with quarterly review by
    the Office of the Secretary of the Interior and House and
    Senate appropriations committees through the Flood Recovery
    Quarterly Reports.
        One major project, the permanent rebuilding of the El
    Portal Road (7.5 miles of Highway 140 within the park), was
    delayed from January till September 1998. The delay was due to
    project bidding that reflected contractor anxiety about
    beginning a major earth-moving project in the middle of an El
    Nino winter. A rebidding process is now concluded, with
    expected award on June 1, 1998.
        Day use visitors will experience only minor disruptions
    from recovery work this summer. Overnight accommodations remain
    essentially at 1997 levels. The 250 lodge units and 350
    campsites destroyed by flooding are not yet replaced. Lodge
    construction is scheduled to start in June of 1998. Campground
    reconstruction is pending a Record of Decision on the Valley
    Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    expected by December 1998.
        Concessioner service levels continue to be impacted by the
    loss of 439 bed spaces in Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Concession
    Services, the park's main lodging provider, has chosen to use
    150 overnight visitor rental units to house employees and has
    also installed 84 temporary dormitory beds. This results in
    another 150 units being unavailable for overnight visitors, but
    continues the strategy established in the summer of 1997.
        Question. What is the status of obligations for the funds
    provided in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental? How do current
    estimates for repairs compare to the estimates used in last
    year's appropriation?
        Answer. As of March 31, 1998, $44,400,000 had been
    obligated on the recovery effort. Current projections call for
    obligations of an additional $50,000,000 this calendar year.
    Current estimates are generally running within 10 percent of
    original estimates. One project, the rebuilding of El Portal
    Road (Highway 140 within the park), has exceeded the original
    cost estimate by approximately 30 percent or $8,000,000.
    Natural and cultural preservation concerns, coupled with the
    precipitous nature of this Merced River canyon construction,
    have escalated project costs beyond the original estimate. At
    this time, we expect to manage the shortfall within the context
    of the entire $186,000,000 recovery authorization, applying
    savings from other projects wherever possible. This is a
    design/build project and has been through a negotiated bidding
    process with three of the country's largest road building
    firms. The Federal Highway Administration is in the process of
    certifying the ``Best and Final Offers'' and expects to award
    the contract on June 1, 1998.

                       construction/maintenance backlogs

        Mr. Secretary, in recent months, there has been
    considerable attention paid to the infrastructure of the
    Interior Department and the efforts of the various bureaus to
    protect and maintain the resources which have been entrusted to
    the Department's care.
        In response to concerns raised by Congress, and others, the
    Department has undertaken an effort to identify clearly its
    backlog problems and to develop a systematic means of seeking
    funding to address these issues.
        Question. Can you provide a brief overview of what steps
    have been taken thus far, and what you perceive the necessary
    next steps to be, for this process?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
    Budget established the first Department-wide criteria for
    prioritizing the fiscal year 1999 maintenance and construction
    lists. With critical health and safety and critical resource
    protection as highest priority for funding, bureaus submitted
    lists that were reviewed by the Department and were submitted
    to the Appropriations Committees.
        A Departmental working group with bureau representatives
    has just completed establishing criteria for the 5-year Plan
    and for meeting the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
    directions for reporting on Standard No. 6 in the annual
    financial report concerning deferred maintenance. These
    criteria have been provided to the bureaus in the fiscal year
    2000 budget formulation guidance from the Department.
        The bureaus will submit five years of projects with their
    fiscal year 2000 budgets and will be reviewed by the Department
    and OMB.
        As part of the overall 5-year process, the Department and
    bureaus also will work on improving the quality of the data
    concerning the condition of the infrastructure.
        Question. What success are you having with the bureaus in
    seeking to implement a new approach to review these projects--
    are they ``buying in'' and participating fully?
        Answer. Yes, the bureaus are fully ``buying in'' and
    participating in the Maintenance and Construction Working Group
    that has developed the guidance for the five year plans.
        Mr. Secretary, as you know, there are many projects each
    year that are brought to the attention of Members of Congress,
    oftentimes by the Department's on-the-ground managers and
    superintendents.
        Question. How do you propose to deal with pressures to
    substitute, or add at the expense of other initiatives,
    alternative projects for items which may be identified in your
    5-year plan?
        Answer. The Department hopes that, by laying out a 5-year
    Plan based on clearly articulated criteria, consensus can be
    achieved on an orderly, efficient approach to funding line-item
    projects. There will, of course, be emergency and unforeseen
    requirements that emerge over the five year period, which will
    have to be accommodated within the plan.
        Question. How are the special recreation demo fee revenues
    helping the bureaus to address critical requirements?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the National Park Service is
    beginning its program to use the fee demo revenues to benefit
    the parks including for visitation and maintenance needs. For
    example, in the list of 20 percent fees managed nationally that
    was submitted to the Subcommittee staff in February 1998, 33.5
    percent of the projects address health and safety items.
                                    ------

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                                   extinction

        It has been reported to me that during the recent North
    American Wildlife Management Institute meeting in Orlando you
    stated that no species will go extinct during your watch. I
    very much appreciate your optimism and dedication.
        My area of concern, of course, is Hawaii and the Pacific
    islands. Reports from this region are that more extinctions are
    imminent. Nobody can argue the environmental crisis that is
    ongoing in Hawaii. Over the past decades, endemic species of
    birds and plants have been lost and we may be in the process of
    losing more. Important work in recent years by the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other agencies of the Interior
    Department has started the process toward conserving these
    species.
        Question. Can you outline some of your conservation plans
    and priorities for prevention of extinctions in Hawaii and the
    Pacific?
        Answer. Habitat destruction and modification, along with
    subsistence hunting, introduced diseases, and other direct
    causes, were the main causes of species declines and
    extinctions in past centuries. More recently, extinctions and
    declines in the native flora and fauna of Hawaii are directly
    attributable to impacts from introduced species. Strategies to
    stem the tide of extinctions in Hawaii are, therefore, aimed
    first and foremost at the control of threats from alien
    organisms in the wild.
        Efforts to fence and remove ungulates (pigs, goats, sheep,
    deer, and cattle) from large tracts of native forest and
    replant such forests with native species are ongoing as are
    efforts to remove introduced predators (rats and mongoose). In
    the past few years great strides have been made in obtaining
    authorization to use rodenticides in the form of bait blocks to
    control rats and mongoose in the forests of Hawaii and larger
    scale methods of control are being developed. Specifically,
    research is underway to determine if it will be feasible to
    pursue a future registration to aerially broadcast pelleted
    forms of rodenticides in Hawaii. Research is also underway to
    determine appropriate control methods for the introduced
    mosquitoes that are the carriers of avian malaria and pox, the
    main threats to the survival of Hawaii's forest birds.
        Much of Hawaii's endangered flora and fauna are in such
    critically low numbers that the above habitat based efforts
    alone will likely not prevent their continued decline and
    ultimate extinction. Therefore another major component of the
    FWS conservation strategy for Hawaii's endangered and
    threatened species is captive propagation to bolster their
    numbers and reintroduction of these species into areas that are
    managed to control known threats. Captive propagation is a tool
    that is used, or is being developed, for many of Hawaii's
    endangered forest birds and plants, the nene, Oahu tree snails,
    and the Blackburn's sphinx moth. Research to develop the means
    to promote immunity to malaria and pox in Hawaii's native birds
    is also underway.
        Recovery plans identifying the FWS recommendations for
    Hawaii's plants and wildlife and the priorities assigned to
    these actions are available for nearly all of the listed taxa
    in Hawaii. In addition, the FWS has convened expert Recovery
    Teams to assist in developing and implementing actions for
    recovery of Hawaii's native flora and fauna. The `Alala
    Recovery Team, which includes private landowners, offers expert
    advice on how to prevent extinction and promote recovery of the
    `Alala. The Hawaii Forest Bird Recovery Team provides advice
    for all other endangered Hawaii forest birds and is currently
    preparing a revised recovery plan for these species. The Hawaii
    and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee is in its
    final stages of developing a Plant Conservation Strategy for
    the islands.

                             secretarial commission

        On February 3, 1997, the Hawaii Congressional delegation
    wrote you a letter outlining the problems associated with the
    recovery of many of the endangered Hawaiian forest birds. As
    you have seen first hand, the State of Hawaii is experiencing
    an extinction crisis. Half of the State's endemic bird species
    are gone and most of the remaining are endangered, some
    critically.
        In our letter we requested your leadership to deal with
    problems associated with this extinction crisis. Specifically,
    the recovery of these species will not succeed unless we
    institute a habitat management program that will deal with the
    adverse effects of alien species and predators (e.g. Miconia,
    rats, mongoose, mosquitoes, ungulates).
        It has been suggested that a Secretarial Commission should
    be formed to take a close look at the situation and make
    recommendations. This sounds like a positive step to me. I
    understand that the Department has already responded to other
    Congressional inquiries along these lines.
        Question. What steps has the Department taken with respect
    to this issue and the Hawaii delegation's inquiry of February
    3, 1997?
        Answer. At his confirmation hearing, and in response to a
    question by Senator Kempthorne, Assistant Secretary for Fish,
    Wildlife, and Parks, Don Barry, responded that he would support
    a Secretarial Commission to study Hawaii's declining
    ecosystems. The FWS is actively considering the Hawaiian
    delegation's proposal to establish a Secretarial Commission or
    similar organization that could function as an umbrella
    organization capable of taking a broad look at the enormous
    task of setting priorities and restoring parts of Hawaii's
    natural environments. This commission could be established
    under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act and function
    as a recovery team for Hawaiian ecosystems, consisting of both
    resource professionals and other individuals with the necessary
    expertise to guide the recovery process. The Commission could
    become a successful partnership of public and private entities
    who share a common concern for the welfare of Hawaii's unique
    flora and fauna.

                           administration of funding

        Another important topic is the funding for Hawaii for the
    recovery of species. Specifically, the amount of funding
    necessary, the current uses of existing funding, and how
    funding priorities are established.
        The Keauhou Bird Conservation Center was built on the
    recommendation of the National Research Council report that two
    bird propagation facilities in Hawaii are necessary; one on
    Maui (existing) and another on the Big Island (Keauhou).
        Question. What are the operational costs of each facility
    for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999? Are both
    facilities fully funded in Fiscal years 1998 and 1999? Is the
    FWS funding both facilities?
        Answer. Yes, both facilities are fully funded in fiscal
    year 1998 and 1999. The operational costs of the Maui Bird
    Conservation Center (MBCC) and Keauhou Bird Conservation Center
    (KBCC) for 1996 through 1999 are as follows:

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1996         1997         1998         1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MBCC........................................................          400          402      \1\ 400      \2\ 400
    KBCC........................................................          500          529      \1\ 610      \2\ 750
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................          900          931    \1\ 1,010    \2\ 1,150
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimated.
    \2\ President's budget request.

        Through the Recovery Program, the FWS provides $500,000 per
    year to The Peregrine Fund for operation of the KBCC facility.
    Section 6 Cooperative Agreement Funds are also provided for
    MBCC, as follows:

    Fiscal years:
        1996......................................................  $300,000
        1997......................................................   301,000
        1998......................................................   302,025

        It is my understanding that the FWS is under a court order
    to focus more on endangered plants, particularly their critical
    habitat.
        Question. How does the FWS plan to address the court order?
    How has the court order impacted other FWS programs in Hawaii?
    How are these impacts addressed in the budget before the
    subcommittee today?
        Answer. The FWS filed a declaration with the United States
    District Court for the District of Hawaii on April 14, 1998 in
    response to the court order. In the declaration, the Service
    presented two options for compliance with the Court's order to
    reconsider decisions that designation of critical habitat was
    not prudent for 245 plant taxa in the Hawaiian Islands. The
    Court is currently considering the proposed schedule for
    remand.
        The first option proposed would require the FWS to assign
    four listing biologists to the remand thereby allowing the FWS
    to complete the reconsideration of all 245 not prudent findings
    by November 30, 2000. Under this option, all other listing
    activity in the Pacific Islands Ecoregion would be suspended
    until November 30, 2000. The second option would allow the FWS
    to assign only two listing biologists to the remand, with the
    other two continuing to work on high priority listing
    activities in the Ecoregion. Under this option, the
    reconsideration of the not prudent findings would be completed
    by April 30, 2002.
        There has been no impact to any other FWS programs in
    Hawaii as a result of the court order, as the final decision of
    the Court has not yet been reached. The impacts that will
    result from the court order are not addressed in the FWS fiscal
    year 1999 budget. The order had not yet been issued when the
    budget request was developed and the final decision of the
    Court has not been made.
        The Alala (Hawaiian crow) is the species that really
    brought us to where we are today with endangered species
    recovery in Hawaii. As a result of this successful work,
    propagation of other Hawaiian forest birds has occurred.
        Question. Please provide me with an update on the Alala and
    other species that are the subject of recovery work. What are
    these species' biggest threats? Please provide a breakdown
    (propagation, releases, monitoring, etc) of the funding the FWS
    will spend in fiscal year 1998 on this work?
        Answer. `Alala--The current `Alala population consists of
    16-17 individuals in the wild (4-5 of the original wild birds
    and 12 released) and 18 captive birds (consisting of 7 pairs, 3
    single males, and one imprinted female). Reproduction by the
    surviving wild birds appears to be at a standstill. In 1997,
    only one viable egg was produced by the only reproductive wild
    pair, and was collected and hatched in captivity. This same
    pair has not completed a nest or bred this breeding season.
        One of the most significant events to have occurred during
    the past year is the formation of a breeding pair made up of
    birds produced in captivity and released during the first year
    of the `Alala restoration project in 1993. These two birds have
    established a pair bond and have been placed in a field aviary
    for protection during this critical, first breeding phase.
    Chances are good that these birds will produce young either
    this season or the next. Some significant losses occurred in
    1997, as well. There were five confirmed deaths, all of which
    showed signs of predation, either mammalian or raptor. An
    additional two `Alala are missing and presumed dead. Thus far
    in 1998, two additional deaths have occurred, both of which
    were caused by a bacterial infection that appears to be E.
    coli.
        The FWS has developed a productive partnership with the
    private landowner involved in `Alala recovery. The development
    of mutual trust within the group serves as a model for other
    such efforts nationwide.
        In December 1997, the Kona Forest Unit of Hakalau National
    Wildlife Refuge was established, based on recommendations from
    the National Research Council and the `Alala Recovery Team. The
    Refuge consists of 5,300 acres of former Kai Malino Ranch land
    that is essential habitat of the `Alala and other endangered
    birds and plants. The acquisition process is also underway for
    potential purchase of an additional 12,000 acres. The refuge
    will become the cornerstone of potential agreements with other
    landowners in the area to manage the Kona forest on an
    ecosystem basis. Efforts are also underway to identify another
    site on the Big Island for the establishment of a second
    population of `Alala. The Service hopes to begin releases of
    `Alala at a second site in 1999. The biggest threats to the
    continued existence of the `Alala are (1) predation by
    introduced mammalian predators and by the native Hawaiian hawk,
    (2) disease, and (3) the potential for a catastrophic
    extinction event as a result of the population's small size and
    limited distribution.
        In 1998, the Service will spend approximately $260,000 in
    recovery funds on the field project for the `Alala. The costs
    of raising the `Alala in captivity at Keauhou Bird Conservation
    Center (KBCC) and Maui Bird Conservation Center (MBCC) and
    hacking them into the wild as fledglings is included as part of
    the costs to operate KBCC and MBCC discussed in detail above.
        Po'ouli.--After nearly two years of intensive field efforts
    to locate and monitor remaining individuals of this species,
    all indications are that there are only three birds remaining.
    Although sexing results have not yet been confirmed,
    preliminary results indicate that these are two females and one
    male. Discussions are being held with the Hawaii Division of
    Forestry and Wildlife to determine the next course of action.
    Options include attempting to establish a pair in the wild
    through translocation and, possibly, capturing the remaining
    birds and bringing them into captivity for attempted
    propagation.
        The decline of the Po'ouli is likely the result of a
    combination of factors, including avian disease, predation by
    introduced mammalian predators, habitat loss and degradation,
    diminishing food sources, and competition with introduced
    birds.
        Thus far in 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent
    $150,000 in recovery funds on the Po'ouli recovery project.
        Puaiohi.--The Puaiohi population on the island of Kauai is
    believed to number approximately 200-300 in the wild. The
    recovery project is aimed at identifying the threats to this
    population, working out methods of captive propagation,
    identifying other areas of suitable habitat, and expanding the
    Puaiohi's range through release of captive produced young into
    such areas. The field effort consists of locating and
    monitoring birds and nests, controlling predators, and
    monitoring for avian disease. Eggs were collected from wild
    nests in 1996 and 1997 and hatched at KBCC by The Peregrine
    Fund. The young that were produced were held at KBCC to
    establish breeding pairs. Currently, there are five breeding
    pairs and one single bird (11 birds) at KBCC. Thus far in 1998,
    three of the five pairs have produced eggs. Of these, two eggs
    have been fertile and were successfully incubated and hatched
    by The Peregrine Fund. Releases of young produced this year
    should begin in early 1999.
        The fiscal year 1998 budget for this project is $50,000.
    The costs for propagation of Puaiohi at KBCC are included in
    the overall operational costs of the facility discussed above.
        The FWS is also coordinating, participating in, and/or
    funding recovery projects for several other species, such as
    the Hawaiian hawk, Laysan duck, palila, Oahu tree snails,
    hundreds of Hawaiian plants, hawksbill sea turtle, Mariana
    crow, Rota bridled white-eye, and Blackburn's sphinx moth, and
    habitat restoration projects, such as the Kona dryland forest
    project, Ola'a-Kilauea project, and Palawai Gulch restoration
    project.

                                   landowners

        Question. You have provided leadership in seeking to
    address some of the landowners' concerns with recovering
    endangered species. After watching the bird recovery process in
    Hawaii, it is clear to me that landowners need to be part of
    the solution. How do you see the Administration proceeding in
    Hawaii on these landowner issues? What can be done to encourage
    and make it attractive for landowners, private and public, to
    participate in the species recovery process?
        Answer. Hawaii possesses one of the most unique assemblages
    of plants and animals in the world. Nearly 40 percent of all
    endangered plants and animals listed under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) are native to Hawaii. Since 1991,
    over 200 Hawaiian plant species have been listed under the
    Federal ESA. Approximately 50 percent of all endangered and
    threatened species in Hawaii occur on private lands. Recovery
    of these species is, therefore, dependent on the cooperation of
    private landowners and the willingness of agencies to meet the
    needs of both the listed species and the property owners.
        Recognizing that the protection and recovery of such an
    overwhelming number of listed species would require creative
    and flexible mechanisms, the State of Hawaii Legislature
    approved House Bill 1292 in 1997. This Bill later became Act
    380, which changed the Hawaii Revised Statute 1950. Act 380 is
    designed to reduce conflicts between land uses and listed
    species and to provide incentives for private landowners to
    protect and promote the recovery of endangered and threatened
    species. This Act establishes a provision within State law for
    the development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of
    incidental take licenses, similar to the provisions of section
    10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal ESA. It also establishes procedures
    for Safe Harbor Agreements and ``no surprises'' (incentives),
    closely patterned after Federal procedures by those names.
        Since the passage of Act 380, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Pacific Islands Office has been working closely with
    the State of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)
    to develop a joint State/Federal process for the development
    and issuance of Safe Harbor Agreements, HCPs, and Incidental
    Take permits. Draft fact sheets, applications, and instructions
    have been developed and are currently being refined for
    distribution to private landowners throughout the State. In
    addition, the Service is actively working with DOFAW on what
    will likely be the first Safe Harbor Agreement for
    reintroduction of the endangered Hawaiian goose, or nene, on
    Molokai. In this case, an agreement is being worked out between
    the private landowner and the State and Service to promote
    recovery of the nene while providing assurances that the
    landowner's desired future actions on the land will not be
    hindered by the presence of this endangered species.
        The FWS intends to continue and expand its efforts to
    encourage the maintenance, restoration, and/or protection of
    private lands for the benefit of endangered and threatened
    species, while allowing the lands to bring economic benefit to
    the individual landowners. There are now more tools available
    within the State of Hawaii to accomplish recovery objectives on
    private lands, and the Service intends to be creative and
    flexible in its use of as many tools as possible to collaborate
    with private landowners in Hawaii for the recovery of
    endangered and threatened species.

                                predator control

        Question. It is my understanding that New Zealand has a
    very successful predator control effort. How is the FWS
    utilizing this expertise? Are we implementing in Hawaii the
    successful actions of New Zealand? How have you utilized the
    expertise of USDA Wildlife Service with predators in Hawaii?
        Answer. The FWS Pacific Islands Office has developed and
    maintained contacts within the New Zealand Department of
    Conservation and remains abreast of their predator control
    efforts. The FWS has funded visits by New Zealand biologists
    responsible for predator control to Hawaii for purposes of
    sharing information and providing advice on specific projects
    and methods. Along with the State of Hawaii, Biological
    Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
    Department of Agriculture-Denver Wildlife Research Center and
    Wildlife Services, The Nature Conservancy, National Park
    Service, and several private landowners, the FWS is a member of
    a working group devoted to obtaining the best possible methods
    for predator control in Hawaii.
        In the past few years, this Toxicant Working Group applied
    for and obtained a registration for the use of peanut butter/
    molasses flavored Diphacinone bait blocks for use in bait
    stations in the forests of Hawaii. This product is readily
    available and is currently widely used to control rats,
    particularly black rats, in areas inhabited by endangered and
    threatened forest birds, snails, and plants. In January 1998,
    approval was obtained for this same product in a fish flavor.
    It is hoped that the additional flavor will enhance the
    product's effectiveness against the Polynesian rat.
        Research is underway to support a registration for a
    larger-scale method of rodenticide dispersal in Hawaii--
    specifically, for aerial dispersal. There are currently two
    products being considered for registration, both with
    Diphacinone as the active ingredient. These products are
    Eaton's 8 gram, fish-flavored, wax-based pellet and Ramik
    Green's 10 gram, fish-flavored, grain-based pellet. Additional
    research needed to support an application to the Environmental
    Protection Agency for an aerial broadcast registration of a
    Diphacinone-based rodenticide has been identified, and the FWS
    and State of Hawaii are working closely with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture--Denver Wildlife Research Center to
    complete the research and application package for funding
    consideration within the next year.
                                    ------

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer

                                   salton sea

        Question. The House and the Senate concurrently are
    preparing legislation to save the Salton Sea. While I am
    certain that we are all interested in expeditiously
    implementing a plan to rescue the Sea, it is important that
    such a plan be both scientifically sound and politically
    viable. Are their any aspects of either version of the
    legislation at this stage that you believe to be of particular
    concern or merit?
        Answer. While the Department supports the need to restore
    the Salton Sea, the House Bill (HR 3267) includes several
    aspects that are of concern to the Department, as identified in
    testimony given by David Hayes, Counselor to the Secretary, for
    the H.R. 3267 hearing March 12, 1998. Excerpts of his testimony
    follow:
        The NEPA scoping process described in Title I, Section 101
    (c)(2) would limit EIS focus to three types of remedial
    actions. These would include the use of impoundments, pumping
    out water, and augmentation of inflows. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service is concerned that this set of options will not
    adequately address the problems associated with fish and
    wildlife in the Salton Sea, and the project will not attain the
    goals described in Sec. 101 (b) Project Requirements. A broader
    set of alternatives should be considered in the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and provide a more
    objective evaluation to address all of the identified Project
    Requirements.
        The time frame described in Section 101 (c)(4) does not
    appear to be adequate to meet the needs of the project. This
    time frame is to be concurrent with the research described in
    Section 102 (a). As the required research has not actually been
    identified at this time, it is not possible to determine if
    completion of the research would be possible within 12 months.
    As described in Sec. 101 (c)(4)(B), the environmental
    compliance and permitting is to be completed within that same
    12 months. Because some of the environmental compliance
    documentation and permitting are reliant on the completion of
    the research at the Salton Sea, these processes may not be
    totally concurrent. This could result in the completion of the
    environmental compliance and permitting processes taking well
    in excess of 12 months.
        Section 101 (f)(3) contains language that could result in
    legal action. Specifically, the provisions relative to
    environmental compliance under the National Environmental
    Policy Act and the limitations on judicial review in the
    issuance of permits or other authorizations by Federal agencies
    could result in litigation.
        Title II, Section 202, which deals with emergency actions
    required by the Secretary, raises several concerns. There is no
    discussion of the destination for the waters to be removed from
    the Salton Sea. This determination is called for in Title I,
    Section 101(e), but it is not clear how that determination is
    to be made and what biological and/or NEPA study will be
    conducted in support of that process. Section 202 also calls
    for diversion of Colorado River water into the Salton Sea.
    There are no biological and/or NEPA studies described for this
    aspect of the emergency action, and it is not clear how that
    will be carried out with the requirements of Title I, Section
    101(f)(3) regarding the existing treaty/law/agreements relative
    to the use of the Colorado River water and the proposed rule
    for interstate water transfer. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
    concerned that this could result in unacceptable impacts to
    natural resources and/or litigation.
        The Senate Bill alleviates some of these concerns by
    extending the time frame to 18 months (although this is still a
    very ambitious schedule), calling for full environmental
    review, and not limiting the options for restoration. The
    Senate Bill calls for the scientific study to indicate what
    restoration options should be considered. Previous alternative
    screening efforts that have identified diking and/or
    evaporation ponds as preferred options may not have been
    comprehensive enough to identify options that can address all
    objectives outlined for the project.
        Question. As you know, scientists predict that the Salton
    Sea will be a dead sea if we don't take action soon. As
    Congress continues to work on legislation, what steps can you
    take administratively to prevent further disaster at the Salton
    Sea?
        Answer. The Salton Sea will not be dead in the near future,
    but it will change. As the salinity rises, foraging habitat for
    fish eating birds in the Salton Sea will be lost. This is a
    problem because alternative habitat is severely restricted in
    the Pacific flyway. This will have the greatest impact on
    species such as the American white pelican, the endangered
    brown pelican, and the double-crested cormorant. Salinity
    increases may ultimately impact the Salton Sea population of
    the endangered desert pupfish. Invertebrates will likely be
    available for some time, so shorebird and waterfowl use is
    likely to continue for decades, similar to that which occurs at
    Great Salt Lake and Mono Lake.
        The more immediate issue is wildlife disease. Currently,
    bird losses are occurring at the Salton Sea from at least three
    separate disease events. The Fish and Wildlife Service will
    continue to utilize its resources to carry out carcass
    recovery. This is the most effective means we have available to
    limit the spread of disease at the Salton Sea. Additionally,
    the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge is currently
    strengthening its infrastructure to respond to disease
    outbreaks. Additional staff biologists are being hired, a field
    rehabilitation center is being constructed, and an emergency
    response team of FWS personnel from several offices is being
    developed to assist Refuge staff in responding to large disease
    outbreaks. The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes a
    refuge operations increase of $240,000 for the refuge.

                             endangered species act

        I look forward to reviewing your soon to be proposed five
    point initiative regarding HCP's. I understand that all five
    provisions in your initiative (biological goals, adaptive
    management, biological monitoring, public participation, and
    permit duration) were identified by the scientific and
    environmental communities in comments submitted on the recently
    finalized no surprises policy, as the bare minimum necessary to
    ensure the scientific validity of the HCP program, including no
    surprises.
        Question. Why then were these provisions not incorporated
    as part of your final no surprises rule?
        Answer. The 5-point policy initiative addresses concern
    over HCP development and implementation. The No Surprises final
    rule was limited to the narrow issue of the no surprises
    guarantee itself. The Administration decided not to broaden it
    to include more general HCP issues because we had not provided
    for notice and comment on the broader issue.
        Question. Do you believe that these provisions are less
    important than your no surprises policy?
        Answer. The No Surprises rule is a regulatory mechanism
    that codifies permit assurances through the section 10(a)(1)(B)
    process. The 5-point policy initiative, however, largely
    clarifies and provides more detail to existing HCP development
    guidance contained within the HCP handbook. Expansion and
    clarification of the HCP guidance to the FWS and public will
    strengthen HCPs, the process, and improve national consistency,
    such as allowing for increased public input.
        Question. If you believe that they are just as important,
    do you agree that they should undergo a rulemaking and be
    incorporated into the regulations governing the approval of
    HCPs, just as you've done with no surprises?
        Answer. The FWS considers the 5-point policy initiative to
    be an internal guidance document further explaining concepts
    that help strengthen the HCP process, such as the use of
    adaptive management strategies. This guidance supplements the
    HCP handbook, rather than providing additional regulatory
    requirements. Since HCPs are increasingly used by the public as
    a means to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the FWS is
    providing a 60-day public comment period on the draft 5-point
    policy initiative, even though it is not a proposed rule.
        Question. Can you speak to the need for increased funding
    for the Endangered Species Act and other Interior Programs, and
    inadequacy of such funding in the Senate Budget Resolution?
        Answer. The Senate Budget Resolution Chairman's mark
    assumes the landowner incentive programs of the proposed
    Endangered Species Recovery Act will be enacted. For 1999, this
    funding would total over $80 million for the FWS. The proposed
    landowner incentive program includes safe harbor agreements, a
    habitat conservation plan loan program, recovery plan
    implementation agreements, a habitat conservation insurance
    program, habitat reserve agreements, and assistance to states.
    Under the Chairman's mark, funding would be made available to
    pay for the landowner incentive programs from the gross
    receipts realized in the sales of excess BLM land, ``provided
    that BLM has sufficient funds to conduct such sales.''
        While the Department strongly supports incentives to
    encourage private landowners to work on endangered species
    issues, the Department strongly opposes the ESA funding
    arrangements contained in the Chairman's mark. First, the
    Chairman's mark freezes funding for the FWS operating account
    at the 1998 enacted level, which would not allow increases
    critically needed for ESA program implementation. Second, the
    Chairman's mark proposes that the Department sell off
    ``excess'' BLM lands to pay for private landowner incentives.
        The Department is currently working with the Congress on
    the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Given the
    limited funding available within the President's Budget, the
    Department has placed a priority on more effectively and
    efficiently implementing the ESA program. The President's
    Budget includes a requested increase of $38.8 million to
    implement additional candidate conservation agreements to keep
    species from being listed; to implement more than 100
    additional Habitat Conservation Plans; to enter into 100 to 150
    Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners; to develop and
    implement multi-species conservation plans; and to continue to
    streamline Section 7 consultations with the Federal agencies to
    allow economic development activities to proceed.
        As part of this overall approach towards implementing the
    ESA, the budget includes a modest increase of $5.0 million to
    provide Safe Harbor Grants to small landowners. The Department
    believes that the Safe Harbor Grants program is the most
    logical area to ``pilot'' the landowner incentive concept.
    Freezing the FWS operating program at the 1998 enacted level
    will not allow responsible implementation of the Endangered
    Species Act and the Department strongly supports the operations
    increases for the FWS included in the President's Budget.
        Question. Currently there is language in the Senate Budget
    Resolution that calls for the sale of BLM land to pay for
    operations of other Interior Department programs. What is the
    Administration's position on the sale of federal assets to
    support operations?
        Answer. The Department strongly believes that there is no
    such thing as ``excess BLM land'' that could be sold off to pay
    for the landowner incentive program or other operating programs
    in the FWS or Department. The Department holds the public land
    in trust for all Americans and the Department manages this
    public estate to protect lands of national interest for their
    conservation, recreation, and taxpayer asset values. For
    example, the 264 million acres of public land annually host
    some 74 million recreation visitors while at the same time the
    public lands support grazing allotments for 3.7 million head of
    livestock, some 20,000 active oil and gas leases, as well as
    coal mining, timber production, and other commercial uses. That
    said, the Department recognizes that over time, land ownership
    patterns have developed in some areas that make little sense.
    That is why the Department continues to aggressively work with
    the States and local governments on land exchanges to
    concentrate State ownership in urban areas while the BLM
    focuses on holding rural land with significant conservation
    values. For example, during 1998 the BLM will complete sixty
    land exchanges involving some 125,000 acres.

                        land and water conservation fund

        The State of California has some very important land that
    needs to be conserved. With the exception of last year, the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund has been underfunded for over
    a decade.
        Question. Realizing that LWCF is financed primarily from
    oil royalty receipts and that the offshore oil and gas
    royalties increased significantly in fiscal year 1998, will the
    Administration prioritize efforts to acquire land and increase
    funding to LWCF?
        Answer. Throughout this Administration, the Department has
    consistently prioritized land acquisition. In addition, the
    fiscal year 1999 budget identifies an additional $1.3 billion
    in outyear funding for LWCF through fiscal year 2003.

                        klamath national wildlife refuge

        Question. The Klamath Basin of northern California has some
    of the oldest and most import National Wildlife Refuges in the
    country. I have been very concerned to hear that the wetlands
    ecosystems and the wildlife within these refuges have been
    declining due to problems of water quality, water quantity, and
    other similar problems that our refuges in the Central Valley
    have faced in the past. Can you tell me what the Interior
    Department is doing to acquire water rights, clean up the
    water, or purchase land for the Klamath Basin refuges?
        Answer. There are several ongoing proposals which should
    significantly improve the habitat and water quality conditions
    at the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.
    These are as follows:
    1. Wetland/cropland rotation
        The Refuge is entering its fourth year of a multi-year study with
    the University of California at Davis, University of Washington, and
    Interior's Biological Resources Division. We are looking at the
    benefits and possible problems with converting currently farmed lands
    to wetlands and moving the commercial agricultural lands to what are
    currently degraded wetlands. Over the past three years, the Refuge has
    created nearly 600 acres of seasonal marsh habitat as part of this
    study that has resulted in a tremendous increase of waterbird use on
    those areas. This year we hope to begin conversion of a 300 acre
    degraded marsh area to agricultural use. This concept of wetland/
    cropland rotation holds great promise to reverse the long term trend of
    declining wildlife values at Tule Lake NWR. A similar approach is used
    at Lower Klamath NWR and last fall that Refuge peaked at approximately
    1.8 million waterfowl and exceeded 100 million waterfowl use days, the
    highest use recorded in nearly four decades.
    2. Sump 1B conversion to seasonal marsh
        The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes $600,000 to assist
    with the development of this project. When completed, this project will
    be the largest wetland restoration project in the western United
    States, with approximately 3,500 acres of restored wetlands. We believe
    this project will significantly improve the waterfowl and wetland
    dependent species use of Tule Lake NWR and reduce overall project water
    demand by approximately 5,000 acre feet.
        Sump 1B conversion to seasonal marsh is a partnership effort
    between Ducks Unlimited, the FWS, and Tule Lake Irrigation District. In
    addition, funding proposals have been submitted for Upper Klamath Basin
    Working Group (Hatfield Working Group) funds as well as California Duck
    Stamp funds. The FWS expects to complete this project in fiscal year
    1999.
    3. Unit 13 water storage
        The fiscal year 1999 President's Budget includes $3,000,000 to
    construct a storage site in Unit 13 on Lower Klamath NWR. This area
    will store approximately 25,000 acre feet of water that will help
    ensure a water supply for Lower Klamath NWR. The National Wildlife
    Refuges within the Klamath Basin have been identified as last in
    priority for water delivery within the Klamath Project. Water stored
    within Unit 13 will be used to offset evaporative losses within the
    permanent marshes on Lower Klamath NWR. This effort will also benefit
    other project users by lessening the amount of water needed from Upper
    Klamath Lake during the summer period, saving from 20,000 to 25,000
    acre feet in the Upper Klamath Lake during most years.
    4. Acquire water from underground wells
        The FWS currently is negotiating with an adjacent landowner to
    purchase water from his underground wells. The landowner feels his
    water should be valued as in the Central Valley. If we are unable to
    reach an equitable agreement the FWS will explore the possibility of
    developing its own groundwater pumping.
    5. Land acquisition efforts
        The Trust for Public Lands is working with two local landowners to
    acquire 2,100 acres of land and hold it for the FWS. This location may
    also enhance our ability to develop and store additional water supplies
    for use on Lower Klamath NWR. The FWS has previously expressed interest
    in acquiring acreage within the Klamath Straits area, adjacent to Lower
    Klamath NWR. Currently, landowner asking price and appraised value are
    far apart. The FWS will continue to pursue acquisition of adjacent land
    parcels that will assist in meeting the mission of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of the Tule Lake and Lower
    Klamath NWR's.

                        blm wild horse and burro program

        Question. What percentage of the program budget, or actual
    dollar figure, is dedicated to the roundup and adoption program
    versus range management?
        Answer. Expenditures (in thousands) in fiscal year 1997 are
    as follows by program element (these expenditures include
    unobligated balances from prior year appropriations):

                                                                   Thousands

    Program management............................................  $8,272.7
    Animal removal................................................   2,643.2
    Animal preparation............................................   1,514.7
    Animal adoption...............................................   5,699.2
    Adopter compliance............................................      96.9
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................  18,226.7

        Question. Is it true that holding facilities are over
    crowded, adoptions are down and outbreaks of illness keep
    cropping up in holding facilities and at adoptions? What
    further problems are there with management of the program?
        Answer. It is normal for BLM to fill its holding facilities
    at the end of the capture season in February/March of each
    year. We then process and ship animals to adoptions throughout
    the country during the late winter, spring, and early summer.
    During the summer, wild horse gathers are halted for the
    foaling season. This year the facilities reached capacity
    earlier than planned. Due to this situation, some gathers
    planned for December and January had to be canceled. There were
    5,743 animals in BLM facilities as of February 24, 1998 in
    facilities with a total holding capacity of 6,570 animals. By
    April, the number held was reduced to about 4,400 animals.
        The current problem we are faced with is that the number of
    animals adopted at each event is lower than planned, which
    means that we are moving animals out of our facilities slower
    than normal, and we are holding animals longer than expected.
    There are a number of factors that are contributing to this
    slow down in adoptions including the unusually wet and severe
    winter in the mid-west and the concern over illnesses of some
    the animals coming out of some BLM facilities.
        In December 1997, the states were asked to add more
    adoptions to their existing schedule. The six western states
    added ten additional adoption events (both facility and
    satellite adoptions) to increase their adoption goals in fiscal
    year 1998. To further increase adoptions, a Western States
    Adoption Strategy was developed to share personnel for gathers,
    preparation, adoptions, and compliance. Sharing personnel
    during peak workloads will enable the states to place
    additional animals this fiscal year. Together, these actions
    increased the adoption goal for fiscal year 1998 to 10,225
    animals. This level of adoptions would clear the holding
    facilities in sufficient time and provide sufficient capacity
    for the planned gathers in fiscal year 1998 to proceed.
        Additional promotion of adoptions in the west is necessary
    to achieve adoption goals. A public outreach plan is being
    developed to locate and take advantage of new markets. A
    marketing analysis will include a long-term plan to increase
    the number of adoptions and then maintain that increased level
    in the west.
        The BLM is experimenting with wild horse and burro
    adoptions over the Internet and the idea of gentling wild
    horses and then adopting them through competitive events to
    enhance their adoptability. The Director is also requesting
    recommendations from the newly chartered Wild Horse and Burro
    Advisory Board.
        Isolated and sporadic occurrences of illness among animals
    in holding facilities are a seasonal occurrence and are related
    to extremes in outdoor temperature and precipitation. Another
    contributing factor is the movement of animals from one climate
    to another in a short period of time. It takes a few days for
    an animal to acclimatize to the local climate and microbes of
    that specific locality. BLM has implemented procedures related
    to facilities design and animal care for disease control under
    State and Federal veterinary guidelines to prevent the
    spreading of disease from animal to animal. All BLM-funded
    facilities have existing quarantine pens and barns to isolate
    sick and injured animals. All BLM-funded holding facilities,
    off-site adoption events, and the sanctuary are under contracts
    for local veterinarian routine and emergency services. The
    health of all wild horses and burros is closely monitored while
    they are in the BLM's possession, and appropriate care is
    provided promptly if they become ill. BLM is proposing a plan
    to enhance the facility at Elm Creek, Nebraska, by raising the
    fences of the pens that are partitioned for new arrivals to
    prevent direct contact of animals already there with new loads
    of animals. BLM is supporting a research project on a vaccine
    for equine distemper [strangles] at Elm Creek, Nebraska.
        Several internal and external reports have identified
    issues and made recommendations for wild horse and burro
    program management improvements. These include the Wild Horse
    and Burro Evaluation (Pierson report) and the Wild Horse and
    Burro Adoption Program Policy Analysis Team Report (Culp
    report), three separate Office of Inspector General audits, the
    Wild Horse and Burro Steering Committee (comprised of BLM
    Associate State Directors) conclusions, the BLM Director
    appointed fact-finder team assessments, and the Animal
    Protection Institute (API) Settlement Agreement. Many of the
    recommendations of the Pierson and Culp reports were confirmed
    in the findings of other external reports. Beginning in fiscal
    year 1997, the BLM began implementing the recommendations to
    improve management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program.
    Recommendations included in these reports address establishing
    and achieving appropriate management levels of wild horses and
    burros on the range, fertility control research, and improving
    and expanding compliance inspections of adopted and untitled
    wild horses and burros.
        Question. How does the Bureau determine the appropriate
    number of horses in each management area that should remain on
    the range or be removed from the range? How does the Bureau
    determine the Appropriate Management Level for private
    livestock in relation to horses and burros on public lands?
        Answer. In the development of a Resource Management Plan
    (RMP), all herd areas that were occupied by wild horses or
    burros at the time the Wild Horse and Burro Act was passed in
    1971, are considered for management for wild horses and burros.
    The decision is made based on environmental and social factors,
    such as land ownership patterns, resource conflicts, etc. Once
    a herd area has been designated for wild horse and burro
    management, that area becomes a Herd Management Area (HMA).
    Through an interdisciplinary process, specific environmental
    analysis of the rangeland resources is conducted using resource
    inventory and monitoring data, resource potential/productivity
    data, and existing planning decisions. This process provides
    for public participation. The results of this process are
    specific decisions that allocate the available rangeland
    resources for various uses (including livestock grazing,
    wildlife, and wild horses and burros). The actual per cent of
    available forage that goes to the individual uses is normally
    defined in the land planning decision.
        Question. Does the demand for burros exceed the actual
    supply of BLM burros? Is the National Park Service authorized
    to shoot and kill burros?
        Answer. In past years the Bureau has been able to adopt all
    of the burros it removes from public lands. This year the
    demand is down and so we are holding burros in our facilities
    longer than normal. It is felt that the reduced demand is in
    part due to the increased adoption fee that was finalized per
    regulations in April of 1997.
        The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 does not
    protect wild horses and burros on lands managed by the National
    Park Service. The disposition of those animals is a decision
    made by the National Park Service. In many cases the BLM does
    work in conjunction with the National Park Service to manage
    their wild horse and burro populations. This is especially true
    where BLM herd areas overlap onto National Park Service lands.
    Currently the Bureau is holding over 300 burros removed from
    NPS lands in southern California at our Ridgecrest facilities.
        Question. Does the Bureau round up older horses (those as
    old as 20 years)? If so, are these horses often adopted at a
    reasonable price?
        Answer. The Bureau removes horses over nine years of age
    only under unusual, emergency conditions. In November of 1997,
    the BLM re-issued its selective removal policy which states:
        a. Wild horses removed from all public or private lands
    that are to be placed into the national adoption program, will
    be limited to adoptable animals aged 9 years and younger.
        b. The authorized officer may elect to remove wild horses
    of any age from public or private lands provided that the
    animals are to be adopted in-state. Wild horses aged 10 years
    and older may not be placed into the national adoption program
    except as noted in paragraph ``d''. The Forest Service and
    National Park Service may elect to remove animals of any age
    provided that the animals are adopted by that agency.
        c. All wild horses, regardless of age, that in the judgment
    of the authorized officer are deemed unadoptable because of
    defects, previous injuries, recent but not life threatening
    injuries, or other factors that may limit their adopt ability,
    will be returned to the public lands or adopted in-State.
        d. During emergency situations, when the long-term survival
    of a wild horse population is threatened, the prohibition on
    removing wild horses aged 10 years and older and placing them
    in the national adoption program may be amended. The Wild Horse
    and Burro National Program Office must approve amending
    selective removal criteria prior to initiating the emergency
    gathering. Approval to amend the selective removal criteria
    will only be authorized in rare instances when other options
    are not viable.
        The regulations establish a minimum adoption fee of $125
    per head. The BLM usually adopts these older animals at or
    above the minimum fee. The Authorized Officer has the authority
    to reduce the fee on unadoptable horses on a case by case
    basis, but age alone is not a criteria for fee reduction.
        Question. Have you considered a one-year moratorium on
    round-ups (except for purposes of contraception and for
    bonafide emergencies)?
        Answer. A one-year moratorium on round-ups would compound
    the problem of reaching Appropriate Management Level's (AML's)
    on public lands. The wild horse and burro reproduction rate of
    24 percent would increase the herd size within the Herd
    Management Areas, causing a ripple effect on adoptions, gathers
    and holding capabilities into the future gathering seasons. The
    Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended,
    mandates that we achieve and maintain a thriving natural
    ecological balance on the public lands. While the BLM does not
    support a moratorium on round-ups, we are reducing removal
    numbers in fiscal year 1998 in response to larger than planned
    numbers of animals currently in holding facilities for the
    reasons listed in the response to the second question under
    this section.
                                    ------

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan

                            bureau of indian affairs

        Question. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs are currently in the process of cleaning up
    Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contamination caused by leaking
    light fixtures. Does the Department have plans to examine
    buildings on other reservations for possible contamination by
    PCBs and other toxic substances? I am particularly concerned
    with contamination in schools and recreation facilities.
        Answer. The BIA is currently responding to known PCB
    contamination caused by leaking light fixtures. All Areas are
    being instructed by BIA Facilities Management and Construction
    Center memorandum to complete a 100 percent inventory of all
    reservation buildings and facilities to determine date of
    manufacture (pre-1977 to contain PCBs) and condition of light
    fixtures. The Bureau will continue to properly dispose of PCB
    containing light ballasts. All schools and recreation
    facilities will be examined for PCB and other toxic substance
    contamination (asbestos and lead paint) as the BIA conducts an
    environmental audit, now underway.
        Question. The BIA and GAO have reported that the cost of
    repairing (not replacing) educational facilities at all BIA
    schools is $754 million. While I appreciate that the
    Administration in its fiscal year 1999 budget request has
    provided for an increase in the school construction budget
    sufficient to complete construction on the 16 schools remaining
    on the Priority List, what steps is the Administration going to
    take to ensure that the other 150 or so BIA schools in need of
    repair or replacement are taken care of? What creative
    financing mechanisms could be used to meet these needs in a
    more timely manner? When can we expect the Administration to
    send an Indian school construction proposal to Congress?
        Answer. The Bureau requested $37.4 million in the fiscal
    year 1999 President's Budget for Seba Dalkai Boarding School,
    Sac and Fox School, and Pyramid Lake High School which are
    ranked 9, 10, and 11 on the BIA's replacement school
    construction priority list. If funded, construction of these
    schools would start in the early spring of CY 1999 and be
    completed in the fall of CY 2000. The Bureau is aware that the
    condition of many of the remaining schools is poor, however,
    the Bureau continues to work with respective tribes and school
    boards to identify any immediate dangerous safety and health
    conditions which can be corrected with Minor Improvement and
    Repair or Emergency funds.
        Current procedures have identified 16 schools for
    construction. Eight of these 16 schools have been funded. The
    planning, design and construction activities of the BIA are
    established through the facilities improvement and repair
    (FI&R) and new construction nationwide priority setting
    process. The Bureau has convened a committee, including tribal
    representatives, to recommend changes, if any, to the
    replacement school priority setting process. Further
    consultation with the tribes is planned for this summer. The
    Bureau plans on soliciting new applications early in fiscal
    year 1999.
        The Department is exploring a number of alternatives that
    may in the future provide a viable means to facilitate more
    construction and repair of high priority BIA ranked projects.
    These alternatives include: lease-purchase programs; cost
    sharing of construction expenses by the Tribes/schools and BIA
    for repair or replacement of existing facilities; the use of
    bonds; and expansion of BIA's current portable classroom
    program. However, the Department's efforts to develop these
    alternative financing options has had limited success due to
    Budget Enforcement Act scoring difficulties. Lease
    arrangements, loans, and revenue bonds require repayment, which
    is subject to appropriation.
        The rate of deterioration of facilities, and the limited
    resources available to address needs, require that BIA allocate
    funding to the most critical health and safety deficiencies.
    The chief way to limit growth of the backlog and help ensure
    that education facilities in Indian Country are satisfactory is
    to provide the $32.2 million increase requested in the
    President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request.

                        Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

        The FWS has for many years pursued the purchase of wetlands
    easements within the State of North Dakota. More recently, the
    FWS has begun to pursue the purchase of perpetual prairie
    easements as well. There continues to be concerns and
    frustration regarding the lack of flexibility that these
    easements offer. These concerns may make it difficult for
    acquisition of easements to proceed.
        Question. What is the FWS doing to develop a more flexible
    policy on wetlands and prairie easement purchases?
        Answer. The FWS has used easements throughout the prairie
    pothole region to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and
    other wetland species. These wetlands also provide conservation
    benefits like water storage for flood management, water quality
    improvement, recreation/tourism, and economic diversity in an
    area. In the Devils Lake Basin, FWS wetland easements are
    storing approximately 169,000 acre/feet of water for flood
    protection in that area.
        The FWS is continuing to introduce more flexibility in
    administering the easement purchases for the Waterfowl
    Production area program by issuing permits for removal of water
    on easements to prevent flooding of roads, to prevent flood
    related health and safety issues around farmsteads and homes,
    and to remove ``sheetwater'' on flooded agricultural lands as
    long as the integrity of the wetlands are not compromised. We
    are also working with local water boards to facilitate legal
    drain projects though easement lands and utilizing innovative
    mitigation banking ideas. On grassland easements, grazing is
    not restricted and FWS managers issue permits for haying for
    cover rejuvenation purposes.
        The FWS has been extremely helpful in developing water
    storage areas on wildlife refuges in the Devil's Lake Basin.
    Such projects are an important part of a comprehensive flood-
    fighting strategy for Devil's Lake. Given that the lake level
    is expected to continue to rise, we expect a continuing need
    for water storage projects. Don Barry, Acting Assistant
    Secretary, has expressed interest in organizing a summit to
    discuss the potential for Fish and Wildlife Service projects to
    contribute to upstream management of water in the Devil's Lake
    basin in North Dakota.
        Question. What plans do you have to allocate additional
    operations and maintenance funding to properly manage newly
    developed water storage projects in North Dakota?
        Answer. The FWS has developed the Maintenance Management
    System (MMS) and the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) to
    address the backlog of operations and maintenance funding for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge Managers will
    identify funding needs for the newly developed water storage
    projects in North Dakota and this information will be used to
    address operations and management needs in North Dakota and
    throughout the Refuge System.
        Question. What plans do you have for pursuing a summit?
        Answer. The FWS has ongoing local coordination efforts to
    protect, restore, and manage wetlands in the Devils Lake basin.
    Coordination is already occurring with a wide variety of
    entities. No plans have been made for a summit at this time.
        Question. What other initiatives is FWS undertaking to
    ensure continued development of wildlife habitat and protection
    of existing habitat?
        Answer. The FWS is committed to providing wildlife and
    their habitats for people to enjoy in present and future
    generations. We will continue to seek innovative ways to meet
    the wildlife-oriented interests of the public. Through
    coordination with Congress, the states, and private interests
    we hope to continue America's wildlife legacy.
        The FWS has several initiatives to develop and protect
    habitat. In response to Federal requirements such as NEPA and
    the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the FWS reviews
    projects that are Federally sponsored or require permits
    administered by the Federal Government. This review ensures
    that fish and wildlife resources are considered in the
    development of the project. Technical assistance is offered to
    project sponsors for ways to avoid impacts or to enhance
    habitats for wildlife.
        The FWS has a private lands initiative that works with
    private landowners to develop habitats on private lands in key
    areas. In addition, the FWS has been working with numerous
    partners under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and
    has been able to acquire nonfederal dollars to match with the
    North American Wetland Conservation Act funds to perform large-
    scale habitat projects. These projects work with private
    individuals, local, state, and federal agencies to do landscape
    level projects that benefit numerous parties.
        The FWS is also looking at innovative ways to work with
    Refuge neighbors and has formed several partnerships. This has
    included working with local agricultural neighbors to farm,
    graze, or hay on FWS lands and receiving assistance with
    roadside mowing and weed control. The FWS is also forming
    partnerships with educational interests to promote outdoor
    classrooms, student research, and to provide a stimulating
    learning environment for visitors. We are receiving assistance
    from user groups to develop new programs and initiatives for
    public use, wildlife development, tourism attractions, and
    wildlife orientated recreation. Our Refuge programs also may
    include fee or easement acquisitions to store water for
    wildlife and flood control, for eco-tourism development,
    habitat development, and endangered species recovery. The
    Refuge System also collaborates with the Fisheries program to
    stock area lakes for recreational fisheries, perform endangered
    species recovery, and carry out fishery mitigation to make
    federal projects workable.
        Question. What consideration have you given to forming a
    task force with the Department of Agriculture and the State
    Water Commission to complete current and pending wetland and
    water storage projects in the Basin and develop an upper basin
    storage strategy?
        Answer. The FWS is participating in a group made up of the
    Governor's office, State Water Commission, NRCS, FWS,
    Congressional office representatives, local elected officials,
    the Devils Lake Joint Water Board, Corps of Engineers, North
    Dakota Game and Fish, farm groups and environmental groups.
    That group has recently identified two priorities for water
    storage in the Devils Lake Basin, Conservation Reserve Program
    lands and public lands. It is still difficult to implement
    water management and storage activities in the Devils Lake
    Basin and, until we get support from local and State
    representation, progress may be slow. The FWS will continue to
    be a partner in this effort and work toward a comprehensive
    solution to the water management and flood issues in the Devils
    Lake Basin.
        There is considerable concern about the FWS purchasing more
    land in North Dakota. Many local Governments' tax bases have
    already been substantially eroded by the outmigration of
    farmers and ranchers. This becomes an even greater burden when
    the federal government purchases the land and pays less than
    full tax value. In 1996, this shortfall for the entire state of
    North Dakota came to approximately $366,000. Consequently,
    country commissioners have been forced to prohibit the sale to
    FWS of flooded farmlands by willing sellers who have been hard
    hit by flooding at Devil's Lake.
        Question. What steps are being taken by the FWS to secure
    more equitable payments in lieu of taxes to counties in North
    Dakota?
        Answer. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, as amended,
    provides the authority for the FWS to make payments to counties
    containing FWS fee lands based on the greatest of the
    following: 75 cents per acre of FWS land; three-fourths of one
    percent of the appraised value of the FWS land; or 25 percent
    of net receipts of revenue from the FWS land. In addition, the
    FWS pays counties 25 percent of net receipts for FWS-managed
    public domain lands within those counties. If receipts and
    appropriations are insufficient to meet full payments, each
    county receives a pro-rata share. According to current
    estimates, payments in fiscal year 1998 will be made at 70
    percent of full entitlement. The FWS views revenue sharing
    payments in North Dakota as being equitable since the monies
    available for these payments are distributed on a pro rata
    basis, nationwide. However, the issue of shortfalls in refuge
    revenue sharing payments is receiving increased attention. The
    FWS is currently considering options to address the shortfall.
        Question. There is a need to improve weed management,
    roadside mowing, and insect control on FWS wildlife refuges in
    North Dakota. The inability of the FWS to meet these needs is
    very frustrating to area landowners. What steps is the FWS
    taking to address these needs?
        Answer. The FWS managed noxious weeds on 9,022 acres on 542
    separate tracts in 1997. This is an increase over the acreage
    treated in 1994, 1995, and 1996. The FWS treated about 25
    percent of these areas with herbicides. The acreage treated
    with haying, grazing, and biological control increased
    slightly. A dramatic change in the control of noxious weeds is
    the increased use of biological controls. In 1997, the FWS
    released over 1.1 million insects on 320 new locations. This is
    similar to the 1996 releases and a three-fold increase over the
    1995 insect release.
        The FWS mows the roadsides along its properties in
    accordance with local and county regulations, which generally
    require roadsides to be mowed by mid or late September. Some
    neighbors want roadsides mowed several times during the growing
    season to present a more managed, less weedy appearance.
        The principle insect problem in North Dakota is
    grasshoppers, typically associated with drought and dry
    periods. Many landowners perceive that grasshopper infestations
    originate on FWS lands. Typically, grasshoppers lay their eggs
    on bare soil or areas with sparse vegetation, not areas with
    vegetative cover. FWS lands are managed to enhance vegetative
    cover.
        The FWS generally will not spray insecticides on its lands
    since FWS lands are managed for wildlife. Most insecticides
    suitable for grasshoppers kill all insects, terrestrial and
    aquatic, which is the main food source for most birds, or are
    toxic to wildlife.

                             National Park Service

        The spread of noxious weeds is increasingly a serious
    ecological problem on wildlife refuges in North Dakota. The
    spread of leafy spurge on Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a
    particularly alarming example. To date, the Park Service has no
    comprehensive program for addressing this problem.
        Question. What plans does the Park Service have to develop
    and fund a comprehensive program for control of noxious weeds
    at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota?
        Answer. Leafy spurge is a definite problem at Theodore
    Roosevelt National Park and on the surrounding National
    Grasslands and private lands. Leafy spurge is doubling in
    acreage every 10 years and now occupies 4,000 acres reducing
    available habitat/forage for the ungulates and threatened plant
    species. The park is currently implementing an integrated pest
    management approach using chemical, mechanical, and biological
    controls as well as prescribed fire to battle this aggressive,
    invasive weed. However, the current level of effort is not
    enough to contain the leafy spurge. Studies have shown that
    unless a minimum of 70 percent of a spurge infestation is
    treated annually control would not be achieved. At current
    funding levels the park is treating only about 12 percent of
    the acreage infested with spurge. The National Park Service has
    identified an additional requirement of $275,000 to protect
    park resources at Theodore Roosevelt National Park for control
    and containment of exotic species, with emphasis on leafy
    spurge. With this level of funding all 4,000 acres affected
    could be treated. However, funds are not requested in the
    fiscal year 1999 budget due to competing priorities.
        The park has tried many programs to contain leafy spurge.
    In 1993, the park was granted approval to use Tordon and 2,4-D
    for Leafy Spurge. Through 1997, the park has sprayed Tordon, a
    restricted herbicide, on approximately 1,300 acres of spurge.
    For this herbicide to be effective, the same acreage has to be
    sprayed for 3-5 consecutive years to contain the spurge and
    cannot be used within 100 feet of a riparian area or on
    excessive slopes. In 1997, the park joined in a partnership
    with American Cyanamid and sprayed 55 acres with Plateau
    herbicide. This herbicide holds great promise because it can be
    used right up to the edge of water and in areas with woody
    vegetation. The results of the fall spraying will be evaluated
    this year.
        The park started placing bio-controls in the form of flea
    beetles in the park in limited numbers in 1987 through 1991.
    Large releases occurred beginning in 1992. Since 1987, the park
    has released seven different species and more than three
    million insects on over 1800 sites. The population levels of
    these bio-controls are only now building to such a level on the
    earlier release sites that some positive results can be seen.
    Starting in 1996, the park started harvesting flea beetles and
    giving them to adjacent ranchers. In 1997, more than half a
    million insects were given away to approximately 60 private
    individuals. This program shows great promise for the future,
    but it takes five to six years after release for a beetle
    population to build to such a level that results can be
    measured.
        In 1997, Agricultural Research Service in Sydney, Montana
    was successful in obtaining a multi-year funding package to
    attack spurge in the entire Little Missouri River watershed.
    Over the next five years there will be approximately five
    million dollars available for numerous agencies, counties, and
    states. However, this program will be spread over the entire
    Little Missouri Watershed. While the funding is significant, it
    still will not be sufficient to completely contain leafy
    spurge.
        Question. What are your plans in the coming couple of years
    for recognition of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial?
        Answer. Activities for recognition of the Lewis and Clark
    Bicentennial are necessarily intertwined with the day to day
    operations of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and
    other park units. The Lewis and Clark Expedition occurred from
    1804-06; planning for activities has already begun for an
    observance which will last through fiscal year 2007. In fiscal
    year 1998, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is
    increasing the level of partnership involvement in planning and
    implementing activities to protect, interpret, and maintain the
    trail for public use and enjoyment. The trail staff is
    providing extensive technical assistance and guidance to local,
    State, and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations that
    are beginning to plan new and renovated interpretive
    infrastructure on the trail, and/or that are planning major
    events during the bicentennial. Specific NPS projects include
    development of educational and interpretive initiatives, and
    development of Federal interagency cooperation and coordination
    for the Bicentennial, including recent formation of a Federal
    interagency Bicentennial steering committee.
        The parks that have involvement with the Lewis and Clark
    Bicentennial recently completed a planning meeting for the
    Bicentennial Observance of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The
    National Park Service will continue to work with all entities
    during the upcoming years to assist with planning special
    events, completing infrastructure projects related to the
    Bicentennial, and other items associated with the expected
    tourism increase.
        Question. What are your particular plans for participation
    by the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Foundation in North Dakota?
        Answer. The three North Dakota parks, Theodore Roosevelt
    National Park, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic
    Site, and Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, are
    working closely with their respective communities to help them
    gear up for the Bicentennial which is largely in the planning
    stages at this early date. The Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    Foundation in North Dakota is one of many organizations with
    which the Park Service has interacted to begin planning for the
    Bicentennial observance. NPS has also been in contact with the
    North Dakota Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Advisory Committee (to
    which the governor of North Dakota has appointed park
    personnel) and the three North Dakota park superintendents
    recently attended the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    Council meeting in Bismarck which included a tour of the Knife
    River Indian Villages NHS.
        Question. What amount of funding do you expect will be
    allocated to the Foundation in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998 the National Park Service was
    granted an increase of $100,000 for the Park Service trails
    office in support of Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails
    activities, and $400,000 for technical assistance and challenge
    cost share grants related to sites, activities, and events
    along the length of the Lewis and Clark National Historic
    Trail. The Park Service was encouraged to work with the Lewis
    and Clark Bicentennial Council in allocating the funds
    provided. In fiscal year 1998, $35,000 was transferred to the
    Foundation and it is expected that a similar amount will be
    transferred in fiscal year 1999.

                             U.S. Geological Survey

        The Biological Resources Division of USGS has ongoing and
    new programs focusing on several areas that are important to
    the people of North Dakota. These include evaluation and
    restoration of wetlands, Missouri River assessment, and
    research on grasslands ecosystems, grassland bird use of CRP
    lands, and exotic weed control methods.
        Question. What are the results of evaluation of wetlands
    restored as mitigation for Garrison Diversion? What are the
    results of evaluation of wetlands restored through USDA's
    Wetland Reserve Program? Can you identify opportunities to
    apply this program to help provide upper basin water storage
    opportunities in the Devil's Lake Basin?
        Answer. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S.
    Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck
    Office, conducted a multiple year study of Garrison Diversion
    wetland mitigation efforts that is just now coming to
    conclusion. Three mitigation sites were paired with natural
    sites in the Cottonwood Lake wetland complex in Stutsman
    County. The oldest site was 10-12 years post mitigation,
    another was 7-8 years post mitigation, and the third was black
    dirt in an open field--0 years post mitigation. The quality of
    plant life greatly increased on the sites with time and
    breeding birds responded by using this habitat almost
    immediately. Although not as well-developed ecologically as
    more natural sites, the mitigation sites all have many
    similarities to sites with native cover, and the lag in
    development of the plant communities can be attributed entirely
    to the severe disturbance on the sites at the start of
    mitigation. Hydrologically, they are functioning as wetlands
    within wetland complexes, with recharge and discharge basins
    working in tandem. The approach used to restore a complex of
    wetlands instead of individual basins permitted development of
    natural complexes that should be self-sustaining. Continued
    work on this study involves analysis of water samples taken
    over a period of five years.
        The Wetland Reserve Program is not active everywhere. For
    example, in North Dakota, it cannot be used because it must be
    attached to permanent easements. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife
    Research Center realized the benefits of the Wetland Reserve
    Program could be much broader by evaluating all types of
    wetland restorations. USGS has looked at a sample of 204 basins
    restored by a number of federal, state, and private agencies,
    all of which are similar to those that will be restored in the
    Wetland Reserve Program. Two treatments (drained and non-
    drained analogues in agricultural sites) were compared with
    pristine wetlands appropriately referenced in the Missouri
    Coteau, the Prairie Coteau, and the Glaciated Plains. These
    data are now being used by Northern Prairie in an effort funded
    by the USDA Wetland Science Institute to develop siting
    criteria for restoring wetlands. Lands from Montana to Iowa
    will be divided into sub-watersheds, within which USGS will
    provide information on impacts to wildlife, water quality,
    water retention, etc. to restore wetlands as proposed in the
    Wetland Reserve Program. The information will be available to
    all parties considering restoration as a mitigation tool, or
    who wish to develop wetlands for their own sake. The guidelines
    are sufficient to guide selection such that maximum wetland
    values for flood retention, water quality, wildlife, and other
    uses are maximized.
        Yet, any program restoring natural wetland function can be
    expected to have positive effects in the Devil's Lake Basin. In
    particular, restoration of wetlands and the development of
    wetland complexes will restore the natural hydrology. This, in
    turn, guarantees maximum retention of water in basins on the
    landscape while providing numerous ancillary benefits for
    private landowners and the public. All data collected to date
    show that maintenance of natural hydrological systems in the
    Dakotas is the best means to retain water on the landscape,
    slow its flow to major drainage channels, and thereby reduce
    the extremes in oscillations in stream and river levels.
        Question. How will your new program of research into
    grassland ecosystems evaluate the positive effects of
    agricultural practices along with the negative effects?
        Answer. Grassland systems are maintained by disturbance,
    which, before European settlement, was provided by bison,
    drought, and fire. Modern disturbances including livestock
    grazing, drought, and mowing are still in effect, even though
    fire, a major determinant of grassland health, is largely
    controlled. Some negative impacts of concern include invasive
    exotic plants, overuse of chemicals, fragmenting large patches
    of wildlife habitat, and general loss of species diversity. New
    research at the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
    will be investigating means to maintain viable plant
    communities and thereby viable animal communities, especially
    migratory birds, within the context of the agricultural
    community of the Great Plains. For example, properly managed
    grazing can increase plant diversity and develop habitat for
    shorebirds. Fire can be used to rejuvenate senescent
    grasslands, and choices can be made which maintain grasslands
    in large enough tracts to support wildlife. Although USGS
    treats migratory birds as a major focus, the results of studies
    designed to identify best management practices for them will,
    in fact, identify best management practices for many other
    wildlife species and the entire grassland ecosystem. These best
    practices will incorporate the entire range of current human
    use of the grasslands, providing private landowners and
    government agencies information on means to optimize values for
    themselves and the entire system.
        Question. Rising water levels in the Devil's Lake Basin
    constitute a chronic emergency for the citizens of the basin.
    Predictions are for a continued trend towards wet weather which
    will further aggravate this situation and cause continued
    property loss. What work is the USGS doing in support of
    studies related to an emergency outlet from Devil's Lake?
        Answer. During fiscal year 1998, USGS will complete one
    major interpretive study and a water-quality monitoring program
    in support of studies related to the emergency outlet. USGS has
    developed a statistical model to simulate possible future lake
    levels with and without an emergency outlet. As part of the
    emergency outlet studies, the Corps of Engineers has asked USGS
    to modify the model to evaluate the potential effects of bottom
    sediment flux and in-lake processes on major ion and dissolved
    solids concentrations of Devils Lake, and on downstream water
    quality under operation of an emergency outlet. USGS made
    10,000 simulations, each 50 years in length, to estimate the
    full range of future water-quality and lake level conditions
    and their probabilities. The simulations are used by the Corps
    of Engineers and their contractors to determine the economic
    feasibility of the emergency outlet and to evaluate the
    environmental impact of the proposed outlet both within Devils
    Lake and downstream of the outlet location.
        The interaction between the bed sediments and water in
    Devils Lake is not well understood. Assuming no interaction
    between the bed sediments and the lake bottom, the model
    indicates a slowly increasing trend in sulfate mass in the lake
    from 1988 to 1997; however, the mass calculated from water
    samples from the lake shows a much larger and more complex
    trend. USGS is conducting a water-quality monitoring program
    during 1998 to help improve model estimates made in support of
    the emergency outlet studies.
        USGS also operates eight streamflow gauging stations and
    three lake level stations under the Federal-State Cooperative
    Water Program. These data collection activities support the
    studies related to an emergency outlet from Devils Lake.
                                    ------

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert Bennett

                             wild and scenic rivers

        Almost a year ago, Assistant Secretary Bob Armstrong issued
    a record of decision regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers
    designation for Arizona that included the tributaries of the
    Virgin River. We were not pleased with that decision as we were
    not consulted, nor notified about the designation which
    threatens the delicate balance of the Virgin River Habitat
    Management Plan that was created in partnership with your
    Department. In response, members of the Utah Delegation sent a
    pointed letter to Assistant Secretary Armstrong dated October
    22, 1997.
        We have, unfortunately, not received a response yet which
    leads me to assume one of two things. Either Mr. Armstrong does
    not enjoy receiving and answering our letters, or he does not
    intend to answer that letter. While this has become the
    standard procedure with our friends at the Council on
    Environmental Quality, it has been to this date
    uncharacteristic of your Agency.
        Question. I ask you to please provide me with a response to
    our letter as soon as possible. I know that it will be
    responsive and I look forward to working closely with you and
    Mr. Armstrong to resolve Utah's concerns.
        Answer. Please accept our sincere apology for our untimely
    response to the letter from members of the Utah Delegation. Mr.
    Armstrong did send a response, dated April 17, 1998, to the
    Honorable James V. Hansen.

                  grand staircase-escalante national monument

        Representatives from the School and Institutional Lands
    Administration have met with your representatives concerning a
    reasonable proposal to trade out most of the Trust lands within
    the Monument. Surprisingly, representatives of the
    environmental community have received SITLA's proposal very
    well. A group of 20 representatives of the Utah Wilderness
    Coalition were in my office about four weeks ago, and expressed
    their support for prompt action of a SITLA exchange.
        Question. I am curious to know what you think of the SITLA
    proposal? If we were to introduce legislation to implement the
    exchange, would the Administration offer its support and assist
    us in moving it?
        Answer. The SITLA proposal served as the basis for
    beginning discussions on the exchange of Monument inholdings,
    which concluded with the agreement signed on May 8, 1998.
    Legislation ratifying that agreement is now before the House of
    Representatives. Secretary Babbitt gave his full support to the
    legislation as he testified with Governor Leavitt on May 19,
    before the Chairman Jim Hansen's House Resources Subcommittee
    on Parks and Public Lands.
        Mr. Secretary, visitation to the area now known as ``The
    Monument'' has quadrupled in the last 18 months. Though there
    is no effective means in place to register the number of new
    visitors, I know from my County Commissioners and State Park
    Supervisors that the increased number have had far reaching
    impacts. This influx of visitors to the Monument has made
    campgrounds continually full and as a result provided a need
    for other new services. Garfield County needs a new garbage
    truck to handle the increased trash left by visitors and Kane
    County needs additional sheriffs deputies. I want to help them
    somehow.
        Question. What would your response be should I seek to
    provide additional funds above what is requested through the
    BLM budget to Kane and Garfield Counties to alleviate some of
    the infrastructure problems associated with the increased
    visitation?
        Answer. In 1998, BLM funds have been provided to assist
    Garfield and Kane Counties with planning, law enforcement,
    trash collection, and other needs associated with the startup
    of the Monument. New cooperative agreements have recently been
    established that provide flexibility for each county to use
    $250,000 to meet needs such as those described in the question.
    Together with funds provided in 1997, these federal
    appropriations have helped absorb short-term impacts associated
    with the Monument. It should be noted, however, that both
    counties have carried over funds from the 1997 cooperative
    agreements into 1998. Moreover, the newly signed 1998
    agreements provide for the use of this funding through fiscal
    year 1999, and it appears that a significant portion of the
    1998 funds will be carried forward into the next fiscal year.
    Thus, additional fiscal year 1999 funding for Kane and Garfield
    Counties is not now warranted.
        Going beyond this ``front-end'' assistance to a long term
    commitment raises a different set of policy and budgetary
    issues. Other counties, in Utah and elsewhere, would oppose
    selective, ongoing assistance to two counties, as they argue
    that many are significantly more impacted by federal
    conservation units and associated visitation. Both Secretary
    Babbitt and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress have
    been reluctant to support individual county appropriations for
    exactly this reason of precedent and perceived unfairness.
        Question. Will the Planning Team meet the deadline of
    September 18, 1999 to have a completed planning document and a
    management plan in place? What assurances will you give me that
    the Administration accept the planning document?
        Answer. The planning team is currently on schedule to
    produce a Monument Management Plan/Environmental Impact
    Statement Record of Decision that will be signed by the
    Secretary by September 18, 1999 as directed by the President.
    Implementation of the Monument Management Plan would begin
    immediately after the Secretary signs the record of decision
    for the plan. We anticipate that a Draft Monument Management
    Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be available in
    the Fall of 1998.

                                utah wilderness

        Question. Recently a court ruled that the State of Utah did
    not have standing to challenge your efforts to find 5 million
    acres of wilderness. What are your plans now with regards to
    proceeding with the Babbitt wilderness reinventory?
        Answer. There has never been any effort to ``find 5 million
    acres of wilderness.'' The wilderness reinventory is simply a
    fact-gathering, and does not itself change the management or
    use of public lands. The Bureau of Land Management is assessing
    the recent court decision to determine possible future actions.
    However, the court-ordered injunction is still in place,
    pending further legal proceedings, and no decision about how to
    proceed has been made, nor will be made until after the
    injunction is lifted.

                         san rafael swell heritage area

        Mr. Secretary, we will hear a great deal about the need for
    balance today. To help resolve the impasse on wilderness in
    Utah, the County Commissioners from Emery County, Utah have
    been working on a proposal to create a million acre San Rafael
    Swell Heritage Area. This proposal will designate over 360,000
    acres of true wilderness and protect an additional 300,000
    acres of primitive and semi-primitive areas including tens of
    thousands of acres of bighorn sheep preserve.
        I believe that this local, on-the-ground approach is the
    best and probably only way to resolve the wilderness issue.
    Congressman Cannon and Congressman Hansen will introduce
    legislation today to create the San Rafael Swell Heritage Area.
    I will introduce a similar bill with Senator Hatch when we
    return from our April recess.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I will invite you to come to Emery
    County with me and visit these areas with the County
    Commissioners. I have some free time at the end of May. Will
    you please come and spend a day in the proposed San Rafael
    Swell Heritage Area with us and explore the proposed areas
    further?
        Answer. I look forward to a visit to the area with you. I
    also understand that the Bureau of Land Management Utah State
    Office has been working with Emery County officials to develop
    a plan for surveying historical and cultural sites in the
    county as a necessary first step to determining the actions
    that need to be taken by various government entities to assure
    the proper identification and protection of those sites.

                            draining of lake powell

        In case my colleagues on the Committee are not aware, last
    year the Sierra Club Board passed a resolution to support the
    decommissioning of the Glen Canyon Dam, the draining of Lake
    Powell and the restoration of Glen Canyon to its former state.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, please elaborate for the Committee
    the short and long term impacts of this action, if it were to
    occur. What is the Administration's position on the
    decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell? Will you
    join us in developing a strategy to educate the public on the
    benefits of the dam and the lake?
        Answer. The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and
    the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 provided for the
    comprehensive development of the Colorado River Basin. The
    Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) furnishes the long-term
    regulatory storage needed to allow States in the Upper Basin to
    develop their share of Colorado River water and meet their flow
    obligation at Lees Ferry, as defined in the Colorado River
    Compact of 1922. In addition, as a result of the storage of
    water in CRSP reservoirs, a significant amount of electrical
    energy is produced to meet the needs of the Upper Basin and
    adjacent areas, flooding is better controlled, and significant
    recreation benefits are provided.
        The primary short term impact of draining Lake Powell would
    be its cost. No estimate has been developed, but it is safe to
    assume it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Long-term
    impacts might be described as follows:
        Water Resources: Historical records show that, at the 1997
    level of Colorado River water use, both Lake Powell and Lake
    Mead would have been needed during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's,
    and 1960's to store the water needed to make the deliveries to
    the Lower Basin guaranteed by the 1922 Compact. In all such
    periods, recorded annual flows at Lees Ferry were less than 7.5
    million acre-feet (maf) during one or more years, with a low of
    4.4 maf in 1934. Without carry-over storage in Lake Powell, the
    Upper Basin States would not only experience significant water
    shortages if a drought like that in 1934 were to occur today,
    but they would also have to forgo approximately 1.7 maf of
    future development.
        In addition, in the absence of Lake Powell, the level of
    Lake Mead would fluctuate greatly and there would be more
    frequent and greater floods below Hoover Dam. Reclamation would
    have to study the safety of dams below the Grand Canyon, modify
    flood control operations at Hoover Dam, and study modifications
    to the floodway from Hoover Dam to the Southerly International
    Boundary to accommodate more frequent floods.
        Power Resources: The Colorado River system, including Glen
    Canyon Dam and other CRSP powerplants, generates enough power
    to meet the needs of 3 million people, or to partially meet the
    needs of 9 to 12 million people. Net generation by all CRSP
    powerplants was 7.3 billion kilowatt-hours in fiscal year 1996,
    and Glen Canyon Dam accounts for about 75 percent of the total.
    If Lake Powell were to be drained, not only would the loss of
    Federal revenue be significant--about $98 million in fiscal
    year 1996--but the power generated at Glen Canyon Dam would
    have to be replaced from some other source or sources.
        Recreation Resources: The Glen Canyon National Recreation
    Area (NRA) attracts over 2.5 million visitors per year. Over
    700 houseboats and small boats are rented on a daily or weekly
    basis, nearly 2,000 private boats are berthed, and over 2,500
    dry storage spaces are used each summer. Accommodations within
    Glen Canyon NRA include 400 hotel rooms and 600 campsites,
    while thousands more camp on boats and on shoreline beaches.
    Economic impacts associated with the loss of this industry,
    which is dependent upon the existence of Lake Powell, would
    exceed $400 million per year, and the reservoir fishery would
    be lost.
        In addition, the white water rafting industry has evolved
    into a nearly year-round tourist-based economy for Page and
    Flagstaff, Arizona. The Dam provides stable and predictable
    flows during both high runoff and low runoff and/or drought
    periods. About 42,000 people float the calm waters between the
    Dam and Lees Ferry annually. Without the Dam, the rafting
    economy would be limited to the runoff period in the spring and
    early summer, with flows greater than 45,000 cfs typically
    lasting only six to ten weeks.
        Visual Resources: When drained, the upper end of Lake
    Powell would contain silt as well as some amount of waste left
    by water users. The canyon walls would be stained white from
    the water stored since 1963. No one knows for sure, but it is
    anticipated it would take centuries for the canyon floor to be
    cleaned up and for the natural color to reappear on the canyon
    walls.
        In summary, the proposal to decommission Glen Canyon Dam is
    not realistic. To assist in making decisions on operation of
    the Dam in a manner that balances the impacts on and benefits
    to all resources, an Adaptive Management Program has been
    established. In addition, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and
    Research Center has been established to collect and analyze
    scientific data related to operation of the Dam and protection
    of related resources. The Adaptive Management Work Group, which
    includes representatives of State, Federal, Tribal,
    environmental, power and recreational interests, has been
    meeting and has made significant progress on addressing the
    complicated issues related to these resources.

                               concessions reform

        Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have now worked with Senator
    Bumpers for almost four years on reforming the concessions
    policy for the National Park Service. We have made progress,
    but we still have a considerable way to go. As you know,
    Senator Thomas has introduced legislation that lays out a
    vision of where the Park Service can and perhaps should be in
    twenty years.
        Question. I would appreciate your insight on the bill as
    introduced with regards to the section on Concession Policy
    Reform.
        Answer. The administration's position on Title IV of S.
    1693 (concession reform), as proposed by Senator Thomas, was
    presented in testimony prepared for the April 30, 1998 hearing
    before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic
    Preservation and Recreation. The following is a synopsis of
    that testimony.
        The administration opposes Title IV of S. 1693 as it
    appears to work under the assumption that many areas of the
    existing law need to be changed for the benefit of
    concessioners. This notion does not comport with the many
    independent studies conducted by GAO, the Inspector General's
    Office, and others that have concluded that Public Law 89-249,
    the existing law which governs concessions contracting, gives
    undue benefits to park concessioners at the expense of park
    visitors and the taxpayer. Specifically, NPS is concerned that
    (1) the standard it adopts for locating new concessions or
    expanding existing operations might threaten park resources and
    nearby businesses by encouraging unnecessary concessions, (2)
    the Concession Manager it would place in charge of all aspects
    of concessions development and operations could act in its own
    commercial interest to the detriment of resources, (3) the bill
    does not offer adequate protection from concessioners price
    gouging visitors, and (4) the clause concerning maintenance is
    ill-conceived both in placing a ceiling on maintenance
    requirements and allowing the maintenance fund to be tapped for
    capital improvements. NPS does support the aspect of the bill
    that would eliminate the right of preference in contract
    renewal, but would advocate a lower dollar threshold for those
    contracts subject to competition. In conclusion, NPS is
    concerned that Title IV of S. 1693 would place commercial
    interests ahead of park protection and the visitor experience.

                     shivwit indian water rights settlement

        The State of Utah and the City of St. George, along with
    several irrigation companies holding water rights for the Santa
    Clara River, have been negotiating to settle ``Federal Reserved
    Water Rights'' for the Shivwits Band of the Southern Paiute
    Indian. The State of Utah, St. George City, irrigation and the
    Shivwits Band have reached an agreement in principal as to the
    amount and source of ``wet'' water for the Band to use for
    economic development.
        This agreement was submitted by the Band to the Federal
    Water Negotiation Team on October 9, 1997. This proposed
    settlement agreement negotiated by all of the involved local
    entities was rejected by the Federal team on December 9, 1997,
    based on environmental concerns. This was done despite the fact
    that no environmental assessment or Section 7 consultation on
    which to base such a decision has been completed or even begun.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, why should the Federal Negotiation
    Team, consisting of people living in the area, be in a position
    to reject this proposal without going through the proper
    process?
        Answer. As the federal entity charged with assisting the
    Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians with the negotiation and
    settlement of its federally reserved water rights, the Shivwits
    federal negotiating team was asked to review and comment on the
    ``Summary of Shivwits Settlement Proposal'' provided to the
    Department by Band Counsel on October 9, 1997. In a response
    letter dated December 9, 1997, the federal team, composed of
    representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior
    Solicitor's Office, and the US Department of Justice, offered
    its concerns and comments to the proposal. One aspect of the
    proposal involves the construction of a water reuse project
    (consisting of a waste water treatment plant and pipeline in
    St. George, Utah) to provide approximately one half of the
    water allocated to the Band under the Settlement.
        The federal team stated in its response that ``serious
    endangered species concerns * * * would most likely undermine
    the construction and operations of the water reuse project, and
    thereby prevent the Band from realizing the benefits of such a
    water source.'' The federal team recommended that because of
    the serious endangered species concerns, it would be a
    disservice to the Band for the team to consider further the
    reuse water and its associated construction and delivery costs
    as part of a water settlement package. The team based its
    concerns and comments on a draft of the Virgin River Management
    Plan dated January 15, 1997, letters authored by the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service regarding the St. George waste water
    treatment plant, and verbal discussions with the US Fish and
    Wildlife Service regarding increased consumptive depletion from
    the Virgin River under the reuse proposal.
        In its December 9th response letter to the Band, the
    federal team was not formally rejecting the settlement proposal
    or the water reuse project without going through an
    environmental assessment or Section 7 consultation. The federal
    team was acting pursuant to its negotiation authority under 55
    F.R. 9223 and offering its legal and technical advice to the
    Band as to the advisability of continuing to pursue the water
    reuse project in settlement negotiations as a source of water
    for the Band in light of the serious endangered species
    concerns. The Department and the Federal team remain committed
    to working with the Band and non-Indian water users in the
    Santa Clara and Virgin River basins, including the State of
    Utah and the City of St. George, to seek a negotiated
    settlement of the Band's federally reserved Indian water rights
    that allows the Band to realize the benefits of its water
    rights.

                             U.S. Geological Survey

        The USGS engages in cooperative activities with other
    Federal agencies, State and local government and foreign
    governments in water resources, mapping and remote sensing
    through the Water Resources Division, national Mapping
    Division, and Biological Resources Division, respectively. The
    annual Interior Appropriations bill provides authority for up
    to 50 percent cooperative funding with State and local
    government for water resource investigations and topographic
    mapping.
        Question. For each of the past three fiscal years, with
    which entities you have such agreements, what services did you
    perform for them, what was the dollar value of your
    contribution and the cooperator's contribution, and was a
    private contractor or in-house resources utilized in the
    provision of each cooperative services?
        Answer.

               FISCAL YEAR 1995 CO-OP AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of
                   State                  State and     Services performed       USGS       Cooperator     Contract
                                         local co-op                         contribution  contribution     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska.............................            1  digital data                    $33           $33          $51
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Arkansas...........................            1  digital data                     15            15  ...........
                                                       collection.
    Connecticut........................            1  ...do................            13            17            4
    Florida............................            3  digital data                    454           454          662
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Georgia............................            3  digital data                      7             7  ...........
                                                       collection.
    Idaho..............................            2  ...do................             2             2  ...........
    Illinois...........................            7  digital data                     59            59  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Indiana............................            1  ...do................           124           124          102
    Iowa...............................            2  ...do................            17            17  ...........
    Kansas.............................            2  topographic mapping..            22            22  ...........
    Kentucky...........................            2  digital data                     76            76  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Louisiana..........................            1  topographic mapping..            98            98  ...........
    Michigan...........................            1  digital data                      5             5  ...........
                                                       collection.
    Minnesota..........................            1  ...do................           447           473          694
    New Jersey.........................            1  aerial photography...            18            33           51
    Nevada.............................            2  digital data                      3             9            6
                                                       collection.
    North Carolina.....................            2  digital data                    180           180  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    New Mexico.........................            1  digital data                      9             9  ...........
                                                       collection.
    North Dakota                                   2  ...do................             7            35           28
    Ohio...............................            1  ...do................            91            91  ...........
    Oklahoma...........................            1  digital data                     65            65           98
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Pennsylvania.......................            1  ...do................           312           341           73
    South Carolina.....................            1  digital data                    237           237          434
                                                       collection.
    South Dakota.......................            2  ...do................            41            41  ...........
    Texas..............................            2  digital data                     92           257          349
                                                       collection,
                                                       topographic mapping,
                                                       and aerial
                                                       photography.
    Utah...............................            1  digital data                     13            13  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Virginia...........................            1  ...do................            21            21  ...........
    Wisconsin..........................            3  digital data                     37            37  ...........
                                                       collection.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................           48                                2,493         2,766        2,552
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      FISCAL YEAR 1995 STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Number of
                         State                        State and     Services       USGS       Cooperator    Contract
                                                     local co-op   performed   contribution  contribution    amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama........................................           26      ( \1\ )          $765          $827    ( \2\ )
    Alaska.........................................           13      ( \1\ )         1,038         1,300    ( \2\ )
    Arizona........................................           24      ( \1\ )         1,046         2,046    ( \2\ )
    Arkansas.......................................           11      ( \1\ )           725           784    ( \2\ )
    California.....................................           81      ( \1\ )         3,912         5,981    ( \2\ )
    Colorado.......................................           80      ( \1\ )         2,007         2,072    ( \2\ )
    Connecticut....................................            7      ( \1\ )           440         1,218    ( \2\ )
    Florida........................................           50      ( \1\ )         5,114         8,348    ( \2\ )
    Georgia........................................           34      ( \1\ )         1,400         1,650    ( \2\ )
    Hawaii.........................................           18      ( \1\ )         1,231         2,619    ( \2\ )
    Idaho..........................................           12      ( \1\ )         1,127         1,470    ( \2\ )
    Illinois.......................................           26      ( \1\ )         1,027         1,099    ( \2\ )
    Indiana........................................            8      ( \1\ )           931         1,965    ( \2\ )
    Iowa...........................................           15      ( \1\ )           833           833    ( \2\ )
    Kansas.........................................           21      ( \1\ )         1,159         1,341    ( \2\ )
    Kentucky.......................................           14      ( \1\ )           887         1,107    ( \2\ )
    Louisiana......................................           16      ( \1\ )         1,131         1,133    ( \2\ )
    Maine..........................................           10      ( \1\ )           308           356    ( \2\ )
    Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware...           10      ( \1\ )         1,113         2,043    ( \2\ )
    Massachusetts, and Rhode Island................           18      ( \1\ )         1,193         2,756    ( \2\ )
    Michigan.......................................           27      ( \1\ )           718         1,537    ( \2\ )
    Minnesota......................................           15      ( \1\ )         1,028         1,124    ( \2\ )
    Mississippi....................................           10      ( \1\ )           880         1,098    ( \2\ )
    Missouri.......................................           14      ( \1\ )           697         1,171    ( \2\ )
    Montana........................................           18      ( \1\ )         1,159         1,204    ( \2\ )
    New Hampshire, Vermont.........................            5      ( \1\ )           520         1,100    ( \2\ )
    Nebraska.......................................           27      ( \1\ )           731           884    ( \2\ )
    Nevada.........................................           20      ( \1\ )         1,846         2,375    ( \2\ )
    New Jersey.....................................           21      ( \1\ )         2,030         3,003    ( \2\ )
    New Mexico.....................................           26      ( \1\ )         1,616         2,000    ( \2\ )
    New York.......................................           28      ( \1\ )         2,422         4,257    ( \2\ )
    North Carolina.................................           23      ( \1\ )         1,457         1,712    ( \2\ )
    North Dakota...................................           16      ( \1\ )           682           682    ( \2\ )
    Ohio...........................................           19      ( \1\ )         1,083         1,707    ( \2\ )
    Oklahoma.......................................           15      ( \1\ )           843           856    ( \2\ )
    Oregon.........................................           25      ( \1\ )         1,253         1,360    ( \2\ )
    Pennsylvania...................................           34      ( \1\ )         1,565         3,545    ( \2\ )
    Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.................            9      ( \1\ )         1,557         3,305    ( \2\ )
    South Carolina.................................           22      ( \1\ )         1,400         1,406    ( \2\ )
    South Dakota...................................           30      ( \1\ )         1,076         1,136    ( \2\ )
    Tennessee......................................           37      ( \1\ )         1,021         1,033    ( \2\ )
    Texas..........................................           60      ( \1\ )         2,840         4,698    ( \2\ )
    Utah...........................................           26      ( \1\ )         1,227         1,358    ( \2\ )
    Virginia.......................................           17      ( \1\ )           618           967    ( \2\ )
    Washington.....................................           39      ( \1\ )         1,425         1,729    ( \2\ )
    West Virginia..................................            5      ( \1\ )           529           529    ( \2\ )
    Wisconsin......................................           66      ( \1\ )         1,573         1,873    ( \2\ )
    Wyoming........................................           22      ( \1\ )           929           978    ( \2\ )
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total....................................        1,170                     63,112        90,575
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
      contaminated environment, and water data & information.
    \2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
      performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.

            FISCAL YEAR 1996 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of
                   State                  State and     Services performed       USGS       Cooperator     Contract
                                         local co-op                         contribution  contribution     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska.............................            1  digital data                    $19           $19           27
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Arkansas...........................            1  digital data           ............             9            9
                                                       collection.
    California.........................            4  ...do................            76            76          124
    Colorado...........................            1  ...do................  ............            33           33
    Florida............................            4  digital data                  1,293         1,319        2,193
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Georgia............................            4  digital data                    884           916        1,489
                                                       collection.
    Illinois...........................            5  topographic mapping             222           236           14
                                                       and digital data
                                                       collection.
    Indiana............................            1  ...do................            74            74  ...........
    Iowa...............................            1  ...do................             6            32           27
    Kansas.............................            1  topographic mapping..             8             8  ...........
    Kentucky...........................            2  topographic mapping               7            32           25
                                                       and digital data
                                                       collection.
    Louisiana..........................            1  topographic mapping..           112           112  ...........
    Michigan...........................            1  digital data                     17            17  ...........
                                                       collection.
    Minnesota..........................            1  ...do................            23            54           31
    Missouri...........................            2  ...do................             3            27           25
    Mississippi........................            1  aerial photography...            44           132          176
    Montana............................            3  digital data                     16            16           18
                                                       collection.
    Nevada.............................            1  ...do................  ............             2            2
    North Carolina.....................            2  topographic mapping             603           603          834
                                                       and digital data
                                                       collection.
    New Hampshire......................            1  digital data           ............             7            7
                                                       collection.
    New Jersey.........................            2  ...do................           140           140          212
    New Mexico.........................            2  ...do................             8             8  ...........
    North Dakota.......................            2  ...do................  ............            17           17
    Oklahoma...........................            1  topographic mapping             115           154           39
                                                       and digital data
                                                       collection.
    Pennsylvania.......................            1  ...do................           366           366          376
    South Carolina.....................            1  digital data                    349           349          532
                                                       collection.
    Texas..............................            5  topographic mapping,            221           379          472
                                                       digital data
                                                       collection, and
                                                       aerial photography.
    Utah...............................            1  digital data                    177           177          262
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Virginia...........................            1  topographic mapping              49            76           27
                                                       and digital data
                                                       collection.
    Wisconsin..........................            3  digital data                     11            16           20
                                                       collection.
    West Virginia......................            2  aerial photography...            38           110          144
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................           59                                4,881         5,483        7,135
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  FISCAL YEAR 1996 FEDERAL STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of
                        State                       State and     Services       USGS       Cooperator     Contract
                                                   local co-op   performed   contribution  contribution     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama......................................           25      ( \1\ )          $800          $818      ( \2\ )
    Alaska.......................................           11      ( \1\ )         1,038         1,359      ( \2\ )
    Arizona......................................           24      ( \1\ )         1,080         2,034      ( \2\ )
    Arkansas.....................................           10      ( \1\ )           755           888      ( \2\ )
    California...................................           84      ( \1\ )         3,912         5,690      ( \2\ )
    Colorado.....................................           85      ( \1\ )         2,009         2,034      ( \2\ )
    Connecticut..................................            9      ( \1\ )           537           815      ( \2\ )
    Florida......................................           53      ( \1\ )         5,189         7,708      ( \2\ )
    Georgia......................................           31      ( \1\ )         1,475         1,829      ( \2\ )
    Hawaii.......................................           19      ( \1\ )         1,197         2,623      ( \2\ )
    Idaho........................................           12      ( \1\ )         1,138         1,469      ( \2\ )
    Illinois.....................................           30      ( \1\ )         1,007         1,080      ( \2\ )
    Indiana......................................            9      ( \1\ )           926         2,175      ( \2\ )
    Iowa.........................................           20      ( \1\ )           765           852      ( \2\ )
    Kansas.......................................           15      ( \1\ )         1,182         1,387      ( \2\ )
    Kentucky.....................................           14      ( \1\ )           887           961      ( \2\ )
    Louisiana....................................           17      ( \1\ )         1,163         1,174      ( \2\ )
    Maine........................................           10      ( \1\ )           320           419      ( \2\ )
    Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware.           15      ( \1\ )         1,108         1,782      ( \2\ )
    Massachusetts and Rhode Island...............           15      ( \1\ )         1,213         2,687      ( \2\ )
    Michigan.....................................           43      ( \1\ )           743         1,346      ( \2\ )
    Minnesota....................................           16      ( \1\ )         1,035         1,145      ( \2\ )
    Mississippi..................................           13      ( \1\ )           930         1,376      ( \2\ )
    Missouri.....................................           13      ( \1\ )           705         1,181      ( \2\ )
    Montana......................................           16      ( \1\ )         1,076         1,155      ( \2\ )
    New Hampshire and Vermont....................            6      ( \1\ )           504         1,184      ( \2\ )
    Nebraska.....................................           24      ( \1\ )           738           932      ( \2\ )
    Nevada.......................................           20      ( \1\ )         1,846         2,448      ( \2\ )
    New Jersey...................................           22      ( \1\ )         1,980         3,162      ( \2\ )
    New Mexico...................................           26      ( \1\ )         1,590         2,466      ( \2\ )
    New York.....................................           32      ( \1\ )         2,435         4,575      ( \2\ )
    North Carolina...............................           23      ( \1\ )         1,575         2,213      ( \2\ )
    North Dakota.................................           24      ( \1\ )           706           712      ( \2\ )
    Ohio.........................................           22      ( \1\ )         1,082         1,582      ( \2\ )
    Oklahoma.....................................           13      ( \1\ )           950           962      ( \2\ )
    Oregon.......................................           24      ( \1\ )         1,253         1,265      ( \2\ )
    Pennsylvania.................................           35      ( \1\ )         1,565         4,174      ( \2\ )
    Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands...............            7      ( \1\ )         1,525         2,869      ( \2\ )
    South Carolina...............................           23      ( \1\ )         1,300         1,342      ( \2\ )
    South Dakota.................................           25      ( \1\ )         1,084         1,173      ( \2\ )
    Tennessee....................................           34      ( \1\ )           800           800      ( \2\ )
    Texas........................................           60      ( \1\ )         2,849         4,430      ( \2\ )
    Utah.........................................           21      ( \1\ )         1,227         1,249      ( \2\ )
    Virginia.....................................           20      ( \1\ )           598           896      ( \2\ )
    Washington...................................           38      ( \1\ )         1,413         1,466      ( \2\ )
    West Virginia................................            6      ( \1\ )           487           487      ( \2\ )
    Wisconsin....................................           67      ( \1\ )         1,558         1,765      ( \2\ )
    Wyoming......................................           22      ( \1\ )           874           879      ( \2\ )
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................        1,203                     62,129        89,018
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
      contaminated environment, and water data and information.
    \2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
      performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.

            FISCAL YEAR 1997 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of
                   State                  State and     Services performed       USGS       Cooperator     Contract
                                         local co-op                         contribution  contribution     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska.............................            1  digital data                     $4            $4  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Arkansas...........................            1  digital data                      1             1  ...........
                                                       collection.
    California.........................            4  ...do................             6             6           $2
    Florida............................            5  digital data                    809           809            7
                                                       collection
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Georgia............................            1  digital data                    102           102          161
                                                       collection.
    Idaho..............................            5  ...do................  ............            19           19
    Illinois...........................            4  digital data                     39            39  ...........
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Iowa...............................            1  ...do................             1             1  ...........
    Kansas.............................            2  topographic mapping..            15            30           15
    Kentucky...........................            1  digital data                    172           209          334
                                                       collection,
                                                       topographic mapping,
                                                       and aerial
                                                       photography.
    Louisiana..........................            2  topographic mapping..           131           149           18
    Minnesota..........................            2  digital data                    392           392          686
                                                       collection.
    Missouri...........................            5  ...do................           330           330          581
    Mississippi........................            1  ...do................  ............             2            2
    Montana............................            2  ...do................             2             2  ...........
    Nevada.............................            1  ...do................             1  ............  ...........
    North Carolina.....................            2  digital data                    302           302          565
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    North Dakota.......................            1  digital data                     01            11           21
                                                       collection.
    New Jersey.........................            1  ...do................             3             3  ...........
    New Mexico.........................            2  ...do................            74            74          128
    New York...........................            1  ...do................            32            32           61
    Ohio...............................            1  ...do................             4             4  ...........
    Oklahoma...........................            2  digital data                    360           360          507
                                                       collection and
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Pennsylvania.......................            1  ...do................           250           250          427
    South Carolina.....................            1  digital data                     74            74           95
                                                       collection.
    Texas..............................            1  digital data                     18            18  ...........
                                                       collection
                                                       topographic mapping.
    Utah...............................            1  ...do................            57            57          105
    Virginia...........................            1  ...do................            78            78  ...........
    Washington.........................            1  digital data                     60            60  ...........
                                                       collection.
    Wisconsin..........................            2  ...do................            30            30            8
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................           56                                3,350         3,449        3,742
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  FISCAL YEAR 1997 FEDERAL STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of
                        State                       State and     Services       USGS       Cooperator     Contract
                                                   local co-op   performed   contribution  contribution     amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama......................................           28      ( \1\ )          $860          $860      ( \2\ )
    Alaska.......................................           13      ( \1\ )         1,058         1,281      ( \2\ )
    Arizona......................................           25      ( \1\ )         1,101         2,127      ( \2\ )
    Arkansas.....................................           11      ( \1\ )           818           903      ( \2\ )
    California...................................           81      ( \1\ )         4,275         6,973      ( \2\ )
    Colorado.....................................           86      ( \1\ )         2,130         2,318      ( \2\ )
    Connecticut..................................           11      ( \1\ )           540           731      ( \2\ )
    Florida......................................           49      ( \1\ )         5,338         8,031      ( \2\ )
    Georgia......................................           29      ( \1\ )         1,575         1,962      ( \2\ )
    Hawaii.......................................           17      ( \1\ )         1,220         2,550      ( \2\ )
    Idaho........................................           16      ( \1\ )         1,143         1,628      ( \2\ )
    Illinois.....................................           30      ( \1\ )         1,042         1,374      ( \2\ )
    Indiana......................................           10      ( \1\ )           981         1,818      ( \2\ )
    Iowa.........................................           26      ( \1\ )           803           849      ( \2\ )
    Kansas.......................................           13      ( \1\ )         1,221         1,484      ( \2\ )
    Kentucky.....................................           19      ( \1\ )           912           912      ( \2\ )
    Louisiana....................................           19      ( \1\ )         1,207         1,333      ( \2\ )
    Maine........................................            8      ( \1\ )           270           291      ( \2\ )
    Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware.           14      ( \1\ )         1,190         1,670      ( \2\ )
    Massachusetts, Rhode Island..................           19      ( \1\ )         1,248         2,400      ( \2\ )
    Michigan.....................................           35      ( \1\ )           778         1,293      ( \2\ )
    Minnesota....................................           20      ( \1\ )         1,063         1,131      ( \2\ )
    Mississippi..................................           12      ( \1\ )           955         1,244      ( \2\ )
    Missouri.....................................           14      ( \1\ )           797         1,512      ( \2\ )
    Montana......................................           16      ( \1\ )         1,021         1,033      ( \2\ )
    New Hampshire and Vermont....................            8      ( \1\ )           545         1,173      ( \2\ )
    Nebraska.....................................           26      ( \1\ )           771           842      ( \2\ )
    Nevada.......................................           21      ( \1\ )         1,882         2,229      ( \2\ )
    New Jersey...................................           21      ( \1\ )         2,155         3,335      ( \2\ )
    New Mexico...................................           27      ( \1\ )         1,628         2,824      ( \2\ )
    New York.....................................           35      ( \1\ )         2,460         4,530      ( \2\ )
    North Carolina...............................           21      ( \1\ )         1,650         2,426      ( \2\ )
    North Dakota.................................           23      ( \1\ )           684           711      ( \2\ )
    Ohio.........................................           27      ( \1\ )         1,118         1,620      ( \2\ )
    Oklahoma.....................................           17      ( \1\ )         1,017         1,077      ( \2\ )
    Oregon.......................................           27      ( \1\ )         1,272         1,318      ( \2\ )
    Pennsylvania.................................           36      ( \1\ )         1,585         3,973      ( \2\ )
    Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands...............            8      ( \1\ )         1,550         3,094      ( \2\ )
    South Carolina...............................           22      ( \1\ )         1,350         1,427      ( \2\ )
    South Dakota.................................           27      ( \1\ )         1,148         1,179      ( \2\ )
    Tennessee....................................           31      ( \1\ )           850           850      ( \2\ )
    Texas........................................           58      ( \1\ )         2,909         4,773      ( \2\ )
    Utah.........................................           23      ( \1\ )         1,250         1,279      ( \2\ )
    Virginia.....................................           19      ( \1\ )           691           956      ( \2\ )
    Washington...................................           46      ( \1\ )         1,462         1,608      ( \2\ )
    West Virginia................................            9      ( \1\ )           499           499      ( \2\ )
    Wisconsin....................................           60      ( \1\ )         1,603         1,741      ( \2\ )
    Wyoming......................................           23      ( \1\ )           937           937      ( \2\ )
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................        1,236                     64,562        92,109
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Services performed: investigations that focus on the areas of water availability, flood hazards,
      contaminated environment, and water data and information.
    \2\ Contract: utilize private contractors to conduct approximately 5 percent to 10 percent of the work
      performed. Contractors are primarily used to provide support services.

        OMB Circular A-76, governing performance of commercial
    activities, limits the use of Inter-service support agreements,
    whereby one agency provides a commercial activity to another
    Federal agency. Architect-engineer services (as defined in 40
    U.S.C. 541 et. seq., and Part 36 of the Federal Acquisition
    Regulations), including water resource investigations, mapping,
    and remote sensing, are clearly commercial activities. Under
    the Circular, and the ``Economy Act'', an agency may not
    provide services to another agency unless the ``provider''
    agency has conducted a cost comparison under Circular A-76 and
    justified in-house performance.
        Question. To what extent does USGS provide water resource
    investigations, mapping and remote sensing services to other
    Federal agencies?
        Answer. To assist in meeting its mission requirements
    related to assessing the Nation's water resources, USGS
    partners with about 30 other Federal agencies having needs for
    water resource data, assessments, and research. Much of the
    mapping and remote sensing activities for which the USGS
    receives reimbursement are cost shared by the Federal partners
    and accomplished by private sector partners through contract
    with the USGS. Because the USGS has the contractual instruments
    in place to undertake this mission-essential work, needs
    identified by other Federal agencies can be fulfilled
    concurrently with the needs of USGS, and the Federal Government
    saves taxpayer dollars through efficiency, avoids duplication
    that would result if the reimbursable agreements were not in
    place, and provides the mechanism for appropriate functions to
    be undertaken through the private sector.
        Funds provided to USGS by other Federal agencies to address
    water resources issues totaled $90 million in fiscal year 1997.
    This funding is expected to be about the same in fiscal year
    1998 and fiscal year 1999. Prominent water resources activities
    for which USGS receives funding from other Federal agencies
    include the following:
          Land management bureaus within the Department of the Interior
            (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service: USGS collects basic
            hydrologic data, including streamflow data, water quality data,
            and data on the levels and quality of ground water. This
            monitoring supports the Federal land and water management
            agencies in:
      --ensuring safe and efficient dam operations;
      --evaluating mining permits;
      --quantifying water rights on Native American Tribal lands;
      --responding to decrees of Federal courts, river basin compacts; and
            international treaties regarding water rights and allocation
      --resolving land and resource management issues in which a strong
            Federal interest is evident.
        USGS also conducts water resources research and investigations on
    federally managed lands or Tribal lands--for example, research in Grand
    Canyon National Park, in preparation for the release of water from Glen
    Canyon Dam, and evaluation of the effects of the resulting ``flood'' on
    habitat restoration within the Park.
        Department of Energy (DOE): USGS provides hydrologic expertise to
    DOE to address environmental and scientific issues at the Nevada Test
    Site and vicinity, and also works with DOE to evaluate the suitability
    of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a potential repository site for the
    disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. Investigations include
    regional studies of streamflow, runoff, and ground-water flow.
        Department of Defense (DOD): USGS has a long history of providing
    technical support to assist DOD in fulfilling its responsibilities
    related to water issues. For the military agencies of DOD, USGS
    provides scientific and technical assistance with respect to studies of
    ground-water contamination problems and ground-water/surface-water
    interactions on military installations as part of DOD's Installation
    Restoration Program. Also, data collected from USGS streamgages funded
    by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide information needed to
    regulate releases from flood control and water supply reservoirs.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): USGS has a long history
    of providing technical support to assist EPA in fulfilling its
    responsibilities related to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
    Water Act, the Food Quality Protection Act, and the Superfund program.
    Current examples include:
      --Multi-state surveys of arsenic, radium-224, volatile organic
            compounds (including the gasoline additive MTBE), and microbial
            pathogens and indicators in ground water and/or surface water;
      --National water-quality data for EPA's National Contaminant
            Occurrence Database for drinking water;
      --A national digital map of ground-water aquifers;
      --Simulated yields of nitrogen and phosphorus from every watershed in
            the contiguous 48 States;
      --Linked web pages providing real-time USGS streamflow data to users
            of EPA's Surf Your Watershed Program;
      --Information on the occurrence and characteristics of various
            pesticides; and
      --Investigations, technical advice, and reviews of documents related
            to Superfund sites.
        Funds provided to the USGS by other Federal agencies to address
    mapping and remote sensing issues totaled $34 million in fiscal year
    1997. This funding is expected to be about the same in fiscal year 1998
    and fiscal year 1999. Prominent mapping and remote sensing activities
    for which USGS receives funding from other Federal agencies include the
    following. Although the information and data vary in format, content,
    and applicability, all are used in differing contexts to support
    natural disaster and hazards monitoring, land and resource analyses,
    mapping applications, resource management, crop studies, and soils
    evaluations.
        Consortium of Federal agencies:
      --The USGS administers contracts, manages an imagery archive, and
            provides program administration to acquire aerial photography
            of the Nation under the National Aerial Photography Program.
      --The USGS administers contracts, performs limited data production,
            manages a data archive, and provides program administration to
            acquire digital ortho-imagery of the Nation under the National
            Digital Orthophoto Program which is jointly overseen with
            Department of Agriculture agencies. Digital ortho-imagery is
            produced through reimbursable agreements with a broad spectrum
            of Federal agencies.
      --The USGS gathers and applies multi-temporal and multi-resolution,
            baseline land characteristics data sets of land cover,
            elevation, and soils, in integration with other data, to
            characterize land surface and environmental data, track
            environmental change, and to forecast impacts of events on land
            surface characteristics.
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of
    Commerce: The USGS administers contracts for and provides storage,
    preservation, timely access, and public distribution of global Landsat,
    Earth Observing System (EOS), MODIS, ASTER, and other satellite data,
    as well as older, declassified data from intelligence and military
    systems through the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data
    Archive.
        Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Interior: The USGS
    administers contracts, performs limited data production, manages a
    series of data and map archives, and provides public access and
    distribution of digital elevation data, digital line graphs,
    topographic maps, and special interest maps and publications.
        Agency for International Development and other State Department
    offices: The USGS provides remotely sensed environmental geospatial
    data, geographic information systems (GIS) analytical services of land
    characteristics and topographic data, decision support tools, and
    training and technology transfer to enable foreign governments to
    develop and use GIS technologies and geospatial data to solve
    environmental problems.
        National Science Foundation (NSF): USGS provides surveying
    and topographic mapping services in support of the NSF's
    mission in the Antarctic.
        Question. On what water resource, mapping and remote
    sensing activities has USGS conducted an A-76 cost comparison?
        Answer. The USGS has not conducted an A-76 cost comparison
    on its mapping and remote sensing activities, because those
    activities are inherently governmental. Some of these
    activities have functions that have commercial characteristics,
    and the USGS has worked closely with Congress to develop a
    privatization approach for those commercial aspects. Language
    in the report accompanying the House Interior Appropriations
    bill for fiscal year 1998 commends the USGS for the efforts
    made to date to increase contracting of topographic map and
    digital data production and that current policies and use of
    the private sector in this area will be continued.
        The USGS has not conducted an A-76 cost comparison on its
    water resources activities because the USGS Water Resources
    Investigations Activity is inherently governmental. It is the
    primary source of scientific information on one of the Nation's
    most important natural resources--water. The Activity fulfills
    a unique Federal role by providing standardized, objective
    information for the entire country through long term hydrologic
    data, interpretive reports, and new analytical methods. Under
    the authority of OMB Memorandum 92-01, USGS has the primary
    responsibility for coordinating water data activities in the
    Federal Government. Because river basins and aquifers cross
    many jurisdictional boundaries there is great efficiency in
    having one national agency, USGS, provide standardized regional
    water information to all interested groups through cost-sharing
    arrangements.
        In addition, because many water issues involve
    interjurisdictional disputes, it is very important that the
    data and conclusions be viewed as credible and impartial by all
    parties involved. This includes adjudication of water rights
    within a State, among States, or at international boundaries.
    USGS is accepted as a credible and impartial source by parties
    involved in disputes. USGS provides standardized information to
    all, making it unnecessary for each State or locality to create
    its own infrastructure for data collection, data handling,
    interpretation, and information dissemination.
        Question. Does the USGS use in-house capabilities or
    private contractors to perform these activities for other
    agencies? If so, please describe for each of the past three
    fiscal years, the agencies with which you provide such
    services, what services you perform for them, the dollar value
    of your contribution and the cooperators' contribution, and the
    extent to which private contractors have been utilized in the
    provision of such services.
        Answer. The USGS is transitioning from a previously large
    Federal work force to increasingly more reliance on the private
    sector to provide mapping and remote sensing products and
    services. The USGS work force for mapping and remote sensing
    has been reduced from 989 in fiscal year 1990 to 396 in fiscal
    year 1998. Concurrently, funds allocated for mapping and remote
    sensing contracts have increased from $7.1 million in fiscal
    year 1990 to $38.9 million in fiscal year 1998. New program
    activities are developed for performance by the private sector,
    rather than a Federal work force. In general, attrition in the
    mapping and remote sensing work force is not replaced, except
    for the most critical and inherently governmental functions.
    The current work force is being transitioned to a focus on
    inherently governmental activities.
        Within the overall scope of the water resources
    investigations activity, USGS uses contractors for certain
    support functions such as construction and printing.
        Question. OMB Circular A-97, governing intergovernmental
    cooperation, and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, limits
    the use of federal in-house capabilities in providing services
    to State and local government. It requires a certification that
    the service cannot be reasonably and expeditiously obtained
    from the private sector before a Federal agency may perform the
    service for the State or local government. How does USGS and/or
    its cooperators comply with this requirement? What
    certifications have been made with regard to water resource,
    mapping and remote sensing activities?
        Answer. As authorized by 43 U.S.C. 50, the USGS conducts
    topographic and water resources investigations in cooperation
    with States and municipalities. These cooperative programs
    allow the USGS to share with States and municipalities the cost
    of work that meets mutual Federal, State, and local governments
    needs. In these efforts, the USGS is not performing services
    that are exclusively directed toward the needs of States and
    municipalities; rather the USGS, the States, and municipalities
    are sharing the cost of meeting mutual needs. The provisions of
    43 U.S.C. 50 limit the share of the USGS to no more than 50
    percent of the cost of these mutually advantageous topographic
    and water resources investigations. No certifications are
    prepared for these mutual activities.
        Question. What activities in water resources, mapping and
    remote sensing does the USGS currently perform in-house, for
    its own program or with cooperators, that are considered
    inherently governmental in nature?
        Answer. In the GPRA strategic planning process, USGS
    categorized its functions into eight business activities
    described below. All are inherently governmental as determined
    by:
    Circular A-76
        5b * * * ``Certain functions are inherently Governmental in nature,
    being so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate
    performance only by Federal employees
        6e(1) * * * management of Government programs requiring value
    judgments.
    Circular A-76 Revised Supplemental Handbook, Appendix 5
        5(c) Significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
    persons.
        And established by Public Law and codified in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 31a--
    31f.
        Further, a recent study by the National Academy of Public
    Administration, Geographic Information for the 21st Century Building a
    Strategy for the Nation, 1998, p. 53, found that the Geographic
    Information Roles Most Appropriately Provided by the Federal Government
    are to:
      --Ensure geographic information availability to support Federal
            policymaking and operational responsibilities;
      --Ensure that Federal geographic information requirements imposed on
            State, local, and tribal governments are reasonably attainable
            and consistent; and
      --Help improve geographic information data quality, coverage, and
            accessibility to benefit an expanding array of users through
            national standards, a national clearing house, data archiving,
            and basic geoscience support.
        Business activity No. 3.--Geographic and Cartographic Information--
    however, does include some functions with commercial characteristics
    which have been increasingly privatized over the past several years in
    consultation with the Congress. Language in the report accompanying the
    House Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 commends the
    USGS for the efforts made to date to increase contracting of
    topographic map and digital data production and that current policies
    and use of the private sector in this area will be continued.

                                                   USGS STRATEGIC PLAN
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Business activity                        Description                        Role of the USGS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Water availability and quality......  Manage the Nation's water resources   Provide reliable, impartial, timely
                                           wisely for present and future         data & understanding of the
                                           generations.                          quantity and quality of the
                                                                                 Nation's water resources to enable
                                                                                 decision-makers to plan, operate,
                                                                                 and regulate the water resources
                                                                                 infrastructure of the Nation, and
                                                                                 to undertake cost-effective
                                                                                 programs to preserve and enhance
                                                                                 water quality.
    Hazards.............................  Reduce the loss of life and property  Advance our understanding of the
                                           from natural hazards.                 fundamental processes that control
                                                                                 or trigger hazardous events or
                                                                                 situations; lead in developing real-
                                                                                 time monitoring and warning
                                                                                 systems; and enhance the use of
                                                                                 hazards assessments by decision
                                                                                 makers, in order to improve
                                                                                 disaster response and mitigation
                                                                                 planning.
    Geographic and cartographic           Provide maps and map data for the     Acquire, produce, manage, and
     information.                          Nation.                               disseminate geospatial data;
                                                                                 cultivate partnerships with other
                                                                                 governmental organizations,
                                                                                 academia, and the private sector
                                                                                 for those activities; provide
                                                                                 leadership in establishing national
                                                                                 geospatial data policies and
                                                                                 standards; and conduct a geographic
                                                                                 research and development program
                                                                                 focused on interpretation and
                                                                                 application of geospatial data.
    Contaminated environments...........  Reduce both environmental             Identify and define the occurrence
                                           contamination and the cost of         and effects of contamination,
                                           cleaning up existing contamination.   broaden our basic understanding of
                                                                                 contaminant hazards, and provide
                                                                                 pertinent information to those
                                                                                 concerned with mitigation and
                                                                                 prevention.
    Land and water use..................  Improve the land and water use        Provide integrated earth science
                                           decisions made by the public and      information about land and water
                                           private sector.                       use in support of management and
                                                                                 other policy decisions, develop
                                                                                 analytical tools for improved
                                                                                 decision making, and enhance the
                                                                                 understanding of how natural
                                                                                 processes at the Earth's surface
                                                                                 are affected by changes in climate
                                                                                 or land/water use.
    Nonrenewable resources..............  Enhance economic development and      Determine the location, quantity,
                                           growth.                               and quality of nonrenewable
                                                                                 resources both internationally and
                                                                                 domestically; determine the
                                                                                 environmental effects of resource
                                                                                 extraction and use; and improve
                                                                                 assessments of resource potential,
                                                                                 making possible the formulation of
                                                                                 the best strategies for development
                                                                                 of future resource supplies.
    Environmental effects on human        Reduce risks to human health from     Provide information on the
     health.                               hazardous chemicals and disease-      occurrence of environmental toxins
                                           causing organisms.                    and pathogens and the factors
                                                                                 affecting fate and transport of
                                                                                 these agents from their sources to
                                                                                 humans.
    Biological resources................  Conserve and manage the Nation's      Provide reliable, impartial and
                                           biological resources for present      timely data on the status and
                                           and future generations.               trends of the Nation's biological
                                                                                 resources, to provide an
                                                                                 understanding of biological
                                                                                 systems, and to assess natural and
                                                                                 human induced changes to those
                                                                                 systems.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What activities in water resources, mapping and
    remote sensing does the USGS currently perform in-house, for
    its own program or with cooperators, that are considered
    commercial in nature? What plan does the USGS have to contract
    those activities to the private sector?
        Answer. Commercial activities within mapping and remote
    sensing include map production, map revision, digital data
    collection, digital data revision, aerial photography
    acquisition, and satellite data acquisition. With the exception
    of map revision, all of these activities are contracted to the
    private sector, either wholly or in large part. A new contract
    has been developed for fiscal year 1998 to allow for
    contracting of map revision.
        Question. To what extent does the Biological Resources
    Division have in-house capability in such activities as GIS
    data production, Remote Sensing Data Production and
    Photointerpretation production?
        Answer. The USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD) has
    geospatial capabilities related to ongoing research and
    scientific programs and responsibilities including GIS research
    activities, remote sensing research activities, and
    photointerpretation research activities. The geospatial efforts
    are involved with the research and development of protocols and
    standards or direction, coordination, administration and
    quality assurance/quality control of contracted data
    production. In those cases where the research and scientific
    programs require the production of data, GIS data and remote
    sensing, this is being accomplished by contractors through a
    competitive process. In addition, the BRD relies heavily on
    outsourcing with State agencies and universities to conduct the
    data production and interpretation research activities. For
    example, geospatial efforts for the Gap Analysis Program are
    conducted by State agencies and universities or through the
    research centers that have geospatial capability.
        Question. What is the nature of the photointerpretation
    production services the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center
    is providing the National Park Service and the National
    Wetlands Research Center is providing photointerpretation paid
    for by Florida Department of Environmental Protection?
        Answer. The National Wetlands Research Center and the
    Midcontinent Ecological Science Center do not provide
    photointerpretation production services.
        Question. How was the determination made that the private
    sector could not provide these services?
        Answer. As stated above, no determination was necessary
    because these services are not provided.
        Question. Executive Order 12615 requires each Federal
    agency to ``ensure that new Federal Government requirements for
    commercial activities are provided by private industry, except
    where statute or national security requires government
    performance or where private industry costs are unreasonable.''
    Inasmuch as the Biological Resources Division is a new entity
    (created since Executive Order 12615 was issued on November 19,
    1987), all its commercial activities are new and are subject to
    the aforementioned requirement. How has the BRD complied with
    this requirement?
        Answer. The Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S.
    Geological Survey would not be subject to the stated
    requirements as the agency did not promulgate new Federal
    government requirements for commercial activities. The BRD was
    formerly the National Biological Survey (later renamed the
    National Biological Service), which was created in 1994 by
    consolidating research functions already in existence and
    residing within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
    Park Service, Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Office of Surface
    Mining. In this merger of research functions, authorizing and
    enabling legislation remained unchanged, leaving BRD with the
    same responsibilities that each of the predecessor bureaus had.
    Further, the BRD does not perform any commercial activities.
    Further, the BRD is not a new Federal entity.
        Question. With specific regard to engineering, mapping and
    remote sensing-related activities, how has BRD either made a
    determination of national security or unreasonable private
    sector costs for such services?
        Answer. The BRD has not made such determination. In fact,
    BRD relies heavily on outsourcing for engineering, mapping, and
    remote sensing related activities.
                                    ------

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Campbell

                                      pilt

        Question. With your requests for funds, the Administration
    is asking for an additional $490.8 million over last year's
    appropriations, but with the increase I noticed that there was
    not an increase in PILT payments for the local counties. Many
    counties in Colorado are experiencing higher and higher demands
    on them for the services they provide. What is the
    justification for not increasing the amount of PILT payments to
    them with your request of an additional $490.8 million?
        Answer. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are Federal
    payments to local governments that may be used for any
    governmental purpose. The payments provide additional support
    to local governments that have certain Federal land within
    their boundaries. Payment eligibility is reserved for local
    governments (usually counties) that provide services such as
    those related to public safety, environment, housing, social
    services, and transportation, and that contain nontaxable
    Federal lands.
        The PILT program is administered by the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM). BLM's responsibility is to calculate the
    payments according to the formula established by law and to
    distribute the funds appropriated by Congress. Since PILT's
    inception in 1977, payments have averaged a total of about $102
    million annually. To date (including the 1997 payments), over
    $2 billion in payments has been made. The fiscal year 1999
    request is $120 million, the same as the appropriated level for
    fiscal year 1998. This represents the largest administration
    request in the history of the PILT program and is $18.5 million
    over last year's requested level.
        The BLM recognizes the value of PILT payments to counties
    for the services that these funds provide. The request for
    additional funds in natural resource programs by the
    administration will also benefit states and counties by
    improving the quality of lands and resources that in turn help
    support their economic well being by providing jobs, higher
    visitation, recreation values, and a sustainable supply of
    resource products. The BLM is committed to protecting and
    restoring the Nation's water, wildlife, fisheries, and
    habitats. Healthy lands will provide economic benefits for the
    public and private land users alike.

                             wilderness study areas

        Question. It has been suggested that the Colorado
    Environmental Coalition (CEC) was given access to BLM offices
    to research the proposed re-inventory of roadless areas in
    Colorado. Their purpose was to recommend certain areas for
    wilderness designation. Is it true the CEC was given special
    access to your offices? If so, is it BLM policy to provide
    access to any interest group for this purpose?
        Answer. All materials, including maps, field notes from on-
    the-ground roadless reviews, and previous resource management
    planning documents, are public information and available for
    review at local BLM offices by any interested party.
        Question. The BLM completed the Colorado inventory in 1991
    and recommended about 400,000 acres of the 800,000 studied for
    wilderness designation. What authority does the BLM have to re-
    study these areas? If such areas were found not suitable in
    1991, what would make them suitable now?
        Answer. Section 201 of FLPMA is the BLM's general authority
    to conduct all public land inventories, including wilderness
    inventories. Section 201(a) states: The Secretary shall prepare
    and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public
    lands and their resource and other values * * * giving priority
    to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory
    shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions
    and to identify new and emerging resource and other values.
    (italic added).
        Section 603 of FLPMA, which provided a 15-year wilderness
    review and recommendation process, does not limit the BLM's
    general and continuing authority under Section 201 to conduct
    inventories of public lands, including wilderness
    characteristics (the Section 603 process was completed by BLM
    1991).
        A variety of changes may have occurred ``on the ground,''
    since collection of the Colorado inventory data in 1980 for the
    Section 603 process. Resource conditions are dynamic and
    physical conditions change. For example, over time existing
    roads naturally become obliterated with non-use. Additional
    inventories, in compliance with Section 201, could therefore
    result in the identification of some additional areas with
    wilderness characteristics.
        Question. There are ongoing oil and gas activities along
    with mineral exploration in some of these areas. It has been
    reported that leases were withdrawn upon the request of the CEC
    when oil companies were prepared to commence with exploration.
    Is this true? How are the financial commitments that the oil
    companies paid to the BLM being handled?
        Answer. In response to requests to halt oil and gas leasing
    of tracts within the CEC's proposal, the State Director in 1995
    agreed to hold further leasing within these areas in abeyance
    pending clarification of BLM policy. This informal policy was
    continued by three subsequent State Directors or Acting State
    Directors.
        In 1996, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Bob Armstrong
    responded to a letter from Congressman David Skaggs by stating,
    ``The Bureau is concerned about appropriate management of areas
    which have not been included in its land use plans as
    wilderness or wilderness study areas but which have been
    nominated for that status by various interested parties.'' The
    letter further stated that the Colorado State Director agreed
    to hold in abeyance leasing within the areas proposed by the
    Colorado Environmental Coalition, pending clarification of the
    Bureau's policy on this issue.
        In 1996, Marathon Oil field filed a lawsuit and an appeal
    with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) claiming harm
    from the withdrawal. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by
    the District Court, citing the Department's discretionary
    authority for leasing. An appeal by Marathon to the Circuit
    Court is pending. The IBLA also ruled in favor of BLM, but
    directed that a site specific analysis be conducted for tracts
    that are not offered in a lease sale when they have been
    appropriately nominated, and the tracts are in areas open to
    leasing under current land use planning. The tracks in question
    were withdrawn from the lease sale and no financial commitment
    was paid to the BLM by Marathon Oil.
        Question. All of the CEC proposed areas have management
    plans that allow for multiple use (livestock grazing,
    recreation, oil and gas production). Is it the intent of the
    BLM to continue the management plans in these areas currently?
        Answer. Six of the areas proposed in the CEC's report have
    been reviewed to determine if they meet the definition of
    roadless used in the 1980 wilderness inventory. Parts of each
    of the six areas were found to be roadless. The parts that did
    not meet the roadless definition are being managed according to
    existing plans. For the areas that are roadless, BLM asked for
    public comments on the adequacy of the plans to manage the
    areas. The recently closed public comment period resulted in
    nearly 2,000 comments received by BLM; over 1,200 supported
    additional land use planning to consider additional protection.
    A decision is expected in June regarding which, if any, of the
    six areas will be subject to plan amendments. No changes in
    management can be made without amending the current plans. Plan
    amendments take approximately one year to complete.
        For other CEC proposed areas, the BLM Colorado has adopted
    a policy to hold discretionary actions that might have
    irreversible or irretrievable impacts temporarily in abeyance
    until the wilderness issues raised by the CEC are addressed and
    resolved through the BLM planning process.
        Question. Does the BLM have plans to re-study or review
    additional areas for wilderness designation? If so, which ones?
        Answer. In Colorado, we are currently involved in a
    wilderness inventory limited to six areas totaling fewer than
    200,000 acres. The Colorado inventory process includes many
    opportunities for public comment. When the public comment
    period closes in April, decisions will be made as to whether or
    not land use plans should be amended.
        The Colorado State Office has identified a few additional
    areas totaling less that 100,000 acres that may require
    wilderness inventory. We do not anticipate completing a state
    wide inventory in Colorado.
        Question. What is the long term strategy for management on
    BLM lands? In other words, can we expect to have more review or
    is there some certainty that this is the last effort to
    designate more wilderness or will this be an ongoing process?
        Answer. Since completion of the Section 603 wilderness
    review process in 1991, the BLM has been complying with FLPMA's
    mandate under Section 201 to ``prepare and maintain on a
    continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their
    resource and other values'' (emphasis added). The BLM has
    conducted wilderness inventories under the authority of Section
    201, as needed, in at least seven states. These Section 201
    inventories have resulted in identification of some areas with
    wilderness characteristics and other areas without. Congress
    has included some of the areas inventoried under Section 201 in
    proposed wilderness legislation and has designated some of
    these areas as wilderness.
        The BLM will continue to comply with Section 201 of FLPMA.
    As resource conditions change, BLM will address those issues in
    an ongoing, case-by-case basis.

                                   sand creek

        On March 24 the Senate Energy Subcommittee on National
    Parks and Preservation held a hearing on S. 1695, the Sand
    Creek Massacre Site Historic Preservation Bill.
        During that hearing, Ms. Katherine Stevenson, of the
    National Park Service, characterized S. 1695 as ``extremely
    worthy.'' She also recommended that the Senate require ``the
    National Park Service to conduct a study to confirm the exact
    location of the massacre'' site.
        Question. Do you agree with Ms. Stevenson's assessment of
    the merits of S. 1695?
        Answer. Ms. Stevenson's testimony was on behalf of the
    Department.
        Question. What can the Park Service do to get the site
    study underway and concluded quickly, even this year?
        Answer. The National Park Service has reviewed files on
    Sand Creek, identified employees and others who possess
    particular expertise or have experience relevant to a Sand
    Creek study, begun consultation and collaboration with the
    Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribe, established close communication and
    cooperation with the Colorado Historical Society (which has for
    some time been engaged in its own project to locate the site),
    and is developing plans, strategies, and cost estimates to
    carry out the very formidable task of locating the site. The
    NPS will do all that it can within the present funding levels,
    but there is no possibility of concluding the study this year.
        If funds were appropriated, though they are not requested,
    and if cooperation were gained from landowners in allowing
    access to their properties, the NPS believes the site might be
    identified with one to two years of work. A sound study of the
    resources and possible preservation and management alternatives
    could be completed within three years. In the meantime, the
    National Park Service will do what is possible--especially in
    cooperation with the study the Colorado Historical Society has
    under way.
        Question. Are you committed to this course of action?
        Answer. The National Park Service is not only committed to
    the course of action just described, it is doing all that it
    can within funds and authorization available at present.
        While the exact location of the Sand Creek Massacre Site
    has been questioned by some, we know this sacred site is out
    there and deserves to be preserved with dignity. I am quite
    confident that the National Park Service, with its capable
    staff of historians and archeologists, will be able to locate
    the exact site on the banks of Sand Creek. After all, Park
    Service personnel have already started the process by
    conducting research at Sand Creek.
        Question. Are you committed to locating this important
    historical site once and for all?
        Answer. The NPS is deeply interested in locating this
    important historic site and will consider this during the
    formulation of the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        Question. Once we find it, to acquire it, and then preserve
    it for the Cheyenne, Arapahoe and American people?
        Answer. The National Park Service testified that it
    believes it is likely that the correct site can be located, and
    that there is reason for optimism that the site would possess
    the necessary degree of historical integrity and be suitable
    and feasible for park purposes, but NPS cannot with certainty
    assure that outcome. Once those things have all been
    established, however, it would still require an Act of Congress
    to authorize the National Park Service to acquire and preserve
    the site for the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and American people.
        Question. What resources, especially on-hand expertise,
    does the Park Service currently have that enables it to
    continue the process of locating the Sand Creek site through
    the rest of this year?
        Answer. NPS has historians, archeologists, ethnographers,
    tribal cultural heritage staffs, planners, cartographers,
    geographic information systems staffs, remote sensing experts,
    data systems experts, and Native American Liaison experts, and
    others who might play certain roles. NPS has identified most of
    the individuals whom could best do their parts of the total
    job. However, the work will be limited as other priorities are
    utilizing available resources.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Domenici. I thank you very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 21, when
    we will receive testimony from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    the General Accounting Office.
        [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Wednesday, April 1, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
    April 21.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:26 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, Domenici, Burns, and
    Dorgan.

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF VICTOR S. REZENDES, DIRECTOR, ENERGY,
                RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE ISSUES
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            SUE NAIBERK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY, RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE
                ISSUES
            JENNIFER DUNCAN, EVALUATOR

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
                INDIAN AFFAIRS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HILDA MANUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS
            JOANN SEBASTIAN MORRIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens [presiding]. I do apologize. I have had a
    series of problems this morning trying to get supplemental
    appropriations off the dead center. The subcommittee chairman
    is on the floor with amendments on the ocean bill.
        We do have a scheduled hearing here for the 1999 budget
    request and I am notified that all other members of the
    subcommittee are either in other committees or on the floor.
        I want to welcome Kevin Gover for your first hearing, Mr.
    Gover, as Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. We are very
    delighted to hear that you will be visiting Alaska in May and I
    hope to have a chance to visit with you while you are there,
    too.
        Senator Gorton invited the General Accounting Office to
    provide testimony on the work it has done at his and my request
    with respect to the Bureau's tribal priority allocation system.
    The GAO asked if it could testify first and Senator Gorton
    agreed to that request. I expect there will be some questions
    for GAO after they finish and I hope our colleagues who are on
    the floor will be here by that time.
        I will have additional questions from Senator Gorton. He
    said to me just as I left the floor that he, too, would try to
    join the subcommittee sometime before we end this hearing this
    morning.
        After we have had an opportunity to ask the GAO some
    questions on TPA, we will then go to testimony of Secretary
    Gover and his colleagues from BIA. Although the GAO asked to
    testify first, I do ask that you remain, at least some of you,
    during the presentation of the BIA, if that is possible,
    because we might have some additional questions after the BIA
    testimony to ask the GAO witnesses.
        Senator Gorton made some comments when Secretary Babbitt
    was here 3 weeks ago, that I should repeat now. This year, the
    overall amount of discretionary spending available to the
    Appropriations Committee will not increase as it did in fiscal
    year 1998. In fact, the total amount of nondefense
    discretionary funding available for the entire appropriations
    bill is less than a freeze, less than the amount of money we
    had last year taking into account the inflation figures.
        The President has not lived up to the spending caps in his
    budget because there are special funds and new revenue streams
    that are proposed, which we know will not be approved by
    Congress. As a matter of fact, they were requested by President
    Bush and they were not approved then.
        Some of the discretionary spending accounts have been
    reclassified as mandatory and Congress will not agree to that.
        By virtue of these disagreements, the President's requests
    for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee have
    to deal with about a $1 billion increase, as compared to the
    1998 level.
        Now the program within the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
    slated to receive $142 million of the increase that was in that
    $1 billion. As Senator Gorton told Secretary Babbitt, that was
    wishful thinking. And as chairman, I can back up what the
    Senator says. We just do not have that money to allocate
    because revenue streams will not be there.
        I hope that we can, however, deal with this problem of the
    allocation for the subcommittee so that it will not be less
    than it was in this current fiscal year.
        We are in a tough situation. I think anybody who knows and
    has looked at this budget will realize there is going to be a
    tremendous collision here in the Congress with the
    administration before September.
        But I am concerned about the pressing needs for the Indian
    Health Service. It is, by the way, the only major agency in the
    bill that did not receive an increase even under the
    President's budget request.
        There are some problems in Medicare and Medicaid
    reimbursement for the Indian Health Service that add to the
    difficulties of this subcommittee bill and we will get into
    that later.
        We also have another problem with this bill and that is the
    proposal to sell oil for the strategic petroleum reserve at a
    time when prices are so low. We just are not justified in doing
    that and, under those circumstances, we have to find money to
    make up for the loss of that money that would have come into
    this budget.
        CBO tells us that they do not agree with the estimates that
    have been given to us by the OMB and that, too, is going to
    lead to some severe difficulty with this bill.
        I am really restating what Senator Gorton said before, when
    the Secretary was here, for the benefit of those witnesses who
    may not have heard that exchange. We do ask the BIA to
    reevaluate its budget request and to work with Senator Gorton
    and the subcommittee staff over the next few weeks and months
    to determine what are the real priorities for the BIA. And if
    we don't get an agreement on that, I think that is just another
    battle that is going to go on even before we get into battle
    with the House over this bill.
        There is a whole series of battles--a battle within this
    subcommittee itself, then with the House, then with CBO, and
    then with the administration. I really don't see a very easy
    path for this bill this year, and this used to be one of the
    bills that we could deal with and be reassured that we would
    have support for the agencies involved.

                               prepared statement

        As one who spent 5 years in Interior, I really find it very
    hard to understand how this whole area of this budget has
    literally come apart. I think that is why Senator Gorton
    invited the GAO to testify today, because we want to know what
    the GAO's opinion is with regard to the fairest method for
    distributing BIA tribal priority allocations. This accounts for
    half of the Bureau's operating budget and it is best that we
    get to it and find out what they have to say.
        I will put the rest of Senator Gorton's statement in the
    record here at this time.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Senator Gorton

        Good morning. The subcommittee meets today for the third of
    its hearings on the 1999 budget requests for agencies funded by
    the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
        This morning we will hear testimony regarding the 1999
    budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I want to
    welcome Kevin Gover to his first hearing before this
    subcommittee as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
        Before the Bureau presents its testimony, however, I have
    invited the General Accounting Office to testify on the work it
    has been doing at my request, and that of Senator Stevens, with
    respect to the Bureau's Tribal Priority Allocations system. The
    GAO asked if it could testify first, and I agreed to the
    request. I expect I will have some questions for the GAO after
    they finish, and I hope that my colleagues will, also.
        Following the GAO, I ask that the witnesses switch with the
    BIA, which has several people on hand to deal with specific
    issues. I would ask the GAO to remain for the duration of the
    hearing, if their schedules permit. Members of the subcommittee
    may have additional questions for the GAO regarding their
    findings following the BIA's testimony.
        Before we begin, though, let me repeat the remarks that I
    made when Secretary Babbitt testified before this subcommittee
    three weeks ago. This year the overall amount of discretionary
    spending available to the Appropriations Committee will not
    increase like it did in fiscal year 1998. In fact, the total
    amount of non-defense discretionary funding available for the
    entire Appropriations Committee is less than a freeze.
        The President dodged the statutory spending caps in his
    budget by establishing special funds, proposing new revenue
    streams, and reclassifying certain discretionary spending as
    mandatory. By virtue of these bookkeeping maneuvers, the
    President's request graces programs under the jurisdiction of
    this subcommittee with a $1 billion increase over the
    comparable 1998 level. Programs within the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs are slated to receive $142 million of this increase.
    Regrettably, as I told Secretary Babbitt, all of this is
    wishful thinking.
        Though I hope to persuade Senator Stevens to provide this
    subcommittee with an allocation that is better than a freeze,
    there is no chance that we will receive a $1 billion increase--
    or anything close to it. What's more, there is competition for
    any increase that we do receive. I am concerned about the
    pressing needs of the Indian Health Service, which is,
    inexplicably, the only major agency in this bill that did not
    receive a significant increase in the President's budget
    request. I note that the Administration has justified this, in
    part, by doubling the estimates of medicare and medicaid
    reimbursements made by the Indian Health Service itself. In
    addition, if we do not sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve--and there is little sentiment to do so with oil prices
    so low--we will need to find $160 million that was not in our
    base last year. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that
    they do not agree with other fanciful score keeping estimates
    in the budget request that will cost us tens of millions of
    dollars.
        I am stating this as much for my colleagues' benefit as for
    the agency. Just as I will plead with them to be reasonable in
    their requests of me, so will I ask the Bureau to reevaluate
    its budget request, and work with me and my staff over the next
    few months to determine the real priorities of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. We need your cooperation in this process.
        On a final note to help explain why I invited the GAO to
    testify today, it is my hope that what the GAO shares with the
    subcommittee today will contribute to devising a new, fair,
    method for distributing BIA Tribal Priority Allocations. TPA
    alone accounts for nearly half of the Bureau's operating budget
    today. Right now, TPA dollars are distributed based on
    historical distributions, with no consideration of a tribe's
    ability to finance these services from other funds. And each
    year, the sophisticated tribes with the best lobbying efforts
    request that more and more of BIA operations money be
    transferred into the TPA function. Until and unless we can
    develop a method for distributing these monies better, I
    hesitate to even consider the $33.8 million increase requested
    this year.
        With that, I invite the witnesses from the GAO to identify
    themselves and then proceed with their testimony.

                           introduction of associates

        Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd will not be here. But we will
    obviously submit the questions that he may have to offer at a
    later time.
        Now it is my understanding, Mr. Rezendes, that we will hear
    from you. Would you please come up to the witness table and
    whoever else is with you.
        Mr. Rezendes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me introduce my colleagues here. On my left is Sue
    Naiberk, our Assistant Director, and on my right is Jennifer
    Duncan, who is the evaluator responsible for a good part of
    this work.
        Senator Stevens. What was the first name, please?
        Mr. Rezendes. We have here Jennifer Duncan (indicating) and
    here (indicating) is Sue Naiberk.
        Senator Stevens. Duncan and Naiberk. Thank you. I did not
    hear the first name.

                    summary statement of victor s. rezendes

        Mr. Rezendes. Sorry.
        As you know, these are preliminary observations on the work
    that we have done for you and Senator Gorton on the TPA
    account. As you know, those funds represent the largest portion
    of BIA's appropriation, about 45 percent of the $1.7 billion.
        To put that in perspective, TPA represents about 10 percent
    of the $7.5 billion that the Federal Government spends on
    Indian programs.
        In summary, we found that two-thirds of the $757 million in
    TPA funds were distributed primarily on the basis of historical
    levels and tribes may shift these base funds among activities
    according to their needs. For example, a tribe needing more
    funds for law enforcement than for education may move these
    funds to meet those needs. The remaining one-third is known as
    nonbase funds and are used for such activities as road
    maintenance and housing, and are generally distributed under a
    more specific formula.
        Average TPA distributions varied widely. On a per capita
    basis, those ranges went from $121 per tribal member in BIA's
    Muskogee area to over $1,000 in the Portland area.
        Let me emphasize that this analysis is only for information
    purposes. BIA does not distribute these funds on a per capita
    basis nor do they recommend that those funds be distributed
    that way.
        According to Interior--and I am sure that they will talk to
    you about that as well--they think that there are reasons for
    the differences and that the basic numbers on populations are
    not reliable.
        In addition, as you know, non-Federal entities, including
    Indian tribes, meeting certain financial assistance thresholds
    must submit audited financial statements annually under the
    Single Audit Act. We reviewed all of the statements most
    recently filed by the tribes. While some reported only their
    Federal revenues, others included revenues from State, local,
    and private sources.
        In total, the statements reported that these tribes
    received more than $3.6 billion in revenues. These revenues
    include such things as taxes and fees, lease and investment
    income, and funds received through Government grants and
    contracts. Some tribes also reported income from their
    businesses. Ninety-eight tribes reported about $1.2 billion in
    operating profits and another 70 tribes reported operating
    losses of about $50 million.
        However, the quality of the data submitted varies. Only
    half of the statements received unqualified audit opinions. The
    remaining statements had various degrees of deficiencies.
        Mr. Chairman, you also asked us to look at some options in
    terms of additional information that might be useful to the
    Congress in deciding whether TPA funds should be distributed on
    a different formula or whether business revenues should be
    included in there.

                               prepared statement

        Some of the issues or some of the additional information we
    think might be helpful is financial information for all tribes,
    including those tribes submitting reports under the Single
    Audit Act, more complete information on the financial resources
    available to tribes from tribal businesses, including gaming,
    and, finally, more reliable data on tribes' financial
    positions.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are several impediments to
    getting this information. It won't be easy.
        With that, I will stop and maybe we can go into some
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Victor S. Rezendes
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
    here today to discuss the preliminary results of our review of the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) distribution of Tribal Priority
    Allocation--or TPA--funds. BIA began efforts that evolved into TPA in
    the early 1970's as a way to pursue Indian self-determination by giving
    tribes the opportunity to set priorities and allocate funds for those
    activities they wanted to fund, in consultation with BIA. We are
    conducting this review at your and Chairman Stevens' request, and we
    will issue our report on TPA-funds distribution by June 1. Today I will
    discuss (1) BIA's basis for distributing 1998 TPA funds; (2) total
    distributions of TPA funds in fiscal year 1998 and a per capita
    analysis of those distributions; (3) revenue and business income
    information reported by tribes under the Single Audit Act; and (4) what
    additional revenue and income information might be useful to the
    Congress in deciding whether to distribute TPA funds considering the
    total financial resources available to tribes, including possible
    barriers to collecting this information.
        As of October 1997, 556 tribes had been recognized by the federal
    government and are eligible to receive financial assistance through
    BIA. Each of these tribes may receive funds for activities such as law
    enforcement, social services, adult vocational training, child welfare,
    and natural resource management through TPA; specific activities and
    priorities may vary from year to year. BIA provides TPA funds to tribes
    either by funding tribally operated activities or through services
    provided by BIA. \1\ TPA funds are also used to support some of BIA's
    management and administrative costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For the purposes of this report, subsequent references to
    ``tribes'' that receive TPA funds also include BIA offices that receive
    TPA funds on the tribes' behalf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TPA funds are the largest portion of BIA's direct appropriation in
    fiscal year 1998, representing 45 percent--or $757 million--of the $1.7
    billion total. To put this in perspective, TPA represents 10 percent of
    the $7.5 billion in federal funding that the Office of Management and
    Budget reports was appropriated for Indian programs in 1998. This
    funding was for a wide variety of programs, such as food distribution
    and rural business opportunity grants through the Department of
    Agriculture, environmental restoration through the Army Corps of
    Engineers, and library services through the Department of Education.
        In summary, we found:
      --Two-thirds of the 1998 TPA funds were distributed primarily on the
            basis of historical levels, and tribes may shift these ``base''
            funds among TPA activities according to their needs. For
            example, a tribe needing more funds for law enforcement than
            for adult vocational education may move funds to meet those
            needs. The remaining one-third, known as ``non-base'' funds,
            are used for such activities as road maintenance and housing
            improvement and were generally distributed on the basis of
            specific formulas.
      --In total, 95 percent of the TPA funds appropriated in fiscal year
            1998 have been distributed. Average TPA distributions varied
            widely among BIA's 12 area offices when analyzed and compared
            on a per capita basis; the per capita averages ranged from $121
            per tribal member within BIA's Muskogee area to $1,020 per
            tribal member within BIA's Portland area. Mr. Chairman, let me
            emphasize that we present this analysis for your information
            only--BIA does not distribute TPA funds on a per-capita basis,
            nor does BIA recommend that such a distribution method be used.
            According to Interior officials, there are reasons for
            differences in TPA distributions, and they do not consider the
            population estimates to be reliable. Appendix I contains
            additional information on total TPA distributions by area
            office and a per capita analysis of these distributions.
      --Nonfederal entities--including tribes--meeting certain federal
            assistance thresholds (those receiving $100,000 or more in
            federal funds before 1997, and those expending $300,000 or more
            in 1997 or later) must submit audited financial statements
            annually under the Single Audit Act. We reviewed all 326
            financial statements on file with the Department of the
            Interior that were most recently submitted by tribes; the
            statements generally covered fiscal years 1995 or 1996. \2\
            While some tribes reported only their federal revenues, others
            included revenues from state, local, and private sources. In
            total, the statements reported that these tribes received more
            than $3.6 billion in revenues during the years covered by them.
            These revenues included such things as taxes and fees, lease
            and investment income, and funds received through governmental
            grants and contracts. Some tribes also reported income from
            their businesses for the periods covered by the statements: 98
            reported about $1.2 billion in operating profits, and another
            70 reported operating losses of about $50 million. However, the
            quality of the information reported in the statements varied;
            only about half of the statements received ``unqualified''
            opinions from auditors, while the others were deficient to
            varying degrees. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Appendix II provides additional details of our scope and
    methodology.
        \3\ An unqualified opinion on the financial statements generally
    means that the auditor concludes the financial statements and
    accompanying notes present fairly, in all material respects, the
    assets, liabilities, and net position of the entity at the end of the
    period; and the net costs, changes in net position, and csh flows for
    the period are in conformity with the entity's basis of accounting or
    generally accepted accounting principals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --In deciding whether to consider tribal revenues or business income
            in distributing TPA funds, information that might be useful to
            the Congress could include more complete and reliable financial
            information for all tribes. However, there are several
            impediments to obtaining this information. For example, under
            the Single Audit Act, financial statements must be submitted
            only by those nonfederal entities (including tribes) expending
            at least $300,000 of federal funds in a year and may not
            include income from tribes' businesses.
                                   background
        In the early 1970's, BIA began giving tribes more training,
    involvement, and influence in BIA's budget process, in efforts that
    evolved into TPA. \4\ At that time, according to BIA officials, few
    tribes were experienced in budgeting or contracting, and most depended
    on BIA for services. Over the years, tribes have become more
    experienced and sophisticated in TPA budgeting, are more involved in
    directly contracting and managing their TPA activities, and have more
    flexibility in shifting funds between activities within TPA. Since
    1991, through amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, 206 tribes have entered into self-governance agreements
    with the federal government. Under the terms of these agreements, the
    tribes assume primary responsibility for planning, conducting, and
    administering programs and services--including those activities funded
    under TPA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Tribal Participation in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget
    System Should Be Increased (GAO/CED-78-62, Feb. 15, 1978) and Indian
    Programs: Tribal Influence in Formulating Budget Priorities Is Limited
    (GAO/RCED-91-20, Feb. 7, 1991).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     bia's basis for distributing tpa funds
        Of the $757 million in TPA funds that the Congress appropriated in
    fiscal year 1998, about $507 million was for base funding, and about
    $250 million was for non-base funding. Base funding was distributed in
    three components: $468 million generally on the basis of historical
    funding levels, $16 million to supplement funding for ``small and
    needy'' tribes, and $23 million in a general funding increase.
        According to Interior officials, how TPA base funds for tribes were
    initially determined is not clearly documented, and adjustments may
    have been made over time in consideration of specific tribal
    circumstances. While most increases in the TPA budget prior to the
    1990s resulted from congressional appropriations for specific tribes,
    subsequent increases have generally been distributed on a pro rata
    basis. The $468 million in base funds may be used by tribes for such
    activities as law enforcement, social services, and adult vocational
    training. Tribes may move these funds from one TPA activity to another.
        In 1998, the Congress appropriated TPA funds for BIA to supplement
    historical distribution levels for ``small and needy'' tribes; as a
    result, $16 million in additional base funds was distributed to 292
    tribes. The designation ``small and needy'' was developed by the Joint
    Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Reorganization in 1994. \5\ The task force recommended that tribes with
    service populations of less than 1,500 have available minimum levels of
    TPA base funds--$160,000 in the lower 48 states and $200,000 in
    Alaska--to allow them to develop basic self-government capacity. \6\
    Because some small tribes were receiving less than $160,000, the
    Congress directed BIA to supplement TPA base funds with the 1998
    distribution so that each of these tribes would receive $160,000. For
    fiscal year 1999, BIA has requested an additional $3 million to move
    the ``small and needy'' tribes in Alaska closer to the task force-
    recommended minimum funding level of $200,000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The Tribal Budget System: Preliminary Assessment of Most Needy
    Small Tribes, Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Reorganization (Apr. 1994).
        \6\ ``Service population'' refers to the numbers of Indians
    eligible to receive services from BIA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The $23 million general increase in base funds was evenly
    distributed among BIA's 12 area offices, as recommended in January 1998
    by a special task force assembled under the 1998 Interior Appropriation
    bill. Each equal portion was subsequently distributed to tribes and BIA
    offices according to various considerations. For example, the tribes in
    BIA's Sacramento area each received an equal share of the area office's
    $1.95 million allocation. The tribes in BIA's Juneau area each received
    $4,000, and the remainder was distributed on the basis of population
    and TPA base funding levels.
        The remaining $250 million is non-base funds and is generally
    distributed according to specific formulas that consider tribal needs.
    In general, tribes may not shift these funds to other activities
    without special authorization. Road maintenance, housing improvement,
    welfare assistance, and contract support are all included in this
    category. For example, road maintenance funds are distributed to BIA's
    area offices based on factors such as the number of miles and types of
    roads within each area. Housing improvement funds are distributed to
    area offices on the basis of an inventory of housing needs that
    includes such things as the number of units in substandard condition
    and the number of units needing renovation or replacement.
       distribution of fiscal year 1998 tpa funds and per capita analysis
        As of March 1998, 95 percent of the $757 million in TPA funds had
    been distributed among the tribes and BIA offices. Our per capita
    analysis shows that the distributions ranged from a low of $121 per
    tribal member within BIA's Muskogee area to a high of $1,020 within the
    Portland area. However, according to Interior officials, there are
    reasons for the differences in TPA distributions and the differences
    should not all be perceived as inequities. For example, BIA is required
    to fund law enforcement and detention in states that do not have
    jurisdiction over crimes occurring on Indian lands, so tribes located
    in those states may receive more TPA funds for these purposes than
    tribes located in other states. Similarly, BIA has a trust
    responsibility for natural resources on reservations, so tribes that
    have large land bases may receive more TPA funds for this purpose than
    tribes with small land bases. Furthermore, tribes with self-governance
    agreements may include funds in their TPA base amount that are not
    included for tribes without self-governance agreements. BIA officials
    also noted that they do not consider the service population figures,
    which are estimated by tribes, to be reliable--although they did not
    offer other figures that they believed to be more accurate. They also
    noted that TPA funds are distributed to tribes, rather than
    individuals, and that a lower per capita figure may reflect that tribes
    in one area have larger memberships but smaller land bases than tribes
    in another area. Appendix I presents the distributions and per capita
    analyses for BIA's area offices.
        The remaining 5 percent of TPA funds not distributed to tribes
    includes $30 million, primarily for welfare assistance and contract
    support, that will be distributed later in the fiscal year on the basis
    of tribal need. While most of the contract support and welfare
    assistance funds are distributed on the basis of the prior year's
    expenditures, between 15 and 25 percent is withheld until later in each
    fiscal year, when tribes' actual needs are better known. An additional
    $9 million not distributed to tribes is for other uses, including
    education funding to non-tribal entities (such as states and public
    schools) and payments for employees displaced as a result of tribal
    contracting.
            revenues and income reported under the single audit act
        Nonfederal entities--including tribes--meeting the federal
    assistance thresholds for reporting under the Single Audit Act (those
    receiving at least $100,000 in federal funds before 1997 and those
    expending at least $300,000 in 1997 or later) must submit an audited
    general-purpose financial statement and a statement of federal
    financial assistance. \7\ We examined all 326 financial statements on
    file with Interior that were most recently submitted by tribes; these
    statements generally covered fiscal years 1995 or 1996.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The Single Audit Act is intended, among other things, to
    establish uniform requirements for audits of federally awarded
    contracts or assistance administered by no federal entities, including
    state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and Indian
    tribes. Prior to fiscal year 1997, such entities receiving $100,000 or
    more in Federal assistance annually were required to have an audit for
    that year. The 1996 Single Audit Act amendments changed the reporting
    threshold: Beginning in fiscal year 1997, entities with annual
    expenditures of $300,000 or more in Federal funds are required to have
    an audit for that year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The tribes' financial statements varied in the type and amount of
    information reported. While some statements included only federal
    revenues, others also included revenues from state, local, and private
    sources; some included financial information only for tribal
    departments that expended federal funds, while others provided more
    complete reporting on their financial positions. In total, the
    statements reported that these tribes received more than $3.6 billion
    in revenues during the years covered by them. These revenues included
    such things as taxes and fees, lease and investment income, and funds
    received through governmental grants and contracts.
        About half of the financial statements we examined also included
    some information on tribal businesses. Tribal businesses include, for
    example, gaming operations, smokeshops or convenience stores,
    construction companies, and development of natural resources such as
    minerals or timber. The tribes that reported the results of their
    businesses had operating income totaling over $1.1 billion. Not all of
    these tribes reported a profit, however--about 40 percent reported
    operating losses totaling about $50 million.
        The reliability of the general-purpose financial statements we
    reviewed varied. Of the 326 we reviewed, 165--or about half--of the
    statements were certified by independent auditors as fairly presenting
    the financial position of the reporting entity and received
    ``unqualified'' auditors' opinions. However, auditors noted that 38 of
    the ``unqualified'' statements were limited to certain funds and were
    not intended to represent the financial position of the tribe as a
    whole. The independent auditors' opinions for the remaining financial
    statements indicated that the statements were deficient to varying
    degrees.
        Tribes with gaming operations are required under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act to submit annual financial reports to the National
    Indian Gaming Commission. In 1997, we reported that 126 tribes with
    class II and class III gaming operations (which include bingo, pull-
    tabs, slot machines, and other casino games) reported a total of about
    $1.9 billion in net income from their gaming operations in 1995.\8\
    About 90 percent of the gaming facilities included in that report
    generated net income, and about 10 percent generated net losses.
    Because the financial statements we examined covered different fiscal
    years and did not always include gaming revenues, we did not attempt to
    reconcile them to information reported to the Gaming Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Tax Policy: A Profile of the Indian Gaming Industry (GAO/GGD-
    97-91, May 5, 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    additional tribal revenue information that could be useful and barriers
                         to collecting this information
        In deciding whether to consider tribal revenues or business income
    in order to determine the amount of TPA funds tribes should receive,
    information that might be useful to the Congress could include (1)
    financial information for all tribes, including those tribes not
    submitting reports under the Single Audit Act; (2) more complete
    information on the financial resources available to tribes from tribal
    businesses, including gaming; and (3) more reliable data on tribes'
    financial positions. However, there are several impediments to
    obtaining this information.
        For fiscal year 1997 and later, nonfederal entities (including
    tribes) expending less than $300,000 in federal funds are not covered
    by the Single Audit Act. Tribes reporting under the act do not have to
    report financial information for their tribal businesses if those
    businesses do not receive, manage, or expend federal funds. Interior
    officials also noted that under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act, Congress established for-profit native corporations as
    separate legal entities from the non-profit arms that receive federal
    financial assistance; for this reason, financial information on the
    for-profit arms would not be reported under the Single Audit Act.
        Further, financial information submitted by Alaskan villages that
    have formed an association or consortium or operate under self-
    governance agreements reflect only the operations of the umbrella
    organization and do not provide information regarding the separate
    tribal governments. Interior officials further noted that some tribes
    that meet the reporting threshold of the act have not submitted
    financial statements annually as required, or have not submitted them
    in a timely manner, and that BIA has few sanctions to encourage these
    tribes to improve their reporting.
        Finally, the financial statements we examined included a range of
    auditors' opinions, and the reliability of the information in the
    statements varied.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
    pleased to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
    Subcommittee may have.

                       APPENDIX I--DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 TPA FUNDS AS OF MARCH 25, 1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        BIA service     Per-capita
                                BIA area                                 TPA funds    population \1\     analysis
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aberdeen........................................................     $76,099,497         128,412            $593
    Albuquerque.....................................................      41,797,628          59,598             701
    Anadarko........................................................      24,105,317          45,535             529
    Billings........................................................      40,783,297          42,427             961
    Eastern.........................................................      37,161,454          50,272             739
    Juneau..........................................................      80,523,960          85,259             944
    Minneapolis.....................................................      48,483,202          76,883             631
    Muskogee........................................................      34,514,007         284,740             121
    Navajo..........................................................     100,098,796         225,668             444
    Phoenix.........................................................      89,480,881         100,854             887
    Portland........................................................     106,977,145         104,841           1,020
    Sacramento......................................................      38,263,720          55,717             687
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Distributed subtotal......................................     718,288,904       1,260,206         \3\ 570
    Not distributed \2\.............................................      39,059,096              NA              NA
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................     757,348,000       1,260,206         \3\ 601
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Service population is the number of Indians eligible to receive services from BIA as of 1995, which were the
      most recent data available. Source: Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates (BIA, 1995).
    \2\ These include TPA funds for other BIA offices or non-tribal entities (e.g., funds for BIA's Central Office,
      funds for employees displaced due to tribal contracting, and education funds for non-tribal entities), as well
      as funds that will be but have not yet been distributed to tribes or area/agency offices (e.g., funds for
      contract support and welfare assistance).
    \3\ Per-capita figures were calculated by dividing the subtotal and total TPA funds by the total BIA service
      population.

    Source: GAO analysis based on BIA-provided data.

                       Appendix II--Scope and Methodology
        We obtained information about (1) BIA's bases for distributing 1998
    TPA funds; (2) distributions of TPA funds in fiscal year 1998; (3)
    revenue and business income reported by tribes under the Single Audit
    Act; and (4) additional revenue and income information that might be
    useful to the Congress in deciding whether to distribute TPA funds
    considering total financial resources available to tribes. We contacted
    officials with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Office of Audit and Evaluation, and Office of Self-Governance
    in Washington, D.C., and its Office of Audit and Evaluation in
    Lakewood, Colorado. We analyzed distribution data provided by BIA and
    Office of Self-Governance officials to determine specific amounts
    distributed to area offices and tribes in fiscal year 1998. We did not
    independently verify the distribution or population data.
        At Interior's Office of Audit and Evaluation in Washington, D.C.
    and Lakewood, Colorado, we examined all 326 of the most recent
    financial statements on file that were submitted under the Single Audit
    Act by tribes, tribal associations, and tribal enterprises. We excluded
    statements for some entities, such as tribal housing authorities and
    community colleges, because they are financially separate from the
    tribes. Of the 326 financial statements, 290 were for federally
    recognized tribes, 20 were for tribal businesses or components of
    tribes, 14 were for consortia or associations representing over 170
    individual tribes, and 2 were for tribes not federally recognized. From
    each of the financial statements we examined, we obtained information
    about the independent auditor's opinion, revenues for all fund types
    reported, and operating income for tribes that included tribal business
    information in their statements.
        We performed our review from November 1997 through April 1998 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                       impediments to getting information

        Senator Stevens. Tell me the impediments you see to getting
    the information we need.
        Mr. Rezendes. There are a number of them. One is under the
    Single Audit Act, tribes are only required to submit an audited
    financial statement when they have expended $300,000 worth of
    Federal assistance. Tribes that expend less than that would not
    be covered in the audits and that information would not be
    coming forward.
        Senator Stevens. Will you deal with that in your final
    report in terms of recommendations?
        Mr. Rezendes. We will talk about it and we will talk about
    more of the impediments and what that means, as well as what
    could be done about that. It seems to me, if you are really
    interested in getting this, the easiest way to do it, as the
    Federal Government does acquire information routinely from the
    private sector that they are not authorized to receive, they
    usually get that as a precondition of either a grant or a
    contract. Making that sort of information as a precondition to
    receiving funds might make this more palatable or might make it
    more workable, I should say. ``Palatable'' is probably going to
    be a totally different story.
        Senator Stevens. Do you have enough information yet to
    determine whether or not the current distribution method for
    TPA is fair. Does meet the needs of the individual tribes?
        Mr. Rezendes. We don't know that yet.
        Basically, the other component that is missing here is,
    basically, what is the Federal obligation to the tribes either
    under law or by treaties; second, how are we spending the money
    and how does it match up to that; and, third, what are the
    total needs of the Indian tribes--in total?
        So until those pieces are there, it is kind of hard to say
    right now, just looking at the distribution angle, whether that
    is the right distribution or the fairest distribution until it
    is taken in total.
        Senator Stevens. In my State, this administration
    recognized 227, I believe, villages as tribes----
        Mr. Rezendes. Right.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. And declared they were tribes
    for the first time. The method of dealing with them has been to
    just give them each a small amount, without regard to the
    population.
        Is there any other area of the country that has the same
    type of distribution, just a flat rate per village?
        Mr. Rezendes. Not that I am aware of. Are you talking about
    the small and needy tribes? There are 292 there in total. The
    remainder are mostly in the Sacramento area, I believe, and are
    outside of Juneau.
        I am not aware--do you mean are there other Federal
    programs out there that target these?
        Senator Stevens. Are there other tribes within the BIA area
    that have the same type of distribution? It is my understanding
    that, as a matter of fact, we provided that just for this
    current year, about $200,000.
        Mr. Rezendes. Right. But they have not received the
    $200,000, I mean, they have asked for additional funds to get
    them up to $200,000. I think last year the distribution was
    $160,000.
        Senator Stevens. You indicate a range of from $104 to--
    what?
        Mr. Rezendes. $121 to over $1,000.
        There is an attachment to my statement which includes the
    breakout for all 12 BIA area offices.
        Senator Stevens. Do you break it down on an acre basis of
    the land involved or on the basis of the population?
        Mr. Rezendes. It was strictly based on population. That is
    what we were asked to focus on for this hearing so that is what
    we did, using the tribal populations from 1995 data and
    dividing that into the TPA funds for 1998.
        Senator Stevens. We are going to be very interested in your
    report, obviously. I am quite worried about what to do about
    1999 for the Alaskan area. It is not going to be easy to do.
        Do you have the capability of identifying need on the basis
    of these charts?
        Mr. Rezendes. We haven't and that was not the focus of this
    request. We were focusing strictly on the distribution, how the
    distribution was made, and the justifications for the
    distribution.
        One of the things that does give us a little concern is a
    good part of the base funds in the TPA account, as you know,
    are based on historical distributions. There was not much
    documentation, or rationale, as to why they were at the levels
    that they were.
        It could be that there is a sense of equity there. We don't
    know. But there was little documentation as to how everybody
    got what they received in terms of the base funds.
        Senator Stevens. What basis is the historical level? How
    far back are you going?
        Mr. Rezendes. I think we are going right back to Day 1.
        We did ask and they were able to provide us on the base
    funds that they were historically based and had just
    reoccurred, and any additions, particularly prior to the
    1990's, were really a result of congressional increases per
    tribe, specifically targeted. But then, after that, any general
    increases were usually distributed on a more pro rata basis.
        So there was not really much behind that we could get in
    terms of documentation, at least to date, unless BIA has
    something new that they have not shared with us right now, as
    to what the rationale was for the various funding levels.
        Senator Stevens. I am told that on a tribe basis, the TPA
    funding ranged from an average of $219,700 for Alaska tribes to
    $49 million for the Navajo. Is that correct? Is that the range?
        Mr. Rezendes. Do we have that?
        Ms. Naiberk. We don't have the per tribe information yet.
    We will have that in our report.
        Senator Stevens. Have you had a chance to look at how the
    BIA has interpreted our small and needy tribe mandate for last
    year, for this current fiscal year?
        Mr. Rezendes. Do you mean in terms of how they are
    distributing the funds?
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes; we did. We did look at that.
        Do we know what the numbers are? Is it $160,000?
        Ms. Duncan. [Nods affirmatively.]
        Mr. Rezendes. I believe each of the tribes received
    $160,000, even though, as you know, Alaska is targeted to
    receive $200,000. But there was a shortage of funds, so
    everyone got the same thing regardless of whether in Alaska or
    in the lower 48.
        They are asking for additional funds this year to increase
    the allocation to those Alaskan tribes to the $200,000 level.
        Senator Stevens. This allocation, have you looked at this
    formula? Is it just a structural thing? I mean, do they get so
    much money and once a tribe gets an increase it becomes
    structural and it never gets back below that? What is the
    historical basis for this?
        Mr. Rezendes. It is really more complex than that.
        Take, for example, Juneau, in which I am sure you have some
    interest. Last year, the Congress gave the BIA for the TPA
    program a general increase of $23 million.
        Senator Stevens. Right. That was supposed to cover that
    Alaska addition.
        Mr. Rezendes. Right. But what happened, though, was that
    was distributed to each of the BIA offices and each of the
    tribes, in working with BIA, then decided how to distribute
    that money among the tribes. In some areas, the tribes decided
    to each get a pro rata allocation, to just divide it up.
        Alaska was a little different. They decided in Juneau, for
    example, that they would give each of the tribes $4,000 and the
    remainder would be distributed based on the amount that that
    tribe receives of TPA funds plus a population factor.
        Senator Stevens. They didn't carry out what Congress told
    them to do, right?
        Mr. Rezendes. Well, basically, that is correct. What they
    are basically saying is that while a BIA task force recommended
    $200,000 per Alaskan tribe, they thought the money should be
    spent on a different priority basis rather than on meeting the
    $200,000 recommendation first.
        Senator Stevens. But we were following the 1994 task force
    recommendation that every tribe in Alaska should receive not
    less than $200,000 and we thought we funded that last year.
    That was specifically stated in our report, as I recall.
        Mr. Rezendes. It did not happen.
        Senator Stevens. Do you know what the smallest population
    tribe is that receives TPA?
        Mr. Rezendes. I think they are down to, there is one with
    one.
        Senator Stevens. One person?
        Mr. Rezendes. Is that correct?
        We believe there is one tribe with one.
        Senator Stevens. One tribe with one person?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. How much did that tribe receive?
        Ms. Duncan. In terms of the tribal distribution
    specifically, we did not go through and identify specifically
    which tribes got exactly--excuse me. We identified which tribes
    got how much money. For the purposes of this testimony, we
    don't have that information available.
        However, based on the information in the Bureau's listing
    of Indian service populations, there are some tribes--and I
    cannot tell you off-hand how many--that have very small
    enrollments. In fact, a couple here report zero. I don't know
    how reliable those numbers are.
        In the event that there are tribes with very small
    populations like that, they would be small and needy if they
    received less than $160,000 in TPA funds.
        Senator Stevens. But you don't know how much they actually
    received for those small populations?
        Ms. Duncan. All of the tribes that were identified by the
    Bureau as being small and needy received $160,000 pursuant to
    the direction in the appropriation.
        Mr. Rezendes. I would add to that also, to give you a
    little more information, some tribes that were not even
    federally designated tribes received some funds.
        Senator Stevens. Now Ms. McInerney-Comstock pointed out to
    me that at least two entities received funds that were not
    listed in the tribal list.
        Mr. Rezendes. That's correct, the Valdez and Kodiak. We
    were told, and Interior is checking this out, that there may be
    four others that received TPA funds also that were not on the
    tribal list.
        That occurs--and BIA I am sure is going to speak to this
    also--because they were part of a compact and the compact
    received TPA funds and distributed it to its members.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Stevens. One second, please.
        I don't know of a worse mess than the way they have handled
    the Alaskan tribal situation in this administration. We are
    setting a precedent here of anticipation of continued funding
    which just cannot be sustained unless we get some rational
    formula that applies to tribes based upon population plus need,
    some allocation of need.
        I hope that you can come up with some type of
    recommendation to Congress as to what kind of information we
    should have before we attempt to legislate such a formula.
        Yes, Senator?
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on your
    question, is it possible that a tribe with an enrollment of one
    received the $160,000 of TPA funds?
        Mr. Rezendes. Oh, it's quite possible. Yes.
        This is still preliminary. It is still ongoing. We have not
    checked all of the information out. We are just using BIA data
    and BIA reported service populations. That data is not very
    good, so we still have additional work to do.
        Senator Stevens. It is obvious that we do not impose audits
    where it is perhaps more costly to have the audit than the
    funds involved. But it appears that we are getting into a
    situation where we don't have the financial information that is
    necessary. Are you looking at that, too, in terms of what level
    of funds should be covered by an audit?
        Mr. Rezendes. GAO has already taken a position on that.
        As you know, the Single Audit Act applies to all entities
    that are expending Federal assistance. Basically, the threshold
    was just raised from $100,000 to $300,000 in 1997.
        Senator Stevens. But where there is compacting, it would
    seem to me that the compact would be covered, even though the
    individual entities within the compact were not receiving more
    than $300,000. The compact itself should cover all of those
    within the compact.
        Mr. Rezendes. Only to the extent that they are expending
    Federal assistance. Now they can get income from other sources
    and those can be comingled, either from their private
    businesses or for profit entities which are structured within
    those compacts.
        In fact, we found that that was one of the reasons why half
    of these reports that we looked at received qualified opinions
    from the CPA firms, because there was not a complete disclosure
    of the entire entity.
        Senator Stevens. I am monopolizing this and I'm sorry. My
    colleagues are going to have some questions. But I want to get
    to one other aspect, which is this.
        You indicated that 98 tribes reported a total of $1.2
    billion in business operating income. Did those tribes that had
    that income also receive TPA funds?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes; I am trying to figure out where our
    numbers are right here.
        Do you remember what they are?
        Ms. Naiberk. For those tribes that report operating income
    and also receive TPA funds?
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes.
        Ms. Naiberk. We identified, I think, 98 tribes that
    received operating income.
        Senator Stevens. I'm told there is a Washington Post
    article just recently that indicates that some of these tribes
    are already distributing profits to their members on a per
    capita basis and are still receiving TPA funds. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes; we found 43 tribes that reported
    payments to their members, totaling $324 million.
        Senator Stevens. That is allowed under the current law,
    isn't it?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. So there are 43 tribes that paid a total,
    I am told, of $324 million, which range from $25,000 to $38
    million, the average being $7.5 million?
        Mr. Rezendes. That is correct.
        Senator Stevens. We have a vote on. I didn't realize that.
        Would you take over for me, please?
        Senator Burns. Are we a rudderless ship?
        Mr. Rezendes. I would only point out that we are going to
    be around. BIA is going to testify next and we will stick
    around if you want to ask more questions later.
        I don't want you to feel pressured. We will be here.
        Senator Domenici [presiding]. Oh, don't worry. I won't feel
    pressured. [Laughter.]
        I may do something else, but don't worry about that.
        Did you have any further questions, Senator Dorgan?
        Senator Dorgan. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Why don't you proceed.
        Senator Dorgan. I don't want to apply any pressure to the
    chairman or the witnesses. [Laughter.]
        Senator Domenici. I am unaccustomed to chairing committees,
    as you know. [Laughter.]
        Senator Dorgan. Let me understand just for a moment the
    discussion you had with Chairman Stevens about tribes with
    either no enrolled members or one enrolled member receiving a
    minimum allocation of TPA.
        Can you review for me again why a TPA minimum allocation of
    $160,000 would go to a tribe with no enrolled members or one
    enrolled member?
        Mr. Rezendes. Basically, the rationale for the program is
    to help those tribes in terms of governance and organization.
    There is a certain threshold, I believe tribes with less than
    1,500 members, who are to receive a minimum allocation of
    $160,000 in the lower 48 and $200,000 in Alaska to help them
    with their governance and organizational structure.
        Some of the numbers we looked at also show there are some
    rather minimum numbers of members.
        I have to say, though, that we are not confident in the
    population data that we have, whether it is accurate. I know
    that BIA has some concerns about the data also.
        I think by everybody's admission, there are certainly
    tribes out there with low populations. The exact numbers may be
    in question here.
        Senator Dorgan. But one or zero is not low. That is not
    confidence.
        Mr. Rezendes. What I am saying is we don't have any
    confidence that the zero is accurate or the one is accurate.
    But there are probably some out there in the teens.
        Senator Dorgan. But at least with respect to the one, you
    could just send someone to the area and say is there one here?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes, right.
        Senator Dorgan. I had a hearing on the Turtle Mountain
    Indian Reservation on TPA. The reason I am asking these
    questions is 3 or 4 years ago I had a hearing on the Turtle
    Mountain Reservation. This is a reservation that is small in
    square miles but very dense in population. It is our largest
    tribe in terms of population and it has desperate poverty, just
    desperate poverty.
        I was trying to understand how the TPA funds were
    allocated. I had folks fly in from the BIA. They came up from
    Aberdeen and elsewhere. There was a lengthy hearing where I was
    able to question them at length. It was determined that none of
    us, including those who administered the TPA funds, could tell
    me the formula with which the TPA program was administered.
        No one understood it.
        Mr. Rezendes. I agree. They get three-quarters of $1
    billion for the program. Most of that, about two-thirds of it,
    about $500 million is what is called base funds. We have been
    working diligently to ask what are their justifications or
    rationales as to how the base funds are distributed. We are
    told, clearly, that there is no documentation. It is based on
    historical levels and these things just have grown over the
    years to that level and no one can really articulate clearly as
    to why each tribe gets that amount.
        Senator Dorgan. That is what I discovered in these
    hearings. I mean, it is an unforgivable lack of accountability,
    it seems to me, in a program like this to not be able to
    develop some stream of paper on why this money is allocated a
    certain way.
        I have one final question. You referred to a de minimis
    level for auditing purposes.
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes; in the Single Audit Act, any entity
    expending over $300,000 in Federal funds must be audited and
    submit a certified financial statement on an annual basis. What
    we did is we looked at all of the statements, 326, that were on
    file from the tribes at the Department of Interior.
        Senator Dorgan. Would a statement have been submitted for
    someone under $300,000?
        Mr. Rezendes. No.
        In 1997, the threshold changed. Prior to 1997, it was
    $100,000. After 1997, it became $300,000.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, you know, $160,000 is still a
    lot of money where I come from. It seems to me the question the
    chairman asked about aggregation with respect to these compacts
    is important. But even if such aggregation was not triggering
    such a report, it seems to me we ought to revisit that.
        Thank you for allowing me to ask my questions.
        Senator Domenici. Let me proceed in the absence of Senator
    Stevens with some of the questions he would have. I do think it
    is very important that at the earliest practical time, today if
    possible, that we get to the Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs, who is new on the job, committed to trying to fix some
    of these things and others. There are many problems at the BIA
    besides this one. We ought to hear from him as much as we can.
        Could I ask you, if you know, of these so-called profits
    that the Indian tribes have realized and from whence
    distribution has occurred, as you have described it, do you
    know the kind of businesses that have yielded that? Is it
    predominantly gambling money?
        Mr. Rezendes. No; it is across the board. It includes
    everything from the amounts that they have received from taxes
    and leases, money they received from settlements--it covers
    everything.
        As you know, the Indian Gaming Commission requires tribes
    to report Indian gambling and that is reported separately. But
    some tribes also reported it. It depends on how their
    organization and financial structure is arranged as to whether
    it is also reported on their financial statements under the
    Single Audit Act.
        Senator Domenici. We know that 43 tribes paid out an
    average of $7.5 million in profits on a per capita basis. What
    we don't know is how many more tribes paid out that much or
    more because they don't have to provide this information.
        Mr. Rezendes. That's correct, yes.
        Senator Domenici. Why don't they?
        Mr. Rezendes. Well, under the Single Audit Act, the only
    requirement there is is that part that relates to the Federal
    Government.
        Senator Domenici. Gotcha.
        Mr. Rezendes. If their books are comingled, in fact, a lot
    of the financial statements did not receive--received a
    qualified audited opinion, which means the CPA firm had a
    problem. It was because those pieces were not included or
    disclosed and they view them as an integral part of the
    organizational structure.
        Senator Domenici. Do we have any way of knowing how much
    profit flowed back into their tribes before they made the
    distributions to members?
        Mr. Rezendes. We have not looked at that.
        Senator Domenici. OK.
        Yes?
        Ms. Duncan. The information that we obtained from the
    financial statements, those operating profits were taken before
    there were transfers to other parts of the tribe. We did that
    so that we were not taking into account money transferred in
    from another section.
        So that information would be--or may be--reflected in the
    financial statements if there was such a distribution.
        Senator Domenici. Do all of the 43 tribes that made
    distributions receive full BIA funding, including TPA?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes; just about all tribes listed on BIA's
    list received TPA funds.
        Senator Domenici. You have noted in your report, your
    statement, that some tribes reported more complete information
    in their single audit standard than others. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rezendes. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Do we have any reason?
        Mr. Rezendes. Again, this gets to an arcane accounting
    thing. It depends on how their books are structured.
        For example, let me give you a more real example. Suppose
    some tribes had a little convenience store as a business. If
    that was an integral part of the tribe's activities, those
    incomes and expenses should have been included in their
    financial statement because of the potential liability.
        Suppose someone fell at this convenience store and there
    was a liability that would have a call on the assets of the
    tribe. That should be disclosed there. So it depends on how
    they were structured and how the controls of the financial
    arrangements were made.
        Senator Domenici. How many of the 326 financial statements
    received qualified auditors' opinions?
        Mr. Rezendes. About half.
        I should also mention that just because you received an
    unqualified opinion, which meant that the CPA firm thought
    everything was OK, all he is attesting to is that the
    presentation that the tribes are making as to how they spent
    their money is fully disclosed. It does not mean that the
    expenditures were OK. It is just that they are disclosing
    whatever kind of problems they have.
        Senator Domenici. Do the 326 financial statements actually
    represent 326 tribes?
        Mr. Rezendes. No; they represent more than that, probably
    about 400 tribes of the over 500 that are actually recognized.
    The reason for that is because of consortia and various
    groupings of how they keep their books.
        Senator Domenici. Unless Senators at the dais have further
    questions, I think we are going to take you up on your offer.
        As I gather, what we are really trying to do is to come up
    with something that is more equitable than what we have been
    doing, and you are helping us in that regard by finding out
    information. Is that a fair assessment?
        Mr. Rezendes. That is a fair assessment.
        I have to tell you, though, that we are having a difficult
    time because of the information that is out there, either in
    terms of the lack of justifications or historical information
    or the quality of the information that we are receiving. So
    that will put a limitation on.
        Senator Domenici. So maybe I should ask the question this
    way. In that context, is there anything we as a committee, or
    as a Senate, can do to help you in that regard?
        Nobody is refusing to give you information, I hope.
        Mr. Rezendes. Oh, no. Exactly. In fact, I think BIA sees
    the same problems with the information that we do. I think they
    see them clearly. I think what their problems are is the lack
    of leverage, particularly under the Single Audit Act, in terms
    of making tribes do them as they are required to do. Apparently
    not all of them are submitting it, even though it is a Federal
    requirement. And once the information does come in and does
    show problems, you must get those corrective actions taken so
    that you have adequate and fair presentation of the financial
    expenditures that were done with the Federal funds.
        Senator Domenici. From my standpoint, I want to just state
    for the record as one Senator from Indian country--and I have
    the largest population percentage in any of our States and more
    individual Indian entities than any other State; we have 19
    pueblos in the State and have only three U.S. Representatives,
    so we are not a big State--I would wish that the Indian people
    did not have to divulge any of their proprietary business
    information. I assume that is impossible so long as we are
    contributing significant amounts of money to the Indian tribes
    and reservations in various forms because Congress will want to
    know, and that is what has led us to this audit by you.
        Mr. Rezendes. Exactly.
        Senator Domenici. I hope the Indian people understand that
    we were on the threshold of having a brand new arbitrary
    formula which just said how much money do you make and if you
    make more than another tribe, you get less of the Federal
    Government's money. One could think of all kinds of reasons why
    that may very well have been very arbitrary.
        So, rather than do that, we are in the midst of trying to
    find out a better way.
        We thank you all very much.
        Now would the Assistant Secretary please come to the table
    and bring with him whomever he needs for his testimony.
        Welcome, Mr. Assistant Secretary. Do you have some opening
    remarks and would you introduce the people you have with you,
    please?

                     summary statement of hon. kevin gover

        Mr. Gover. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        To my left is Hilda Manuel, the Deputy Commissioner of
    Indian Affairs. To my right is Joann Sebastian Morris, the
    Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you.
        Let me sort of summarize briefly. We have a statement for
    the record. Let me highlight a few items and then turn to a
    discussion about some of the things that the committee has just
    heard about.
        Our budget request for fiscal year 1999 reflects basically
    three priorities and three major differences from our current
    operating budget. The first is education. We are requesting an
    increase both in school construction and facilities improvement
    and repair, and in operating funds for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs schools.
        Second, we are asking for a $25 million increase in law
    enforcement funds to address a problem of growing crime on the
    reservations, increasingly violent crime, and increasing youth
    crime, all three of which have become painfully clear.
        This is part of an overall administration initiative
    involving the Justice Department and the Department of Interior
    that would increase the resources available to reservation law
    enforcement programs by over $180 million.
        The third item I wish to emphasize is the request for
    additional funding to finance our efforts at trust management
    improvement. As you well know, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    had some very serious problems in the past in the management of
    Indian trust assets, primarily the trust funds. The special
    trustee has developed and the Secretary has modified and
    approved a program for the improvement of the Bureau's
    administration of trust funds and trust assets generally.

                               prepared statement

        In fiscal year 1999, we anticipate that we will need
    additional funds in order to do some of the sort of backfilling
    that needs to be done to clean up the system so that after the
    year 2000, we will have nothing but good data going into a good
    system and producing a good outcome.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, those are our primary points to
    make today. We would be happy to answer questions, particularly
    regarding the tribal priority allocations.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Kevin Gover
                                  introduction
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Kevin
    Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the
    Interior. It is my pleasure to be here today to present the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
    While I have been the Assistant Secretary only four months, I must say
    it has been an exciting and educational time. In addition to presenting
    the BIA budget today, I want to expand on a few of the issues that
    concern me and to emphasize some that I believe will provide us with
    opportunities to assist Indian people.
                                 bia's programs
        In the last two centuries, the Congress has passed more Federal
    laws dealing with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives than any other group
    of people in the United States. While the Snyder Act, the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, and the Indian
    Education Amendments of 1978 provide the primary budgetary authorities,
    numerous statutes, court decisions, treaties and other authorities
    (including those passed in the early 1800's regulating trade with
    Indians) continue to guide the BIA's mission and administration. The
    diversity of these mandates frequently requires the BIA to balance the
    inherent conflicts and problems created by more than 200 years of
    shifting and evolving Federal-Indian policy.
        The BIA's most basic responsibilities are its trust obligations and
    facilitating tribal self-determination. However, while the protection
    of trust resources is a fundamental responsibility, tribes struggling
    to meet the basic needs of their communities must compete for the same
    limited resources the BIA uses to protect trust resources. The BIA's
    success relies on judiciously balancing these competing mandates.
        The BIA provides services directly, or through Self-Determination
    contract, grant and compact agreements with tribes, to more than 1.2
    million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 31 states. The scope of
    BIA programs is extensive and covers virtually the entire range of
    state and local government services. BIA's programs are funded and
    operated in a highly decentralized manner with 90 percent of all
    appropriations expended at the local level with an increasing amount
    operated by tribes and tribal organizations under contracts or self-
    governance compacts. In addition, the BIA administers more than 43
    million acres of tribally-owned land, more than 11 million acres of
    individually owned land held in trust status and 443,000 acres of
    Federally owned land.
        While the BIA's role has changed significantly during the past two
    decades with an increasingly greater emphasis on Indian self-
    determination; Indian tribes still look to the BIA for a broad spectrum
    of critical and complex programs administered either by the tribes or
    the BIA. Among these are an education system for an estimated 53,000
    elementary and secondary students; 26 Tribally controlled community
    colleges; law enforcement and detention services on more than 200
    reservations; social service programs for children, families, the
    elderly, and the disabled; management of the forest, mineral, fishery
    and farmland resources on trust land; the maintenance of more than
    25,000 miles of roads on rural and isolated reservations; economic
    development programs in some of the more depressed areas in the U.S.;
    the implementation of legislated land and water claim settlements; the
    replacement and repair of schools and detention centers; and the repair
    of structural deficiencies on high hazard dams.
                               bia's constituents
        The BIA's programs serve communities that face great challenges.
    According to the 1990 census, the American Indian population increased
    to more than 1.2 million, four times the population reported in 1960.
    While part of this increase is due to an increase in self-
    identification, a large portion is the result of a natural population
    increase. Based on this rapid rate of growth, the Census Bureau
    estimates that the American Indian population will reach 4.3 million,
    representing just over 1 percent of the population, by the year 2050.
        Geographically diverse, almost half of American Indians reside on
    approximately 300 reservations and other restricted and trust lands
    located throughout the United States. Reservations can vary in size
    from a few acres, such as the rancherias in California, to the 17.5
    million-acre Navajo reservation. Approximately 63 percent of American
    Indians reside in urban areas--half of whom are concentrated in a
    relatively small number of cities. According to the 1990 census, more
    than one-half of the American Indian population live in six states:
    Oklahoma, California, Arizona, Alaska, Washington and New Mexico.
        The census also reports that the median age of American Indians is
    26 years, compared to 33 years for the population at large. This young
    population is in part the result of mortality rates that are higher for
    American Indians than for the U.S. population. Cardiovascular disease
    is the leading cause of mortality among American Indians. Other leading
    causes of mortality are homicide, suicide and accidents, alcohol-
    related and primarily affecting Indians in their teens through mid-
    20's. It is estimated that alcohol-related deaths among American
    Indians are four times greater than the national average.
        By any socioeconomic measure, American Indians trail the general
    U.S. population. According to the census, an American Indian's family
    median income was 61 percent when compared to the total U.S.
    population. The per capita income was 54 percent for American Indians
    residing on all reservations and trust lands when compared to all
    American Indians. In addition, American Indians are nearly two and one-
    half times as likely to be living below the poverty level as the U.S.
    population in general.
        According to research, two factors account for the decline in
    American Indians' overall income. While American Indian men's
    educational progress has improved with tangible results, it did not
    contribute to a relative gain in income, because non-Indian men also
    improved their skills and education. The U.S. economy contributed to
    this situation because the least skilled and least educated were
    rewarded less and found it harder to remain employed. Since American
    Indian men were disproportionately represented, the overall income of
    American Indian men fell. (American Indian women witnessed increased
    incomes; however, this was largely attributable to an increase in
    annual hours worked.) In other words, improvements in education levels
    or labor market experiences of American Indians had little impact on
    gains in relative incomes.
        In summary, American Indians are younger and have higher levels of
    poverty, unemployment, single parent families, fertility and mortality
    than the U.S. population at large. Tragically, trends are deteriorating
    for this highly vulnerable population.
        While all these conditions are deplorable, I want to emphasize the
    problems of alcohol, substance abuse and the incidence of suicide.
    These issues deeply troubled me before I came to the BIA and I remain
    especially concerned about the current state of our Indian youth. I
    have already taken two steps to confront these widespread and deeply
    rooted problems. While touring Indian schools in North Dakota, at the
    request of Senators Dorgan and Conrad, I met with tribal leaders,
    students, parents, and others about an epidemic of suicide among the
    youth of the Standing Rock Reservation. I urged the tribe and the
    community to develop a plan to combat this problem using all of the
    traditional and current wisdom that can be tapped. I believe each tribe
    must do this in order to form tribal solutions to tribal problems. I
    firmly believe that solutions to community problems must come from
    Indian Country, not from Washington. I have pledged federal resources
    when they can assist these local efforts to stop this loss of young
    life. I hope that efforts to help the young people at Standing Rock can
    be an inspiration to other tribes facing similar problems.
        I have issued a similar request to tribal leaders and members at
    the National Congress of American Indians meeting in New Mexico in
    November. Tribes must conquer our crippling problem of alcohol and drug
    abuse among American Indians, especially our young people. Again, I
    firmly believe this must be a tribally created program and not a
    federal program. However, I believe it is wise and appropriate to use
    Federal expertise and resources to assist this tribally driven effort.
    Already, I've received a resoundingly strong response to this call and
    look forward to the creation of a steady and successful effort to
    educate Indian people about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse. I
    have also met with an Indian Education Advisory Group promoting an
    Indian Education Executive Order that would facilitate a comprehensive
    education effort.
        In summary of this critical need, I would like to ask that you
    support the other agencies' funding requests relative to future
    efforts. There are proposed increases for funding alcohol and substance
    abuse prevention activities in both the Indian Health Service and the
    Department of Justice budget proposals. I strongly support these
    proposals and would appreciate your support as well.
                      fiscal year 1999 special initiatives
    BIA schools restoration
        Eighty-two percent of the BIA's building square footage is
    educational space. These buildings are old and often in poor condition.
    Two percent are more than 100 years old, 20 percent are more than 50
    years old, and 50 percent are more than 30 years old. Yet most
    educational facilities are built for functional uses for an average of
    only 25 years.
        This initiative is to provide for the increased construction,
    equipment and rehabilitation of school facilities for more than 53,000
    Indian students who attend the 185 Indian schools. The BIA seeks a $32
    million increase to provide safe, functional and economical educational
    facilities in Indian communities. This construction program provides
    for the construction of new facilities to replace existing facilities,
    and the rehabilitation, upgrade, or repair of the existing facilities
    where feasible. Schools may be operated directly by the BIA or by
    tribal organizations under the contracting authorities.
        Research has demonstrated that placing instructional and
    residential programs in facilities that do not meet health and safety
    codes distract from the educational program. The cost estimate of the
    BIA's backlog work needed to abate such health and safety code
    deficiencies in education facilities currently exceeds $695 million.
    This initiative provides for one additional replacement school, the
    completion of two schools that were started this year, and a nearly 50
    percent increase over the fiscal year 1998 education facilities
    improvement and repair funding.
    Law enforcement in Indian country
        Crime is a seriously increasing problem in Indian Country. A
    reported crime in Indian Country is twice as likely to be violent as
    compared to crime reported elsewhere in the United States. However,
    there are fewer than half as many law enforcement officers per capita.
    The purpose of this initiative is to improve law enforcement and
    detention services in Indian Country.
        Tribal leaders consistently express concern for the poor quality of
    law enforcement services provided to Indian Country. This is
    exemplified by worn-out equipment, dilapidated police and detention
    facilities, reduced law enforcement staff and limited financial
    resources. The poor quality of law enforcement services is directly
    related to the inadequate level of funding available to the BIA and
    tribes for law enforcement and detention programs.
        Pursuant to President Clinton's directive of August 25, 1997, the
    Secretary of the Interior and the United States Attorney General worked
    with Indian tribal leaders to analyze the law enforcement problems and
    to provide options to improve public safety in Indian Country. The
    resulting initiative consolidates the existing three major law
    enforcement areas (uniformed police, criminal investigation and
    detention) under the line and budgetary authority of the BIA's Office
    of Law Enforcement Services (OLES), and provides for a considerable
    increase in the number of on reservation officers. Additionally, it
    continues the good work the DOJ has commenced through grant programs
    such as the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and expands
    other DOJ grants. It is my intent to see that public safety is
    significantly improved.
        The Bureau's share of this initiative will be used to finance
    officers for tribes that choose not to contract law enforcement
    programs and to support the DOJ grant programs. DOJ grants such as COPS
    can be made available for law enforcement staff, but not for training
    and equipment. DOJ and the Bureau are preparing an implementation plan
    to assure that the combined funds for the law enforcement initiative
    are optimally used.
                        clean water and the environment
        Water quality is a prime indicator of the quality of the
    environment and the quality of life. The Water Quality Management
    Planning initiative ($5 million) is to improve the quality of water and
    the environment on reservations in the Missouri, Rio Grande, Columbia,
    Upper Mississippi and Colorado River basins. The initiative is to
    develop a comprehensive analysis of reservation water quality and
    tribal watershed management planning, and to relate these activities to
    the overall water quality concerns and other watershed management
    planning efforts of the river basin in question. Information developed
    through this project can be used to help target BIA funding for
    environmental protection and guide resources management planning
    efforts and opportunities. The results of the analysis will permit
    better focus of environmental protection efforts and cleanup efforts on
    and off the reservations. The larger result will be a higher quality of
    life.
        The BIA's environmental compliance program has been under funded
    for many years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun
    assessing penalties against BIA for noncompliance with environmental
    requirements: most recently, EPA has proposed to fine BIA $937,000 for
    violations of the underground storage tank regulations. EPA has also
    issued an enforcement action against BIA for RCRA reporting violations,
    which resulted in BIA agreeing to penalties, audits and training
    expenses that will exceed $600,000. BIA must begin to address its
    environmental obligations, and I am taking internal steps to assure
    that this occurs. However, additional funding is needed to correct
    years of noncompliance. Therefore, I ask you to support BIA's fiscal
    year 1999 budget request of $11,790,000 for BIA's environmental
    management program (currently split between the Office of Trust
    Responsibilities ($6,780,000) and the Facilities Management and
    Construction Center ($5,010,000). This amount is $6,010,000 more than
    was appropriated for environmental projects in fiscal year 1998, and
    will allow BIA to begin to address a $100 million backlog of
    environmental cleanup work that BIA is aware exists in Indian
    communities throughout the country and to initiate baseline
    environmental audits of BIA facilities which are required by the
    Department of the Interior to be completed in 2002. I believe that the
    $100 million of known clean up costs represent only a fraction of the
    existing contamination, and that the figure will increase substantially
    as the baseline environmental audits take place. BIA's request,
    although an increase over fiscal year 1998 funding levels for
    environmental compliance, is merely the first step in a multi-year
    process to bring BIA into full compliance with environmental
    regulations. In addition, some of this funding will be provided to
    tribal governments to assist them in their efforts to bring tribal
    facilities into compliance with applicable environmental standards.
                        indian land consolidation pilot
        The successive inheritances of allotted Individual Indian lands
    held in Trust by the Federal Government have led to individual land
    parcels held by a large number of people with a small fractional
    interest. This initiative provides for the establishment and
    implementation of a land acquisition program to consolidate the
    fractionated ownership of trust and/or restricted Indian lands. The
    funds will be used to establish an Indian Land Consolidation Pilot
    within the BIA to acquire the fractional interests of Indian
    individuals. The primary emphasis of the acquisition fund will be to
    acquire those interests that represent 2 percent or less of the
    ownership interest; however, consideration will be given to acquiring
    interests greater than 2 percent. Fractionated ownership of allotted
    Indian lands is a pervasive problem which is seriously deterring the
    Federal Government's ability to administer and manage the trust/
    restricted lands, maintain accurate and up-to-date ownership records,
    and trust fund accounts. It also limits tribes and tribal members from
    realizing the full economic potential of their lands. Therefore,
    funding is critical in assuring the optimum integrity and usefulness of
    systems in terms of trust asset management.
        More than half of the BIA's current Real Estate Services program
    budget is spent on administering 20 percent of the trust and restricted
    lands. Implementation of a fractionated interest acquisition program
    will assure the reduction of the number of fractionated owner interests
    which, in turn, will enable the BIA to more timely process real estate
    services transactions (leases, sales, rights of way, etc.) as well as
    maintain current ownership and title records. This reduction of owner
    interests in trust and restricted lands will facilitate the timely
    distribution of trust income. The results will be savings to the real
    estate services, land titles and records and trust fund programs
    administered by the Federal Government and better ensure that the
    Federal fiduciary responsibility is met.
        In addition to the Land Consolidation Pilot, the BIA request
    supports two of the Administration's major efforts to reform the
    management of Indian trust funds and address deficiencies of the past.
    The BIA has a significant role in the Trust Management Improvement
    Project being overseen by the Office of Special Trustee. Efforts are
    required to ensure data housed in existing or new systems are accurate;
    and to eliminate trust processing backlogs to ensure records are up-to-
    date, particularly land ownership records. An increase of $5.2 million
    is requested for probate and land records backlog reductions. The
    Bureau will also work jointly with the Office of Special Trustee to
    acquire a comprehensive Trust Asset and Accounting Management System
    (TAAMS) to replace components of BIA's currently inadequate, and not
    uniformly used, Integrated Resources Managements System (IRMS). TAAMS
    will include master lease, billing and accounts receivable, collection,
    and resource management subsystems. TAAMS components are also expected
    to be off-the-shelf systems, maintained and operated by contractors.
                        fiscal year 1999 budget summary
        The 1999 budget request for BIA is $1,844,136,000 in current
    appropriations, an increase of $142,145,000 above the 1998 enacted
    level. The budget stresses the resources tribes need to provide basic
    reservation programs and develop strong and stable governments, ensure
    accreditation of BIA schools, address critical infrastructure needs,
    and meet the Secretary's trust responsibilities. The BIA continues to
    keep administrative costs low.
        In fiscal year 1999, the BIA will continue to operate as a highly
    streamlined and decentralized agency with maximum resources going to
    Tribal programs. The BIA anticipates that more than half of the fiscal
    year 1999 operating and construction budget will be spent directly by
    tribes that elect to operate various BIA programs under self-
    determination contracts, grants, or self-governance compacts.
                          operation of indian programs
        For fiscal year 1999, the total request for the Operation of Indian
    Programs is $1,638,681,000, an increase of $110,093,000 over the fiscal
    year 1998 Enacted level.
    Tribal priority allocations (TPA)
        TPA provides the principal source of funds for local units of
    government, most of which are small and lack independent resources to
    meet the increasing costs of Tribal government operations.
    Congressional funding levels in 1996 and 1997 forced Tribal governments
    and the BIA to fall behind in their ability to maintain services to
    Indian communities and families, necessitating full funding of the
    fiscal year 1999 request. Tribes depend on the TPA budget activity for
    basic necessities and services such as law enforcement, child welfare,
    scholarships, natural resource management, and other programs critical
    to improving the quality of life and the economic potential of the
    reservations. Congress has given the tribes the flexibility to
    prioritize funds among TPA programs according to their unique needs and
    circumstances. TPA supports the goals of Indian self-determination by
    providing tribes with the choice of programs provided as well as the
    means of delivery, either by the tribe or the BIA.
        For fiscal year 1999, the TPA activity is funded at $791,210,000,
    an increase of $33,862,000 over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level,
    which will help tribes address the unmet needs in these basic programs.
    Program increases proposed in this budget submission include $640,000
    for New Tribes to support an anticipated four newly acknowledged tribes
    as they begin to establish viable Tribal government operations.
        An increase of $4,015,000 is requested for Contract Support which,
    when coupled with the $5 million internal transfer from the Indian
    Self-Determination Fund, will provide $9,015,000 over the 1998
    requested level, helping to fulfill BIA's goal of encouraging tribal
    self-determination through increased contracting and compacting. An
    increase of $3 million is proposed for Small and Needy Tribes to
    support the operation of viable Tribal governments. With the
    Congressional action during the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations process
    of funding Small and Needy with the TPA increase, these funds will go
    entirely to Alaska to move those Native Alaskans toward the Task Force
    recommended level of $200,000.
        An increase of $5 million is requested for Child Protection and
    Family Violence Prevention so that tribes can establish or enhance
    existing child abuse and neglect prevention, substance abuse prevention
    (a significant direct cause of the Indian child abuse that exists) and
    family violence prevention programs. Tribes from across the country
    voiced deep concern about child abuse at the National Budget Hearing in
    May 1997. Child abuse and neglect referrals for 1992-1996 average
    almost 30,000 annually. An increase of $2 million is requested for the
    Tribal Work Experience Program in order to assist tribes with the
    resources they need to develop a comprehensive welfare reform program,
    and $2 million is requested for Adult Care Facilities Rehabilitation,
    which will result in savings to the BIA when these facilities meet
    State standards.
    Other recurring programs
        The priority for the new millennium described as first and most
    important by the President in his August speech is the education of our
    children. The BIA is responsible for the only major domestic elementary
    and secondary education system operated by the Federal Government. As
    such, it is incumbent that this system reflects the high standards
    President Clinton has set for all education. In support of this
    Presidential priority, the BIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request
    includes a significant investment in Indian education. The request for
    School Operations, which will fund schools and dormitories serving more
    than 53,000 elementary and secondary students in 23 States, is
    $486,885,000, a program increase of $26,498,000 over the fiscal year
    1998 enacted level. The increase will ensure that schools can deliver
    quality education, and provide safe and adequate transportation for the
    estimated 3 percent increase in enrollment. Increases are also proposed
    in facilities operations and maintenance, administrative cost grants,
    and employee displacement costs to encourage the continuation of
    schools going into grant status and under tribal control.
        The budget request increases operating grants to the 26 Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges by $5,500,000 over fiscal year 1998. The
    colleges have been extraordinarily successful in providing pre-college
    adult education to Indian students that enables them to earn college
    degrees and eventual professional employment. They also promote
    entrepreneurship on reservations.
    Non-recurring programs
        The budget includes trust investments crucial to program
    performance in the out years. The request level for the BIA's
    environmental management program is $6,780,000, the same as the fiscal
    year 1998 President's budget request, but $3 million more than
    appropriated in fiscal year 1998, to begin to address an estimated $200
    million backlog of environmental cleanup work in Indian communities
    throughout the country. An additional $1 million is requested for
    endangered species to support tribal participation in species recovery.
    An additional $1,100,000 is requested for the Navajo-Hopi Settlement
    Program to provide services in areas that have been under served as a
    result of the Navajo-Hopi disagreement.
        Other program increases include $1 million for Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission re-licensing activities, and $3 million for
    Probate Backlog Reduction efforts. The probate backlog reduction effort
    is necessary to meet the Secretary's directive to eliminate backlogs
    and make timely distributions of funds derived from trust and
    restricted lands.
        Another of my highest priorities is the $3.5 million increase for
    the Water Rights Studies and Negotiations program. This program,
    critical to fulfilling the basic Federal trust responsibility, funds
    negotiating teams that help individual Tribes settle their water rights
    claims through the negotiating process. The lack of adequate funding
    for this program will result in diminishment of reservation water
    entitlements and increased litigation, which is always more costly to
    the Federal Government.
                                  construction
        The request for the BIA Construction appropriation is $152,054,000,
    with $86,612,000 for Education Construction. The BIA will continue to
    make progress in eliminating the unobligated balances in Construction
    facilities projects. Increased emphasis on tribal contracting for
    projects will be supported by awarding and approving officials being
    located within Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC)
    until the tribes and Agencies are fully trained to take over the
    construction contracting challenge.
        The Replacement School Construction program funds replacement of
    older, unsafe, and dilapidated schools on reservations following a
    Congressionally approved priority list which is currently limited to 16
    schools. In fiscal year 1999, $37,400,000 is requested to complete
    construction of the Seba Dalkai School in Arizona, the Sac and Fox
    Settlement School in Iowa, and the Pyramid Lake High School in Nevada.
    These schools are numbers nine, ten and eleven, respectively, on the
    priority list and necessary planning and design work is complete. The
    Education Facilities Improvement and Repair Program is funded at
    $46,212,000 and includes an increase of $14 million over fiscal year
    1998 to address the $695 million backlog of repair work in existing
    education facilities, a focus of considerable concern within the BIA,
    the Department, the Administration and Congress.
        The budget requests no new funding for Public Safety and Justice
    construction within the BIA request. It is proposed that new detention
    centers on reservations will be funded in the Department of Justice's
    appropriation as recommended by the President's initiative on law
    enforcement in Indian Country, and strongly supported by the
    Administration.
        The budget requests $22,024,000 for the correction of structural
    deficiencies of high hazard dams on Indian lands. The backlog of
    repairs to hazardous dams currently exceeds $400 million. The BIA is
    responsible for 115 of the 420 high and significant hazard dams on the
    Department's Technical Priority List. These dams pose significant
    potential loss of life or, at a minimum, significant economic damage
    with liability resting with the Federal Government, both on and off
    Indian reservations and for both Indian and non-Indian communities. In
    fiscal year 1999, BIA will begin correction of high risk problems on
    dams in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota and Montana.
     indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
                                    indians
        This program provides payments to meet Federal requirements for
    legislated settlements. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes
    $38,396,000 for payments for settlements resolving long standing tribal
    claims to water and lands. A large share of the fiscal year 1999
    program continues to be dedicated to the Ute Indian Rights Settlement,
    in order to move closer to the funding schedule set forth in the
    Settlement Act. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 request includes
    funding for resolving the Rocky Boys Water Rights settlement claims.
                     government performance and results act
        As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
    1993, the BIA has submitted a strategic plan as a component to the
    Department of the Interior's strategic plan. Based on addressing high-
    priority tribal needs amid a multitude of statutes, court rulings and
    treaty obligations, the BIA's Strategic Plan defines the BIA's long-
    term mission and general goals. The performance goals reflected in the
    1999 Annual Performance Plan support these broad goals. Achievement of
    these annual performance goals will mark the BIA's progress in meeting
    its mission as set forth in the Strategic Plan.
        The BIA's 1999 Annual Performance Plan meets the fundamental GPRA
    requirements, as well as those required by the Office of Management and
    Budget. First, it describes the mission statement and general goals. To
    show the linkage between the long-term and short-term goals, the
    general goals are described with the associated annual goals. The
    related annual performance goals are described with 1999 indicators;
    descriptions of the operational processes, skills, and technologies,
    and the human, capital, information and other resources necessary to
    meet the performance goals; and a description of the means that will be
    used to verify and validate measured values. The annual performance
    goals are consistent with available funding expected to achieve the
    designated targets and are consistent with and integrated with the
    BIA's President's budget request.
        Performance measurements will require the collection of baseline
    data from which to assess progress. Information collection will be an
    important activity for the BIA to fill a gap that exists for two
    primary reasons. First, BIA in the past emphasized program delivery
    over collecting information on how to improve the programs. Second, BIA
    tribes have not developed the means to collect relevant information for
    compacts and contracts. Consequently, baseline data does not exist for
    most programs. OMB guidance on meeting GPRA requirements allows
    agencies to develop baseline data and describe how it will be defined
    and collected with the initial Annual Performance Plan.
        This concludes my remarks about the BIA budget request for fiscal
    year 1999. I will be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

                       Biographical Sketch of Kevin Gover
        Mr. Gover is the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the
    Department of the Interior. As the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Gover
    provides executive leadership to the Department's activities and
    programs for the federally recognized Indian Tribes, and is responsible
    for promoting Indian self determination. These programs are carried out
    by a number of Department Offices, especially by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs, Office of American Indian
    Trust, and the Office of Self Governance. In addition, Mr. Gover is one
    of the Secretary of the Interior's primary advisors on policy and
    issues dealing with American Indian people.
        Prior to this appointment as the Assistant Secretary Mr. Gover was
    a partner in a law firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Gover began his
    professional career with the Washington, DC. law firm of Fried, Frank,
    Harris, Shiver & Jacobson, where he specialized in environmental and
    natural resources law as well as federal Indian law. He later formed
    his own law firm with several partners in Albuquerque, New Mexico that
    specialized in federal Indian, environmental, natural resource, and
    housing law with an extensive legislative practice. Mr. Gover has
    served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of
    Dallas, the Southwestern Association for Indian Art, and the Land and
    Water Fund of the Rockies. Mr. Gover has a B.A. in Public and
    International Affairs from Princeton University and a J.D. from the
    University of New Mexico Law School. Following law school, he served as
    law clerk to the late U.S. District Judge Juan G. Burciga of
    Albuquerque. Mr. Gover is a member of the Pawnee Tribe and is native of
    Lawton, Oklahoma.
                                     ______

                      Biography Sketch of Hilda Ann Manuel
        Ms. Manuel is the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs organization. As the Deputy Commissioner, Ms.
    Manuel provides executive leadership to all major functions of the
    Bureau by exercising line authority over headquarters staff offices,
    area offices and field operations. Prior to her appointment as the
    Deputy Commissioner Ms. Manuel served as the Staff Director of the
    Indian Gaming Management staff office (IGMS). Under her direction the
    IGMS was responsible for the oversight and implementation of the
    Secretary's responsibilities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
    1988. Ms. Manuel also served as the Chief, Division of Tribal
    Government Services prior to being hired as Staff Director of IGMS. Ms.
    Manuel was initially hired as the Chief for the Branch of Judicial
    Services in February 1990.
        Ms. Manuel, a graduate of the University of New Mexico, School of
    Law, (1976) began her career as a juvenile court judge for the Tohono
    O'odham Nation in Arizona. During her tenure as juvenile judge, Ms.
    Manuel established a Children's Court system which became a national
    model for other Indian Tribes. In 1980, Ms. Manuel was appointed
    Presiding Judge of the Tohano O'odham Court. After serving her term,
    Ms. Manuel moved to the Executive Branch of the Tohono O'odham Nation
    serving first as Legislative Aide to the Council and then as Director
    of the Tribal Management and Support Services Department. In 1986, Ms.
    Manuel left the Tohono O'odham Nation to work for the Pima County
    Attorney's Office as a Deputy County Attorney, primarily handling
    juvenile cases.
        In addition to serving as a judge for the Tohono O'odham Nation,
    Ms. Manuel also served as a judge Pro Tem for the Colorado River Indian
    Tribes, Hualapai Tribe, Pascua Yaqui, Gila River Indian Community,
    White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Salt River Pima
    Maricopa Community and the Hopi Tribe between 1978-1987.
        Ms. Manuel is a member of the State Bar of Arizona; she has also
    been a member of the Tohono O'odham Police Commission, Indian Oasis
    School District Board of Trustees, Arizona State Advisory Committee to
    the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Juvenile Justice Committee to the
    Arizona State Justice Planning Agency, Indian Youth of America.
        Ms. Manuel is a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Chukut Kuk
    District. She has received numerous recognition awards including
    Outstanding Young Woman of America in 1987, YWCA Woman on the Move in
    1988, and a Special Achievement Award in 1993 from the Assistant
    Secretary--Indian Affairs.
                                     ______

                 Biographical Sketch of Joann Sebastian Morris
        Ms. Joann Sebastian Morris is the Director, Office of Indian
    Education Programs, effective March 1 , 1996. Prior to that assignment,
    she was the Acting Director for the Office of Tribal Services since
    August 1994, and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary--Indian
    Affairs on education and social service issues since May, 1994. Ms.
    Morris joined the Department on an IPA agreement between a regional
    educational laboratory of the Department of Education and the
    Department of the Interior.
        Ms. Morris began her career as a social worker then moved into
    education, going from teaching to administration and finally on to
    research. She brings 27 years of experience in Indian education to the
    position. She has worked primarily in the U.S. but also spent 6 years
    in research and development work in Canada.
        Ms. Morris is a Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa of Michigan, her state of
    birth, and Cayuga of the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario. Her B. Ed. is
    from the University of New Mexico and her M.A. in anthropology is from
    U.C.L.A.

                                   education

        Senator Domenici. Let me ask this. You mentioned $25
    million, which will be leveraged to $100 million for law
    enforcement, but you did not mention the dollar number that the
    President has sought for increases to education.
        Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that we are
    asking for approximately $32 million more for education
    construction and that includes facilities improvement and
    repair.
        Senator Domenici. What is the operating increase?
        Mr. Gover. We are requesting an additional $8 million for
    the operation of the schools.
        Senator Domenici. OK. Let me just lay before you, Mr.
    Secretary, a couple of questions and observations that I have.
    Then, obviously, Senator Stevens will return or Senator Gorton
    will arrive. I have a meeting scheduled in my office.
        I would ask somebody to call my office to tell them that I
    will be a few minutes late.
        And here is our chairman now.

                         unemployment in indian country

        Let me lay before you a couple of things. The country right
    now is in a state of economic euphoria. We have never had a
    stronger consumer reaction in the United States to the well-
    being of the economy. We have the lowest unemployment rates in
    many States in decades. Do you ever ask yourself, with that
    being the case, why we have such high unemployment among the
    Indian people?
        Now I don't expect a big answer, in detail. But does that
    not concern you, that we are all missing the boat in some way
    or another? The Indian people are not unable to work and get
    jobs. What is wrong? What is the disparity that you see out
    there?
        Mr. Gover. Obviously, it concerns us very deeply. I will
    say that per capita income, a lot of the measures of social
    well-being are actually on the rise, along with the rest of the
    country. It is just that Indian country started so very far
    behind that at a time when the economy is producing only 5
    percent or so unemployment, in Indian country it is 5 to 10
    times that.
        Ironically, or tragically, that is a considerable
    improvement over the way it has been in the past. So things are
    improving slowly. But still the tribes lag far behind.
        The reasons why are many. They are historical, they are
    institutional. There are problems, obviously, with the
    isolation of the reservations.
        In our own New Mexico, as you well know, the tribes used to
    be very isolated from the major economic centers in the State.
    That is less and less true, and I think because of that, their
    prosperity is on the increase as they sort of get a portion of
    the commerce that really has always gone around them.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, I am going
    to give this hearing back to you. I have not asked any
    questions of him except I put the one question to him which you
    heard as you came in, which is why, with America in full
    employment, why are the Indian people so heavily unemployed and
    does that bother them. It bothers me. It bothers you. Something
    is not going right.
        While I think your answer is a reasonable one, I don't
    think it is enough. There is something basic going on that is
    much more than that they started behind it all.

                                   education

        Anyway, the other point I was going to make to you is this.
    I make it very clearly and very forcibly. I am not the least
    bit impressed with the President's budget on education. It is
    $32 million up on school construction and we have been on the
    floor talking about a backlog of over $750 million for schools
    that we would not send non-Indian kids to. He gave us only $32
    million more, and $8 million more for the education system
    itself, while the President has asked for billions for other
    schools in the United States, with which we have nothing
    whatsoever to do, other than that the President would like us
    to. We must do these Indian schools because nobody else will do
    them. I mean, if we don't fix the Indian schools that we run,
    who is going to fix them?
        Also, why should we be building schools in the United
    States with income taxes for the American people and having a
    responsibility that is purely ours go unnoticed, almost
    undetected? I don't think that is a very good policy.
        I am very hopeful that, if we are doing education bills and
    they are putting a lot of money elsewhere in the United States,
    we can come along and put some into Indian education. It is one
    of the clues as to why we have this disparity in employment.
        I just want to make one other point. Clearly, Indian health
    programs are going to have to be looked at carefully because
    the costs are going up so fast because of things like diabetes.
    To have small increases will not be sufficient. We have to find
    some other very major, major approaches to Indian health.
        I yield at this point to the chairman.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am
    sorry if I fouled things up. I did not notice that vote.
        Senator Domenici. Yes; you were way past the time on it.
        Senator Stevens. Yes; and I am one who usually complains
    when people are late.
        Senator Domenici. Did your vote count? I mean, was it the
    deciding vote? It was close.
        Senator Stevens. No; I don't think so.

                          tpa task force distribution

        I am a little bit disturbed about what happened this last
    year. We did have a $24 million increase. It was split evenly
    between 12 BIA areas.
        Now we intended that that was to be used to try to bring
    about greater equality in the way that the TPA had been
    allocated in prior years.
        Why did you decide to just split it 12 ways to the regions,
    rather than to deal with the needy tribe concept which was
    spelled out in the report?
        Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the committee last
    year chose to require us to set up a task force for the
    allocation of those resources involving four people from each
    of the 12 BIA areas.
        Putting that many people in a room, each with a particular
    point of view and particular interests to advance, it simply
    was not possible to develop an allocation that would have
    reflected that, quite frankly.
        Had the decision been left to myself and the deputy
    commissioner, it would have been much different.
        Senator Stevens. You had the authority, the basic
    authority, under the compromise we reached at our conference
    last year for the Secretary to make the distribution if the
    task force recommendations were unacceptable.
        I should think anyone would have called that unacceptable,
    to just take $24 million and divide it up into 12 areas without
    regard to need.
        Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, we interpreted the requirement
    differently.
        What we understood the statute to be saying is if a
    majority of the task force identified a particular allocation,
    then we did not have the discretion to say no. We had to
    allocate it that way. It was only if the task force failed to
    produce a majority interpretation that we could have, that the
    Secretary could have taken the task on himself. And, as I say,
    the allocation would have been much different.
        Senator Stevens. I warned at the time the BIA decided that
    there were 227 tribes in Alaska that we were in a new era of
    rising expectations. Each one of these groups now expects to be
    treated the same as the Navajos.
        Are they going to be treated the same as the Navajos?
        Mr. Gover. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Why?
        Mr. Gover. The reason the Navajo Nation gets the percentage
    of BIA funds that it does--and I should add that the Navajos
    don't feel that they get a fair percentage of the BIA funds--is
    because they are the largest reservation in the country. They
    have a variety of land-based allocations and they have the
    largest service population.
        Senator Stevens. They don't have the largest amount of
    land.
        Mr. Gover. Yes; they do, Senator. In terms of actual
    reservation land, the Navajo is the largest reservation.

                                tribes in alaska

        Senator Stevens. It is the largest reservation land, yes.
    But if you recognize all of these 227 villages as being tribes,
    they have a lot more land than the Navajos do. But it is not
    reservation.
        Mr. Gover. That is correct. It is not considered Indian
    land.
        Senator Stevens. But their needs, in terms of unemployment,
    in terms of isolation, in terms of education, health, and
    travel, are a lot worse. I really think that you ought to go
    back and look at the definition of tribes for Alaska. Those
    individual villages were never recognized as tribes even by the
    Alaskan natives themselves. Several villages made up one tribe.
        But you have recognized each village as being a tribe, and
    now each village expects to get money from the Tribal Priority
    Allocation Fund. Have you looked at that? Are they going to get
    that money? Is it going to be based on need or just upon the
    fact that they are a tribe?
        Mr. Gover. Right now, each of the tribes in Alaska receives
    funding on the basis that they are considered, that they fall
    under the small and needy designation.
        Now I would remind the committee that the small and needy
    designation was not a creation either of the committee or of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but of a task force that Congress
    required to be established to look at issues of this type and
    for the BIA to implement those recommendations.
        What the task force recommended was that we created a
    designation called ``small and needy tribes'' and specifically
    said that each tribe should get $160,000 as the bare minimum
    funding required to establish a tribal government but that in
    Alaska they should get $200,000.
        Now last year in the appropriations bill, what the bill
    said was each small and needy tribe shall receive at least
    $160,000. So that is precisely what we allocated to Alaska.
        Now with the additional $23 million that the task force was
    allowed to allocate, that resulted in an additional $4,000 per
    village in Alaska. Our request for next year would increase the
    total for each village in Alaska to approximately $175,000.
        I agree with you that the need is profound there and that
    we do not do an adequate job at this time. The problem is, as I
    am sure you have heard before, there are so many other needs in
    Indian country as well that basically, we leave everybody
    short.
        Senator Stevens. Have you taken any money away from the
    tribes that are getting all of this money from gambling?
        Mr. Gover. We have not, sir. We lack the authority,
    frankly, to go out and say you must give us your money back
    because these are awarded on the basis of formula and the
    formula at this time does not include any accounting for
    revenue of any type that the tribe might receive.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I have taken too much time.
        Senator Dorgan.

                       tribal priority allocation system

        Senator Dorgan. Would you conclude, based on the
    information that you have and the discussion you heard earlier
    with the GAO that the TPA system is a mess?
        Mr. Gover. Well, I think that for a solid majority of the
    tribes it somehow reflects an equitable distribution. There are
    undoubtedly anomalies and they were created in many different
    ways. A good many of them, frankly, involve various line item
    appropriations that were made over the years.
        Remember if the Congress were to tell us to give an extra
    $20,000 to tribe X to conduct a nutrition program, we give them
    the $20,000 in the fiscal year and it becomes a part of their
    base. So they get it year after year after year. There are so
    many examples of that sort of appropriating that, to the extent
    that these anomalies are carried forward, that is the genesis
    in many cases.
        Senator Dorgan. You know, having had a hearing on this and
    having tried to understand who gets what, I'll tell you, I
    think the fact that no one can explain the basis for the base
    funding of the TPA suggests to me that there is something
    horribly wrong with it.
        I am supposed to be on a conference call right now with the
    BIA and the Indian Health Service on a different issue. So I am
    going to just be brief.

                               school facilities

        The Senator from New Mexico asked the question about
    unemployment and so on. I just wanted to say that the
    conference call I am going to be on is about a school down in
    Standing Rock that is closed. The sign outside says ``Caution,
    Contains PCS's.'' The kids have been in a gymnasium now for 2
    months and the light fixtures are leaking PCS's. They have also
    found dioxins. This is quite a mess.
        I am trying to sift through all of that.
        I say to the Senator from New Mexico that I was on two
    Indian reservations last week and toured a number of schools,
    one of which I spoke about on the floor yesterday, Cannonball.
    It is a public school but is on a reservation, a public school
    district. This is a school that is 90 years old. It has been
    condemned. The central building has been condemned. Classes are
    crowded. There is not 1 inch between the desks. The desks have
    to be flush. There are 8 foot by 12 foot classrooms.
        The choir room has to be abandoned a couple of times a week
    because sewer gas backs up and the stench is too bad. There are
    145 kids and 40 workers in the school. There are two bathrooms
    and one water fountain.
        It is in deplorable condition.
        Now one asks about a second grader in that school. Is the
    second grader in that school system having the same access and
    same opportunity as a second grader in some other school? No; I
    don't think so.
        So that is part of my question and it gets to the point we
    made. We must do better to invest the resources to fix these
    schools, the BIA schools and the other schools around the
    periphery that do not have the tax base.
        Let me just finish with one question, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Sure.
        Senator Dorgan. The conference call I am supposed to be on
    is supposed to have started 5 minutes ago. It's on this PCB
    question. We have worked through this for a couple of months
    now.
        I know you are trying hard, but it is so hard to get
    through the bureaucracy of the BIA and the Indian Health
    Service on some of these issues. You are new to this job, but
    do you understand the critical need that exists in some of
    these areas? I think you do because you have taken some tours
    and you seem concerned about it.
        For example, we must get the Standing Rock Reservation
    school fixed. These kids should not be in gymnasiums. They
    ought to be in schools. The school's front door ought not be
    boarded up. If there are light fixtures leaking PCS's, which is
    a carcinogen, we should get in, fix it, do the testing and get
    it done.
        Can you respond to that because, as I said, I am going to
    be on a conference call trying to coordinate between you and
    the Indian Health Service on this issue?
        Mr. Gover. Obviously, I agree with all of that. Now my
    understanding is that they pulled all the ballasts in that
    school and have replaced each and every one of them. I think
    there may be some remaining questions about whether in doing
    the sampling there are any remaining PCS's in the building. But
    I think the Bureau actually responded quickly to that one.
        Senator Dorgan. It did and then said it was done. But, in
    fact, they came back in and moved the kids back in. Then they
    moved them back out. Then they are saying there needs to be
    testing and the IHS says it is not our job. The BIA also says
    it is not our job. In the meantime, the kids are in the
    gymnasium and the school still has a sign at the door, and
    apparently there are still light fixtures leaking PCS's.
        Mr. Gover. Senator, I will look into that but that is not
    my understanding. We replaced all of them as soon as we heard
    about it. Not only that, we have directed our facilities
    management people to go check all of the other schools of that
    vintage to be sure it is not happening anywhere else.
        Senator Dorgan. I know you did that. I am just saying
    that--and this is a problem we constantly have--I am not sure
    the area office actually followed through to make sure that the
    problem got resolved finally.
        I understand that I am dealing with a specific issue and
    you are up here on the largest question. But let me add my
    voice to the concerns of the chairman and the Senator from New
    Mexico. We need to address these issues of education
    investment. You cannot invest money we don't give you and we
    need to do better than we have done. The administration needs
    to do better not just in education investment but if you take a
    look at the health care side that they sent up here, it is
    pitiful. It is so far short of the need.
        Now that is not what this hearing is about, but we need to
    do better in these areas.
        I appreciate your coming here today. You are new, and I
    want very much to help you succeed in your job. I hope I can be
    a part of that success and that we can do the right things for
    you.
        Mr. Gover. Thank you, Senator.

                         tribes with small populations

        Mr. Chairman, could I add just one other comment. I know
    Senator Dorgan had a particular interest or concern about the
    one and zero member tribes.
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Mr. Gover. GAO would have seen our allocations to the areas
    and, indeed, for each of those tribes we send money to the area
    office indicating that there is an allocation for each of those
    tribes.
        Before those tribes can receive the money, they have to
    submit a plan on how it is all going to be spent and it all has
    to be spent within certain parameters. In fact, the tribes with
    few members or no members have not received any of the funds
    because they are not acting as governments. So we are not
    sending money out to individuals. I just wanted to assure you
    of that.
        We were aware of the existence of those and long before I
    arrived the Bureau had developed procedures for seeing that
    money was not sent to those individuals where there was only
    one or two people on the reservation.
        Senator Dorgan. We can maybe resolve that today. The GAO
    seemed to say no, that was not the case, that they felt in
    circumstances with few or one they would get a minimum
    allocation. You are saying that this is not the case?
        Mr. Gover. As I say, we send money to the area office, and
    were that individual to organize that situation and give us a
    plan for spending those funds on appropriate purposes----
        Senator Dorgan. What if they do?
        Mr. Gover. Then we would approve the funds and allow that
    person to run the tribal government.
        Remember, we are not in a situation where we can look at a
    federally recognized tribe and on our own say you are no longer
    a federally recognized tribe.
        Senator Dorgan. But there would be a pretty powerful
    incentive for one, two, or four people being able to do that,
    wouldn't there?
        Mr. Gover. Sure.
        Senator Dorgan. Do they do that?
        Mr. Gover. They have not done it. They have not done it
    because it would be unlikely to be approved. I mean, what they
    would have to do to establish an actual working tribal
    government is probably more trouble than it is worth.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.

                               school facilities

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I was up to Brockton, MT, the other day. That is up on the
    Fort Peck. We have the same situation at Fort Peck that he has
    over in North Dakota, where we have a school that has just
    fallen down around the heads of the students there. They are
    crowded and there is a library that both the elementary and the
    high school students use. They don't even have chairs and are
    sitting on the floors.
        I am wondering and am concerned about the amount of money
    we are spending on education. Personally, I think we waste so
    much money on other areas on the reservations that it is
    unbelievable. It is not a shortage of money. It is just a
    shortage of priorities of where we put the money.
        I don't know whether that could be done at the BIA level or
    whether it is going to have to be done at the congressional
    level in order to address that. We have two schools that have
    completely outgrown themselves. One is at Boxelder, and, of
    course, that is pretty close to the Rocky Boy. And one is up
    there in Brocton. Whenever you send your budget down, it really
    grieves me that we just got a $24 million increase as far as
    education and education facilities.
        Mr. Gover. Senator, I wish we could have asked for more. I
    wish that the IHS budget were more as well. I guess I would not
    agree that we are wasting money elsewhere. But clearly we don't
    get enough resources for these schools.
        I did not have an opportunity earlier, but I know that the
    Budget Committee, under Senator Domenici's leadership, has made
    a suggestion that the amount devoted to Indian schools be
    doubled.
        I will just say that we will spend every dollar well that
    you send us in that regard.
        Senator Burns. I am going to be very supportive of his
    suggestion because I know that we are still, in Montana, part
    of the isolated part of it. We are not next to a big commercial
    operation, as far as that goes.
        I think we have to look at the operations of our
    reservations and say OK, the amount of young people coming out
    of those schools and how they are educated is way below the
    standards of the United States of America, as are the
    facilities in which they are going to school and how they are
    living.
        We have to look at ourselves and ask is it working. Is it
    working and do we have to make some changes, maybe even some
    structural changes as far as the way we deal with this problem,
    in some way or other?

                        education instructional programs

        Mr. Gover. Senator, this may be one of those rare cases
    where the structural changes have been made and the educators
    have developed the education program. I think the actual
    instructional programs at the schools are strong.
        From what I saw out there, these schools are
    indistinguishable from elementary and high schools in any other
    part of the country except that the buildings they are in are
    deteriorating badly.
        Senator Burns. Have you run through any figures? What are
    we spending per student on our reservations for education?
        Ms. Morris. It is a little over $3,000, and this is
    according to a formula which is called a weighted student unit.
    So it is about $3,000, a little over that. The national average
    is actually much higher than that. The national average is
    close to $6,000 for academic programs, not dealing with the
    construction issues.
        Senator Burns. That is outside of construction issues?
        Ms. Morris. Yes; excluding construction dollars. Yes.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton [presiding]. Thank you.
        I understand that Senator Stevens has another question.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I welcome you back and I am
    sort of glad that this is your headache first. [Laughter.]

                          tribal priority allocations

        Let me say before I leave that I hope we will agree there
    will be no more task forces, that we are going to change this
    law regarding tribal priority allocations, and that we will not
    provide any money for tribes that are obviously self-
    supporting. There is no demand that is legitimate on the
    Government and taxpayers for tribes that have adequate money.
    That ought to be determined by whether or not there is any per
    capita distributions.
        I really cannot believe we should be providing tribal
    allocations to tribes that are already having per capita
    distributions of surplus funds derived from functions such as
    gambling.
        I congratulate you for getting into this, Senator Gorton,
    and I think we ought to have a meeting with the Indian
    Committee to resolve some of our differences before we go to
    the floor with a major bill this year.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici, have you had a chance to complete your
    questions?
        Senator Domenici. No; I have not.
        Senator Gorton. Then please go ahead.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, I did not mention, other than inferentially,
    that you were not only new on this job but that I saw a kind of
    spirit developing around the BIA that reflects your enthusiasm
    and hope that we can do a better job. I hope this year that we
    can work constructively together. I don't think you can get
    everything you want, but I think some of us want to get you
    more than the President asked for, especially in the education
    field, and I think we can find some ways to work on that.

                           water rights negotiations

        I would ask you if you would not mind looking specifically
    at this issue. Some of the New Mexico Pueblos are very upset
    about the lack of funding in the Albuquerque office for water
    rights negotiations. I don't want to go into a long litany,
    but, as you know, we are allocating money for water rights
    negotiations to other States. It looks like four of our Pueblos
    are in dire straits. They are going to be right in the middle
    of some negotiations that are going to determine their future,
    and there are no resources in the Albuquerque office for that.
    I would just ask if you would take a look at that situation and
    I will insert my question into the record and the details of
    it.
        Mr. Gover. Yes, Senator. We will look at that.
        We know that the allocation to Albuquerque is not
    sufficient, and we have been supplementing that with some
    central office funds for that specific purpose. We know as you
    know the Jicarrilla case has just settled and there has been a
    lot of opportunity to settle the Taos case as well. I would
    just emphasize that when we are able to settle tribal water
    rights in a basin, that creates certainty for everyone, not
    just the tribes.

                                   education

        Senator Domenici. I have a whole series not only of
    questions but of statements that would precede questions
    regarding the entire gamut of education. I think we all
    understand that for a very long period of time we have been
    encouraging, and have succeeded to some extent, the getting of
    our Indian young people into public schools. That was difficult
    at first, but it is working reasonably well.
        That is reality and the problems there are generic, rather
    than just Indian problems. These students are in the public
    schools, the problems with the schools that we are left with
    running, both the public schools, the Indian colleges, and the
    community colleges that are Indian driven--I think, Mr.
    Secretary, the whole thing needs a tremendous analysis from
    somebody on what in the world we are doing.
        You mentioned the disparity of what we are spending per
    public school pupil in Indian country versus the public school
    system and you mentioned $6,000 versus $3,000. Those are almost
    the identical numbers which show what we are spending on Indian
    colleges for Indian students in Indian colleges versus what
    other students in America are receiving, and what we are paying
    for students in non-Indian colleges.
        How are we going to continue this approach? It seems that
    somebody has to sooner or later say that we either cannot run
    the colleges this way and we have to find another way to
    educate our children, or we have to assume that they can be
    educated on $3,000 when their counterparts are costing
    everybody else to educate the same kind of person in the same
    fields twice as much. In some cases it is more than twice as
    much.
        We are going to try to get more money, but I think there
    has to be an analysis of just where are we going. Are we
    kidding ourselves that some of our Indian youngsters are not
    going to get a good education if we are going to continue with
    this sham of half-funding in a sense?

                              needs based analysis

        Mr. Gover. Senator, one of the things we are undertaking is
    to do a needs based analysis on the reservations.
        Now the witnesses from GAO pointed out that neither the
    Congress, nor the administration, nor the courts, nor anyone
    else has ever really said here is what we are trying to
    accomplish with this Federal funding in Indian affairs in terms
    of at what point have we succeeded, at what point are these
    communities receiving services that are deemed adequate, and
    where, under the treaties, when compared to other rural
    jurisdictions and compared to the Nation at large, where do we
    draw that line. That is one of the things we are going to try
    to do, to analyze that and try to establish sort of a mark that
    we are shooting for.
        Now in the case of the students, you were asking earlier
    why is there this endemic problem of poverty. Well, part of the
    reason it seems to me and in watching these tribal programs
    operate is we give them just enough to keep them alive, just
    enough to keep them alive and never enough to prosper. That is
    true not just for education but for every element of the
    various programs that the Bureau has administered.
        That is not just true now; it has been true as far back as
    we care to trace it, really. So we do have to ask some real
    basic questions about what we are trying to accomplish in
    Indian policy and have those objectives reflected in our
    financial decisions.

                tribal community colleges and vocational schools

        Senator Domenici. I wonder if, as part of that, you might
    have somebody objectively analyze what kind of education they
    are getting in these community colleges and Indian colleges. We
    keep trying to get them funded. We get a little bit more here
    and we add a building there, and even EDA has built some of
    their vocational buildings because there is no other place to
    get money.
        I think it would be good to know whether the education that
    our Indian people are getting in those institutions is up to
    par, or is it the most inferior in the country. Why would we
    keep on doing this to the Indian people if, in fact, the system
    is not a worthwhile system?
        We cannot keep saying that we are going to double the
    amount of money. Where are we going to get the doubled amount?
    Sooner or later some of us are going to try to double the
    amount.

                           education and unemployment

        Do you know why we are keeping good teachers there? It is
    amazing, but that is one area where there still is some
    credibility. It is because we passed a statute not too many
    years ago that pegged what we pay the teachers to what we are
    paying teachers in our Government schools overseas that educate
    our military kids. We said whatever we are paying them, let's
    pay the Indian teachers. If we had not done that, we would
    still be running around with 50 percent less than parity and
    asking what is happening to our Indian kids.
        Maybe some of those arbitrary things that neither Slade
    Gorton, as a legislator, nor Pete Domenici likes to do--we like
    to do it in a more rational way--have to be done. Sooner or
    later we have to face up to this kind of situation, and part of
    the unemployment problem is because of what we are discussing
    here. It's not the whole thing, of course. Part of it is, too,
    that the private sector cannot operate on Indian reservations.
    It is very hard for them, and the Indian leaders do not quite
    understand how they have to adjust or they refuse to. So we
    have two societies. We have a private sector society 15 miles
    away from an Indian reservation with 3,000 unemployed people,
    and nobody is going to go and locate on the reservation with
    private money. We don't know whether the Indian people want
    that yet.
        Those are dichotomies that are just obvious to anybody
    around--if they are not educated, it does not matter because
    they cannot get jobs. So we are going in a vicious circle.
        I have detailed the needs in statements that I am putting
    in the record. I hope you will look at them and give us some
    answers. They are about both public K through 12, they are for
    colleges, for community colleges and vocational schools. Sooner
    or later we have to make some sense out of it with the Indian
    leadership joining right along with us.
        There are a number of specific areas we just have to
    consider. For example, we have a school that burned down and we
    cannot get its replacement on the priority list. Kids are being
    bused way over to a public school and have been for 4 years.
    They are housed in some makeshift building, and we cannot get
    it on the priority list because you don't have enough money.
    The priority is already there. You have 12 schools waiting and
    they have been waiting for 10 years.
        So those are things that are not working, Mr. Secretary.
        I applaud you for leaving your previous life to take this
    on for a while, and I did not in my statements intend to make
    your job harder. I think you know that in no way am I trying to
    do that. I am trying to be helpful. Let's see if we can get
    something done.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gover. I have always appreciated your support, Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
        First, I want to apologize for the time that we have cost
    all of the witnesses here, first by votes that were scheduled
    after our starting time and then for other matters that
    occupied my own time. I do greatly appreciate your tolerance
    and your waiting.
        Second, I have a printed opening statement here. It may
    already have been included in the record. If it has not been,
    it will be.
        We are not going to keep you much past noon, so I am going
    to have to submit a number of questions to you as well. But I
    would like to talk about a couple of philosophical questions,
    not dissimilar to what Senator Domenici has asked. You already,
    in part, have answered one of them.

                           indian affairs leadership

        I want to say that I really appreciate your candor. We are
    getting straight answers now in a way that has not always been
    the case in my experience with this. I am delighted that you
    are on the job, and everything I hear tells me that you are
    doing very well in a situation that cannot help but be
    tremendously frustrating to all concerned.

                      federal funding for indian programs

        A year ago, when we were last here, Senator Bennett, who is
    not here now, recounted a moving personal experience he had as
    a foster parent to an Indian foster daughter. He posed a series
    of eloquent questions with respect to the Bureau and to Indian
    policy in general. I am going to, if I can, simply repeat the
    questions that Senator Bennett asked last year to see what kind
    of answers we have from Ada Deer's successor.
        I start from the proposition that with all of these
    shortages we give the BIA some $2 billion a year. In total,
    according to the Office of Management and Budget, Federal
    spending on Indian programs is about $7.5 billion a year,
    funding that serves about 1.2 million Indians who are also
    eligible for most other State and Federal programs.
        If my arithmetic is correct, that is something over $6,000
    per capita in these programs, and it is in addition to other
    fundings that they are eligible for simply as American
    citizens.
        Senator Bennett asked Secretary Deer last year what she
    thought the result of all the spending is or should be. Her
    response was essentially that she envisioned the Indian tribes
    as having the basic standard of living comparable to the rest
    of the U.S. population. She remarked that we need to invest
    more in education and health services so that the tribes will
    be able to march into the 21st century with hope.
        Now I agree with those statements and I think Senator
    Bennett did with respect to living like, for that matter, all
    Americans. In response, Senator Bennett asked, and I quote him
    from last year:

        So the long-term goal is to raise the standard of living
    without making any attempt to bring the Indian population into
    any kind of integration with the rest of the population of the
    country?

        What would your answer be to that question of Senator
    Bennett last year?
        Mr. Gover. My answer is that these communities have to make
    that choice for themselves. I think that they are increasingly
    integrated just by the nature of the encroachment, if you will,
    of the surrounding communities. Indians no longer live quite in
    the isolation that they once did.

                             federal indian policy

        But the one thing that we promised them and the whole
    centerpiece of Federal policy from the very beginning is that
    these communities would be allowed their existence. If they
    should choose to give it up, if they choose to integrate with
    the rest of the population, so be it. But I believe strongly
    that it is their choice to make.
        Senator Gorton. That is their choice to make, but that even
    if they make the choice to remain in their own communities,
    there is an obligation to try to see to it that their standard
    of living is roughly equal to the average of other Americans.
        Mr. Gover. I think that is a fair measure. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. But we are faced with the fact--you have
    this challenge, we all have this challenge--that, in fact,
    their standard of living is probably the lowest of any
    distinguishable socio-economic group in the United States. Does
    that indicate to you, as I must say it does to me, that 150
    years of American Indian policy have been an overwhelming
    failure?
        Mr. Gover. Clearly. Clearly 220 years of Indian policy has
    been a failure.
        I was thinking as you were speaking, Senator, that the
    governmental resources that go into an Indian community may or
    may not be roughly the same as would go into a non-Indian
    community. What is missing on the reservation is a private
    sector contributing to the well-being of the population. So
    $6,000 per capita into a non-Indian community is an awful lot
    more money when it is on top of a very active and vibrant
    private sector. Those private sectors for the most part do not
    exist on the reservations.
        Senator Gorton. But might it not be appropriate to say that
    the private sector has a much more difficult time on an Indian
    reservation in the absence of private property in the sense
    that we know it on the outside?
        Mr. Gover. It depends on what you mean. I think Senator
    Domenici was talking about the reluctance of the private sector
    to invest on Indian lands.
        I was a lawyer for a number of tribes for a number of years
    and I understand that reluctance. It all has to do with the
    special legal status that the tribes have.
        Now what I found in dealing with those folks is, once they
    understood what the problems were and that they could be dealt
    with in a very predictable way, they were willing to invest
    and, in fact, would invest. But the sort of great mass of the
    private sector simply does not know. And why go to a remote and
    somewhat mysterious little community that you don't know very
    much about as opposed to going to places that you know and
    where you do understand all the rules? It takes a unique
    entrepreneur to want to do that.
        Senator Gorton. But presumably if the social and political
    circumstances are favorable, it can be very profitable for that
    entrepreneur. It can be a win/win situation for both sides of
    the situation.
        Mr. Gover. It can and it has in a number of situations.
        I should answer, respond to one element about private
    property. There have been efforts throughout history,
    throughout the history of Federal Indian policy to privatize
    tribal assets. The results have never been very good. In fact,
    as bad as things went at various points in the more--I'm not
    sure how to characterize it, let's call it the experimental
    times in Indian policy, the Indian Reorganization Act, the
    Indian Self-Determination Act--things did not go well. But they
    went an awful lot better than they did in the termination era
    or in the allotment era.
        So every time we have tried to detribalize the Indians, we
    have made matters worse.
        Senator Gorton. Following up with Ms. Deer, Senator Bennett
    asked about the possibility that separate Federal funding of
    tribes would ever cease. Senator Bennett compared the situation
    to the role of the United States in Europe following World War
    II under the Marshall Plan, when we invested a lot of money and
    then left economically.
        I guess I ask you will tribes ever embrace self-sufficiency
    as an element of self-determination?
        Mr. Gover. I think a number of them do. The answer is yes,
    in my opinion.
        I think right now one of the problems, not to get too
    philosophical, is the tribes right now and for the last century
    have lived in an era of scarcity. So any single Federal dollar
    or any dollar of any type, it is very frightening to them to
    lose it. And even those who are finding enormous success right
    now are probably finding it a little bit hard to believe and
    are worried that it may be gone tomorrow.

                                 indian gaming

        In fact, in the case of gaming, it could be gone tomorrow
    were the Congress to change its policy in that regard.
        But I think as the tribes begin to sort of enjoy prosperity
    and we have a generation of people who have seen nothing but
    success, I could easily imagine a day where a tribe just says I
    don't think we need this money anymore, or at least that there
    are places that need it more than we do.
        I am working with some of the tribes that are doing well at
    the moment in sort of making that request of them to allow us
    to spend that money in places where it is much more needed than
    it is in their community.
        Senator Gorton. We are getting to the next series. I think
    it was a week ago yesterday that the Washington Post reported
    on a dispute involving an Indian casino and noted that the
    Shakopee-Sioux of Minnesota each earn an estimated $600,000 a
    year from their gambling operations. The Pequots in Connecticut
    are another example.
        Do you know how many tribes make per capita distributions?
        Mr. Gover. It's under 30. That is our latest information.
    Mr. Chairman, I will answer it that way, but I will also
    reserve the right to go back and add to that answer.
        Senator Gorton. Please do so. It is a serious question and
    it would be good to have it in the record.
        [The information follows:]
                 Indian Tribes Making Per Capita Distributions
        Based on information obtained from the General Accounting Office,
    there are 44 tribes that make per capita distributions. These tribes
    are listed below. The per capita distributions are made from a variety
    of sources, ranging from trust fund expenditures, general fund
    expenditures, litigation awards, enterprise distributions, and gaming
    revenues.
                                 Area and Tribe
    Minneapolis:
        Saginaw Chippewa.
        Sac and Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa.
        Ho-Chunk Nation.
        Prairie Island Community.
        Lower Sioux Indian Community.
        Stockbridge-Munsee Community.
    Phoenix:
        Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache.
        Ute.
        Las Vegas Paiute.
        Cocopah.
        Fallon Paiute-Shoshone.
        Ak-chin Indian Community.
        Fort Mojave.
    Eastern:
        Seminole Tribe of Florida.
        Coushatta Tribe of LA.
        Eastern Band of Cherokee.
        Penobscot Indian Nation.
        Seneca Nation of Indians.
        Passamaquoddy, Joint Tribal Council.
    Portland:
        Yakama Indian Nation.
        Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation.
        Confederated Tribes, Warm Springs Reservation.
        Cow Creek Umpqua.
    Sacramento:
        Barona Group Capitan Grande.
        Soboba Band of Mission Indians.
        Morongo Band, Mission Indians.
        Table Mountain Rancheria.
        Trinidad Rancheria.
    Self Governance:
        Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe.
        Confed Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
        Cabazon Band, Mission Indians.
        Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council.
        Redding Rancheria.
        Squaxin Island.
    Aberdeen:
        Standing Rock Sioux.
        Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.
        Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
        Winnebago Tribe of NE.
    Albuquerque:
        Ute Mountain Ute.
        Mescalero Apache.
        Southern Ute.
        Pueblo of Laguna.
    Anadarko: Cheyenne-Arapaho.
    Billings: Eastern Shoshone, Wind River.

                         profits from business ventures

        Senator Gorton. I asked your predecessor and I ask you now
    why it is not appropriate for Congress to consider the profits
    that tribes make from each of their business ventures in
    determining how much money the taxpayer should distribute to
    those tribes for their basic governmental activities.

                          funding for indian programs

        Mr. Gover. As to certain matters, Senator, it clearly is
    appropriate. It already is done. One-third of tribal priority
    allocations are not distributed on a formula basis. They are
    distributed on a need basis. So a community that has no need
    for general assistance, or for housing improvement, or does not
    meet the criteria for our roads program, does not receive any
    of those funds.
        There is another category of expenditures that goes
    directly to the Federal trust that is acknowledged, basically
    our responsibility for trust property, be it money, water,
    land, et cetera. Clearly, that should not be withdrawn simply
    because it is a Federal obligation to do that.
        That leaves a third category of funds that I believe really
    are discretionary and do not necessarily reflect a legal
    obligation of the United States but, instead, are sort of based
    on historical factors and historical conditions that may no
    longer exist.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Yes?
        Senator Domenici. Would you yield for an observation and a
    question?
        Senator Gorton. Of course.

                 private sector business on indian reservations

        Senator Domenici. First of all, I think you are familiar
    with the lengths we went to to try to encourage the private
    sector to establish itself on Indian lands and hire Indian
    people. Five years ago in a tax bill we passed for the first
    time a major incentive package for Indian country.
        I have tried it on with private sector people who were
    thinking of moving to a city that is not Indian. I say: if you
    had these credits--accelerated depreciation, 20 percent credit
    on your corporate tax for salaries paid to employees earning
    $25,000 or less so long as the business was in this town--would
    you move here?
        Nobody will turn you down. That is beyond anything anybody
    is offering businesses to move from one location to another or
    to expand.
        There is another benefit in there also that I have missed,
    but those two are enormous.
        Now it is very interesting to me. In fact, as you speak
    here, I am wondering if I might impose on the Secretary. I
    wonder if you might try to find out--though I don't think you
    can--how many businesses and Indian tribes have availed
    themselves of this law. It was in one of the Omnibus tax bills.
        The reason I raise this is because I do believe that when
    you see such a generous incentive for private sector movement
    to the reservations--and this is my assumption with you and my
    enlightened guess--the use is going to be found to be
    principally, Mr. Secretary, the building of facilities and
    using the accelerated depreciation, so that they are building
    an office center next to a city and that is going to yield
    rent. They get to accelerate the depreciation so significantly
    that they will choose an Indian reservation or between
    Albuquerque and Santa Fe. If you build one of those trading
    marts and you build that on Indian land, you get almost double
    the depreciation, so that is a very attractive place to move
    it.
        When it comes to a call center that might need 150 people
    to use telephones, even if we had 700 qualified Indian people,
    the question is would they consider it with the accelerated
    depreciation and the overwhelming credit against income tax
    that nobody else gets. The answer is probably no. That is what
    we have to look at.
        Senator Gorton. The difficulty there, of course, is the
    difficulty that we have in State competition for new
    enterprises.
        Sure, people will take that. But in a sense it is a zero-
    sum game. The business that takes advantage of these tax
    advantages is not located somewhere else where it is going to
    contribute to the tax base of a community. True development is
    going to come when you can win on the basis of equal
    opportunities in both places.
        Senator Domenici. What I am suggesting is that none of this
    is going to work to pull a business out of a place and move it
    to another. It is going to be where they want to expand. That
    expansion is occurring all over the country. Some are choosing
    your State, my State, and you offer incentives as we offer
    incentives.
        I know you would like to have zero incentives on the tax
    side and have it all stand on its own, or maybe you would, I
    gather.
        Senator Gorton. We have just gone through debate over this
    Nucor Steel Corp., that is playing Washington and Oregon, and I
    think also Idaho and California, like a drum over who will give
    it the greatest number of incentives. Interestingly enough, our
    legislature decided to tell them to go somewhere else, that we
    were not going to give them a competitive advantage over
    others. It's easier to do when you are doing very well, as we
    are.
        Senator Domenici. Yes; I was just going to say that.
        Senator Gorton. There is no question about that.
        Senator Domenici. But, Mr. Chairman, the point I am making
    is that Congress did decide and there were very few objectors
    to a 10-year program--it is not forever--to see whether this
    would work.
        Senator Gorton. Your question as to let's see how it will
    work is a very good question.
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Can you try to do that, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Gover. We will try to do that.
        Senator Gorton. I think that will be a fascinating answer,
    to see what, in fact, has taken place as a result of it.
        [The information follows:]

     Incentives To Encourage Private Sector Business on Indian Reservations

        Issue: Can the Bureau report how many non-Indian business
    enterprises have taken advantage of tax incentives in an
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation bill by relocating to Indian
    reservations?
        Response: The most recent compilation of returns on IRS
    Form 8835, showing employment tax credits, totaled 88 returns.
    Accelerated depreciation is not broken out to show which
    enterprises are on Indian reservations. This information came
    from Brian Francis at the IRS Statistical Information Service,
    202/874-0410.

                          tpa task force distribution

        Unfortunately, I have another 12 o'clock appointment and I
    have not gotten into tribal priority allocations except
    incidentally. But you know how disappointed we were, and I
    think you were disappointed, in what took place last year with
    the division of the $24 million general increase when, in
    effect, we just finessed need and divided up evenly. That is an
    issue that is not going to go away, Mr. Secretary, as you know.
    And you have described three different ways in which we deal
    with some of these moneys, depending on their source and the
    degree of obligation in connection with them.
        But I do not think it is supportable at this point in our
    history, and with the needs that Senator Domenici has talked
    about for education and the like that do not deal directly with
    the governmental activities of Indian tribes, where we are
    going to come up with that extra money for education is
    something I would like very much to do, but I don't know.
        Senator Domenici, with my strong support, has not passed a
    budget resolution that is going to allow us to come up with the
    President's recommended budgets. I am not going to get an
    allocation for this subcommittee that equals what the President
    has come up with.
        Senator Domenici. In its totality.
        Senator Gorton. Yes; in its totality. That's right.
        That seems to me to tell us that we need to be spending our
    money more wisely and on more urgent priorities than we have
    done in the past. In this respect, we are not going to be able
    to do it right unless you, in the position you are in, give us
    a way to distribute money for TPA in a more equitable fashion
    than we have in the past--equitable among the various Indian
    tribes and Nations, where history has led us to a position that
    is truly irrational. We must determine whether or not either
    some of that money that is going where it is not so greatly
    needed should go to other TPA needs or whether it should go to
    another Indian program, like those that Senator Domenici is
    talking about.
        We don't have an awful lot of time to do that and to do it
    right. To go through another year in which we just squeeze
    everything down and have the same kind of conversations we have
    had here today, as we had a year ago, another year from now I
    don't think is serving the taxpayers well, I don't think it is
    serving the Indian community well, and I don't think it is
    serving anyone well.
        So I am going to have to submit the rest of these questions
    to you in writing. But to help us come up with a way to take
    this large amount of money--obviously you cannot necessarily
    talk about the $7.5 billion, but the $2 billion or so--and see
    to it that it gets spent to meet the goals that you outlined in
    an answer to my earlier question, or comes closer to meeting
    it, in my opinion is the highest priority we have.
        Mr. Gover. Senator, we will look forward to doing that. We
    would like to work with you on some short-term priorities for
    fiscal year 1999. I think there are a few small things that we
    can do to begin to make TPA more clearly reflect the need out
    there.
        For the long-term, before you arrived, we described an
    effort we are undertaking to conduct this study of need and now
    to evaluate need on a consistent basis across the country. Once
    we know what that figure is, we can, I think, better understand
    what our priorities ought to be.
        Senator Gorton. I must say that I have a great deal more
    confidence in the BIA under your leadership than I had
    previously seriously to address that subject and seriously to
    come up with that. If I get the commitment in the course of the
    next year that we will get that broad set of recommendations, I
    will be happy to work with you on the small, temporary fixes
    this year. We will try to come out at the same point.
        Senator Domenici, if you have anything more, you can stay
    and ask as many questions as you want.
        Senator Domenici. I have no more. I just wanted to stay
    around and listen to your last remarks that you just made. They
    are wonderful.
        In Indian country, they are going to be very excited to
    hear what you just said.
        We thank you very much.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gorton. All right, thank you. There will be some
    additional questions which will be submitted for your response
    in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing.]

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Additional Committee Questions
        In your statement you said that Congress might want to consider (1)
    financial information for all tribes, (2) more complete information on
    the financial resources of the tribes, and (3) more reliable
    information.
        Question. How can Congress collect this information? What changes
    to the law would allow this?
        Answer. Congress could enact legislation to collect more complete
    information. Such legislation could require each federally recognized
    tribe to annually provide an audited comprehensive financial statement
    to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as a pre-condition of receiving
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). These statements could be required
    to conform to generally accepted accounting principles, include
    operations of all activities and programs directly or indirectly
    controlled by each tribe and its sub-units, and report income from
    business enterprises. Such information could be made available to the
    Congress when needed.
        The GAO regularly evaluates and comments on Federal programs at
    Congress' request.
        Question. Is the GAO confident about Congress' expenditure of about
    $800 million per year for the BIA TPA program? Is this a good program?
        Answer. Although these questions are beyond the scope of the work
    we conducted, our work does raise concerns because BIA could not
    articulate reasons for how the base funds--about $500 million last
    year--were distributed. And while the non-base funds--about $250
    million last year--were generally distributed on the basis of specific
    formulas, we did not evaluate those formulas to determine how
    effectively they addressed tribal needs and relative priorities. To
    further address these questions, we would want to better understand the
    goals and performance measures that BIA has identified for TPA, as well
    as the tribes' needs and relative priorities for TPA funds. BIA sees
    TPA as a way to pursue Indian self-determination, and we did not try to
    determine how well it is succeeding in this regard.
        Question. What constitutional or other legal barriers are there to
    Congress legislating financial reporting by the tribes?
        Answer. Congress has the authority to enact legislation requiring
    federally recognized tribes to annually provide financial statements as
    a pre-condition to receiving TPA. Before enacting such legislation,
    Congress may want to carefully analyze and consider its impact on other
    legislation and, if appropriate, the process by which TPA funds are
    presently distributed.
              bia method of appraising rent value of indian lands
        The Committee is concerned that the BIA process for appraising the
    rental value of Indian lands fails to appraise accurately those lands
    at the preset fair annual rental value. In particular, a previous GAO
    study reported that the BIA appraisals of the rental values of idle
    lands within the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State were
    unrealistically high. These appraisals undermine the ability of Indian
    tribes wishing to rent lands to market their lands at competitive
    prices. Further, these flawed appraisal practices place unwarranted
    financial hardship on lessees. Last year, the Committee included report
    language directing GAO to conduct an audit and provide recommendations
    on the BIA method of appraising the rent value of Indian lands by April
    1--three weeks ago.
        Question. Has the GAO completed that audit?
        Answer. GAO has not begun this audit, due to staffing constraints.
    We discussed our staffing constraints with congressional staff in
    November 1997 and again in January 1998; we agreed at those meetings to
    defer the start of this work until after we finish our current review
    of TPA or additional staff become available. Additional staff did not
    become available, and we now plan to begin this work in June 1998,
    shortly after our TPA report is issued.
        Question. When can we expect to receive the completed study?
        Answer. After GAO begins its work in June and gains enough
    knowledge to develop our proposed audit approach, we will meet with the
    congressional staff to discuss our preliminary observations and to
    determine our reporting timeframes.
        Question. Do you know what the GAO's recommendations will be?
        Answer. Not at this time.
                                     ______

                     Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
        Question. In determining how the Tribal Priority Allocations have
    historically been distributed, what criteria did you find for defining
    ``need'' in a tribe?
        Answer. Determining criteria for defining tribal needs was beyond
    the scope of our review. While Interior officials noted that
    adjustments to TPA base funds may have been made over time in
    consideration of specific tribal circumstances--which could include
    identifying tribal needs--criteria for making such decisions were
    unclear. Non-base funds consider tribal needs through distribution
    formulas identifying factors such as the number of miles of roads (for
    road maintenance funds), but we did not evaluate those formulas to
    determine how effectively they addressed tribal needs and relative
    priorities. The 1994 BIA task force recommended that tribes with fewer
    than 1,500 members receive at least $160,000 in TPA funds (or $200,000
    in Alaska), which in effect used these dollar criteria to define the
    ``needs'' of small tribes to develop basic self-government capacity;
    however, we did not find any analysis regarding the appropriateness or
    basis for these criteria.
        Question. Are factors such as land value, population, law
    enforcement, and schools variable enough among tribes to be considered
    in addition to revenue?
        Answer. Of these factors, our statement addressed only variances in
    service populations, which ranged from a low of about 42,000 Indians in
    the Billings area to over 225,000 Indians in the Navajo area. Interior
    officials told us that differences in TPA funds between areas could
    reflect differences between tribes in the extent of their land
    holdings, their responsibilities for law enforcement, the scope of
    government services they provide, and their tribal memberships.
                                     ______

                      Question Submitted by Senator Burns
        Question. What can we, as Congress, do to ensure that funding uses
    are being reported correctly by the BIA and the tribes themselves?
        Answer. Congress can continue to encourage accurate reporting by
    BIA--and, in turn, by the tribes--through its budget and oversight
    hearings. In addition to reporting under the Single Audit Act, tribes
    are also monitored by BIA to assure compliance with contract
    provisions, where applicable.
                                     ______

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

                         Additional Committee Questions
                             protest in ward valley
        In February 1996, Deputy Secretary Garamendi announced that the
    Department intended to conduct additional testing on BLM land in Ward
    Valley before deciding whether to transfer the property to California
    for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. These tests have
    now been indefinitely postponed because of the illegal occupation of
    the Ward Valley site by protesters, who are alleged to be members of
    the American Indian Movement.
        All Federal rangers have been withdrawn from the area. For the past
    six weeks, the protesters have refused the BLM access. Senator
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee, has sent two letters to Secretary Babbitt, inquiring of him
    the details of the Department's plans to resolve the matter. As I
    understand it, the responses have been less than enlightening.
        Question 1. What role has the BIA had in any of the activities
    going on at Ward Valley?
        Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover is conducting government-to-
    government consultations with the tribal leadership of the Quechan,
    Colorado River Indian Tribe, Cocopah, Fort Mojave, and Chemehuevi
    Tribes.
        Question 2. Who are the protesters, and are they recognized Tribes?
        Answer. Aside from members of the five Tribes listed above, the
    Department cannot confirm the identities of the protestors. However,
    individuals identifying themselves as representatives of the American
    Indian Movement and environmental organizations are known to be among
    the protesters on site at Ward Valley. The Department is in government-
    to-government consultations only with the leadership of the five Tribes
    mentioned above.
        Secretary Babbitt, in his letter to Chairman Murkowski dated April
    20, 1998, said we are engaging in ``government to government
    consultations'' with the criminal trespassers on federal land.
        Question 3. Why are we negotiating with criminal trespassers on
    federal land?
        Answer. The Department supports a peaceful resolution to the
    conflicts at Ward Valley that avoids confrontation and will allow
    permitted activities to proceed. The Department believes every effort
    must be made to resolve the situation peacefully, through means which
    do not raise the potential of physical confrontation and possible
    violence and injury.
        Question 4. Is any of the land at issue recognized by the federal
    government as tribal land?
        Answer. The land at issue in Ward Valley is owned by the federal
    government. None of the land is tribal land.
        Question 5. Why has Assistant Secretary Gover been called to the
    site to negotiate?
        Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover is assisting the Department to
    reach a peaceful resolution to the conflicts at Ward Valley in a way
    that avoids physical confrontation.
        Question 6. Has the Department consulted with, or sought the
    assistance of, the Department of Justice?
        Answer. No assistance has been requested from the Department of
    Justice. The Department has provided information on the status of the
    situation to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the context of DOJ
    representation in several lawsuits related to the Ward Valley site. The
    Department did have informal contact with the Community Relations
    Service of the Justice Department and advised them of the situation.
    BLM also has notified the office of the United States Attorney, Central
    District of California, and the FBI to inform them of the trespass
    situation. Again, the Department desires to resolve the situation in a
    manner that avoids confrontation through government-to-government
    consultations. Under these circumstances, the Department believes that
    the situation does not require at this time the assistance of the DOJ.
        A copy of a memo prepared by a staff person with the California
    Department of Health Services was forwarded to my staff. In that memo,
    the staff person said he had been to the site twice, and was
    accompanied at least once by a BLM Ranger, who identified at least one
    of the vehicles being driven on and off the protest site by protesters
    as a BIA vehicle.
        Question 7. Are BIA vehicles being used by the protesters?
        Answer. No, to our knowledge, BIA vehicles are not being used by
    the protesters on the Ward Valley site.
        Assistant Secretary John Berry sent a memo to the Acting Inspector
    General on March 27 requesting an immediate investigation into the
    tribal protests at Ward Valley. Mr. Berry specifically noted that there
    might be legal limitations applicable to appropriated funds. I can
    assure you that there are limitations on what Federally appropriated
    funds can be used for.
        Question 8. What is the status of the Inspector General's
    investigation?
        Answer. The Inspector General is actively pursuing the
    investigation requested by Assistant Secretary Berry. Because the
    investigation is currently open, the Inspector General is not in a
    position to comment further at this time.
                       tribal priority allocations (tpa)
        As Federal resources decline, the other resources of the tribes
    might have to be considered when Congress is forced to choose among
    them for Federal funding. As the Federal discretionary budget shrinks,
    I believe the Tribes with the least and the fewest opportunities should
    get the most Federal assistance.
        Last year, I tried to direct the BIA to develop a new allocation
    method for TPA funds, which are distributed based on historical funding
    levels bearing little if any relation to current needs. In the end, the
    Congress agreed to a compromise in which the increase was distributed
    based on recommendations of a Task Force of tribal leaders from each
    BIA area.
        It was disheartening to learn that the Task Force recommended
    splitting the $24 million general increase equally 12 ways among the 12
    BIA areas. Thus, for example, the 227 tribes of Alaska had $2 million
    to spend and the only Tribe in the Navajo Area, the Navajo Nation, had
    $2 million to itself. I was hopeful that the Task Force would have
    developed some better recommendations.
        Question 9. The Secretary had the authority under the compromise
    language in section 118 to make the distribution if the Task Force was
    unable to get support from a majority of Task Force members. Although a
    majority did agree to the split, not all members support the split. Did
    the 1/12th split make sense to you?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary understood section 118 to say if a
    majority of the Task Force identified a particular allocation, we did
    not have the discretion to say no. It was only if the Task Force failed
    to produce a majority interpretation that the Secretary could have
    taken the task on himself. Had the decision been left to the Assistant
    Secretary and the Deputy Commissioner the distribution would have been
    much different.
        I understand that a number of other proposals were discussed by the
    Task Force, although none were adopted.
        Question 10. Did the BIA or the Task Force keep records of these
    proposals and the factors that the area representatives suggested be
    considered?
        Answer. The Bureau taped the initial Task Force meeting.
        Question 11. Do you believe that consideration of some of the
    factors, like population, land base, joblessness, and other tribal
    financial resources, would make good sense in developing a new
    distribution method?
        Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the TPA work group have
    discussed each of these factors as variables to consider in a new TPA
    allocation system. It is important that we realize this situation is
    complex. While it seems to make sense to relate job training or adult
    vocational training to joblessness, if the reservation is remote
    relative to job opportunities, the success of training may be limited.
    With the other variables such as land base and population, what is
    important for program funding distribution is what is on the land base
    and the composition of the population. It does not make sense to give
    forestry program funding on land base, if the land has no forests.
    Likewise, it does not make sense to distribute housing improvement
    funding on population, when a tribe does not have housing improvement
    needs.
        The relevance of other tribal financial resources is also complex.
    In the case where the Tribe's wealth comes from a legislated settlement
    that states the settlement is not to be considered in future
    appropriations, the Bureau intends to follow that law. However, the
    Assistant Secretary is attempting in fiscal year 1999 to get certain of
    the most prosperous Tribes to voluntarily return their allocations of
    TPA funds to be redistributed to the most needy Tribes. The Committee
    can assist by including language in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations
    bill that assures Tribes that the return of TPA funds in no way
    diminishes a Tribe's rights and relationship with the Federal
    government.
                             contract support costs
        Following enactment of the Indian Self Determination Act, it became
    the policy of the government to contract to the Tribes that want to
    participate the functions of the Bureau that are not inherently
    Federal. Later, it was decided that Tribes should get, in addition to
    the funds that would have gone to the agency to provide the service,
    additional overhead money--hence ``contract support.'' So, today, it
    costs the Federal government more to have the Tribes provide BIA
    services than if the BIA had provided these services--significantly
    more. The BIA has requested $114.9 million for contract support costs
    in the fiscal year 1999 budget, a $9 million increase over fiscal year
    1998 funding.
        Question 12. Is the request sufficient to fully fund contract
    support costs, and if not, what is the estimated shortfall?
        Answer. On page BIA-59 of the Bureau's fiscal year 1999 Budget
    Justifications, is a table that displays the estimated shortfall
    expected in fiscal year 1999. The total need for fiscal year 1999 is
    estimated to be about $128.3 million while the amount requested for
    contract support is $114.9 million. This leaves about a 10 percent or
    $13.4 million shortfall.
        The budget request includes an increase of $4 million and includes
    an internal transfer of $5 million from the Indian Self-Determination
    Funds, for new and expanded contracts.
        Question 13. Is the estimated shortfall related totally to existing
    contracts for ongoing programs, or is the Bureau anticipating entering
    into new contracts with Tribes to take over Bureau programs, despite a
    growing shortfall?
        Answer. The estimated shortfall is related totally to existing
    contracts for ongoing programs. Tribes contracting new or expanded
    contracts receive their contract support funds from the Indian Self-
    Determination (ISD) Fund. The ISD fund is distributed on a first-come,
    first-served basis, until exhausted. If funds are not sufficient in a
    particular fiscal year, the new contractor must wait until the next
    year to receive their contract support funds from the ISD Fund. Funds
    are transferred annually from the ISD Fund to the contract support line
    item for existing contracts for ongoing programs.
        It now costs the United States more to pay for the programs for the
    Indians than it did when the Bureau provided the services to them. Most
    people, it seems, have come to grips with this fact, although they may
    not agree with it. However, most accept it, having been led to believe
    that, at some point in the future, costs will come down--the Indians
    will have taken over all of the programs, and will be running them
    smoothly and efficiently.
        Question 14. As discussions among lawyers for the Tribes, the
    Bureau and Committee staff have grown in response to the crisis, that
    certainty--that ultimately this is a good deal for the government in
    that the total costs will come down--has evaporated. Do you think that
    the policy of providing contract support costs over and above the
    program funding is fiscally responsible? Will costs to the Federal
    government ever decrease?
        Answer. Providing contract support costs over and above the program
    funding is fiscally responsible, as recognized in the 1988 amendments
    to the Indian Self Determination Act. Congress recognized that the
    funds the Tribes were receiving for running the same programs were less
    than what the the Department was using overall to administer the same
    programs. Bureau-operated programs are supported by other programs
    within the Bureau budget. The direct program funds for Bureau operated
    programs do not include the cost of GSA rental space, telephones,
    postal costs, insurance, retirement, etc. These are the types of costs
    Tribes receive through contract support.
        Question 15. Despite being unpopular, why doesn't it make fiscal
    sense to stop extending new contracts if the Bureau doesn't have the
    money, and knows it doesn't, to support them?
        Answer. Such a decision is not within the authority of the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs. Congress enacted Public Law 93-638 as amended, which
    allows Tribes to contract Bureau programs at any time. Promoting self-
    determination is the core of the Bureau's mission and the first and
    most important of its Strategic Plan Goals. To deny Tribes the
    opportunity for self-government/self-determination goes against the
    government-to-government policy the federal government has with Indian
    Tribes. Such a policy change would deteriorate or destroy the
    government-to-government relationship the federal government has
    developed with the Indian Nations of this country.
        The Bureau is in litigation on several fronts regarding shortfalls
    in contract support costs funding. Recent Federal court decisions from
    the D.C. Circuit, the Tenth Circuit and the Oregon District Court have
    held that contract support costs are an entitlement of sorts. One case,
    in particular, Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, in the 10th Circuit, has
    been brought to the Committee's attention. In part, the holding
    required BIA to pay contracting and compacting Tribes support cost
    shortfalls of other Federal or State programs. Thus if a state or
    another Federal agency does not fully fund contract support, BIA has to
    make up the difference.
        Question 16. What is the status of the contract support cost
    litigation? Is BIA appealing these decisions?
        Answer. There are currently two pending cases involving contract
    support. In the first case, Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, the
    Department did not appeal the decision rendered by the US Court of
    Appeals, 10th Circuit. The Department is currently in partial
    settlement negotiations with the class of plaintiffs in Ramah Navajo
    Chapter. In the second case, the Department has requested that the
    Department of Justice support an appeal of the decision by the Interior
    Board of Contract Appeals (IBCA) in the consolidated appeals of Alamo
    Navajo School Board, Inc. and Miccosukee Corporation. In Alamo Navajo
    the IBCA ruled that the language included in the DOI Appropriations
    Bills in fiscal year 1994-1998 capping contract support costs did not
    limit the Department's liability to fully fund contract support costs.
        Question 17. What is the status particularly of the Ramah case? Why
    did the BIA and the Justice Department decide not to appeal the
    decision? How much is a settlement of Ramah going to cost the
    government?
        Answer. The Government is now in the process of negotiating a
    partial settlement agreement with the plaintiff class which will settle
    the claims from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 1993. Plaintiffs
    have reserved their claims from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year
    1998 pending a final determination in Miccosukee Corporation. The
    Department estimates that the partial settlement agreement will be
    completed this summer. Because settlement negotiations are ongoing and
    because the class has reserved some of its claims, the cost of settling
    the case is currently unknown.
        The law requires that the settlement come from the Judgment Fund.
    Further, the law provides that the Judgment Fund be reimbursed from the
    operating funds of the Federal agency found liable--in this case, the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Question 18. From the BIA's perspective, were the Tribes well-
    informed by their attorneys or the Bureau that the settlement of a
    lawsuit for contract support costs would ultimately come from the
    budget of the very agency on which they rely for the bulk of their
    Federal support? Who is going to get rich from this litigation?
        Answer. The Bureau assumes that Plaintiffs' attorneys were well-
    informed that under the Contract Disputes Act the Department may be
    required to reimburse the Judgment Fund either from available funds or
    by obtaining additional appropriations for this purpose. Plaintiffs'
    attorneys were also informed that if the Department is required to
    reimburse the Judgment Fund without a supplemental appropriation for
    this purpose, appropriations for the Operation of Indian Programs
    Tribal Priority Allocations will be impacted. No one is expected to get
    rich from this litigation.
        Question 19. The law is settled in this area, wouldn't you agree,
    that the settlement must be repaid from the Bureau budget?
        Answer. Under the Contract Disputes Act, a judgment against the
    United States that is paid out of the judgment fund shall be reimbursed
    ``by the agency whose appropriation were used for the contract out of
    available funds or by obtaining additional appropriations for such
    purposes.'' 41 U.S.C. Sec. 612(c).
        Question 20. How is BIA dealing with the crisis?
        Answer. Because Ramah Navajo Chapter deals with other agency short-
    falls in the payment of contract support, not BIA short-falls, the
    Department is exploring various avenues for determining the extent to
    which other agencies may need to share in reimbursing the Judgment
    Fund. In addition, the Department has discussed with Treasury the
    option of repaying the Judgment Fund over a period of years instead of
    out of a single year's appropriation budget.
        Question 21. Do you believe the Bureau has an obligation to bring
    to Congress a proposal on how the government will deal with contract
    support in the future?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary is addressing the issue of contract
    support funding and plans to present a permanent solution to Congress
    in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        Question 22. Do you have a proposal for the Committee? Will you be
    able to provide one to us for fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. Please see the answer to question 21.
        Question 23. Does the BIA intend to submit a request for new bill
    language that it feels will be sufficient to reduce its liability? What
    is the status of a long term solution from the Department or the
    Bureau? In the absence of a solution or knowledge of the total
    liability for past and current shortfalls, why shouldn't contracting
    and compacting be held flat?
        Answer. Yes, new bill language is included in the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget to reduce liability exposure. The Assistant
    Secretary is forming a work group to develop options for a long-term
    solution to the issue of contract support funding. Holding contracting
    or compacting flat or placing a moratorium on new contracting under
    Public Law 93-638 is not possible under current law. Public Law 93-638
    gives Tribes and tribal organizations the option of whether and/or when
    to contract. Any limitation of that would not only be seen as counter
    to the Administration's policy of supporting and strengthening tribal
    self-determination, but would require substantive amendments to Public
    Law 93-638.
        In your testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee in February,
    you noted that there are ``some disparities in the contract support
    requests that are made by the Tribes.''
        Question 24. Could the BIA be more specific about what disparities
    exist?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary was referring to the disparity
    found in the wide range of indirect cost rates that Tribes and tribal
    organizations have negotiated. The issue of how indirect cost rates are
    estimated and negotiated will be examined by the Assistant Secretary's
    work group referred to in the answer to question 23.
        Question 25. What is the current method for determining contract
    support costs?
        Answer. The Bureau utilizes tribal indirect cost rates negotiated
    with the Office of the Inspector General to determine the amount of
    contract support recipients are eligible to recover. In a very small
    percentage of cases where Tribes or tribal organizations cannot
    negotiate rates, the Bureau negotiates lump sum amounts.
        Question 26. Is a single formula applied to all Tribes? To all
    programs? What are the factors considered?
        Answer. No single formula is applied to all tribal contractors.
    Rather, indirect cost rates as negotiated by the Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG) are used as the basis for determining contract
    support costs. Once the OIG negotiates a rate with each Tribe, this
    rate (percentage) is applied to the direct program amount. In instances
    where the appropriated amount available for contract support costs does
    not meet the overall contract support needs for the fiscal year, each
    contract support recipient shares in that shortfall on a pro-rated
    basis.
        Question 27. What government branch, if any, assists the Bureau in
    evaluating contract support costs?
        Answer. The Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector
    General independently negotiates the indirect costs rates which are
    used as the basis for estimating contract support requirements.
                       law enforcement in indian country
        The Administration has identified law enforcement in Indian Country
    as a top priority. Secretary Babbitt addressed the need in his remarks
    to this subcommittee several weeks ago. The Administration is proposing
    $182 million in new funding for several initiatives--most of it in the
    Department of Justice accounts. The Department of Justice has proposed
    $157 million for targeted law enforcement programs in Indian Country
    ($105 million) and for Indian detention center construction ($52
    million).
        Funding in the BIA budget for general law enforcement initiatives
    for fiscal year 1999 is proposed at $116.9 million, including a $25
    million new initiative and $71.5 million in TPA.
        Attorney General Reno and Secretary Babbitt submitted the Final
    Report of the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law Enforcement
    Improvements to the President on January 20, 1998. In that report they
    recommended the removal of law enforcement funds from the TPA accounts
    and establishment of law enforcement as a distinct line item in the
    Interior budget. The President's budget was completed before the
    submission of the recommendations of the Attorney General and the
    Secretary, and so, could not reflect the recommendations of Attorney
    General Reno and Secretary Babbitt.
        Question 28. Does the Bureau support the recommendations regarding
    the removal of law enforcement funding from TPA and establishment of a
    protected line item in the Bureau budget?
        Answer. The intent behind the joint position of the Secretary of
    the Interior and the Attorney General as outlined in the January 20,
    1998, correspondence to the President was to ensure that funds
    specifically provided for the law enforcement line item were not
    redistributed to other competitive TPA programs during a given fiscal
    year. The Bureau supports this position. However, rather than transfer
    funds from the TPA Law Enforcement line item, the Bureau proposes to
    implement administrative controls on fund allocation by making the
    Office of Law Enforcement Services (OLES) responsible for the
    distribution of funds. In this regard, OLES, will have budgetary
    control of funds to ensure that law enforcement funding levels in
    fiscal year 1999 are only utilized for law enforcement needs and
    priorities. Tribes are supportive of this approach, which would
    preserve TPA funding and yet provide necessary line authority and
    budget control to OLES.
        Additionally, this procedure is also in line with Option A of the
    Final Report of the Executive Committee on the Presidential Initiative
    on Law Enforcement in Indian Country to consolidate the budgetary
    authority under OLES. Utilizing this administrative procedure--which is
    currently followed by the Bureau in the distribution of other TPA funds
    as Contract Support and Welfare--will accomplish the intent of the two
    Cabinet members to ensure that law enforcement funds remain allocated
    for law enforcement purposes as well as modifying the budgetary
    authority as proposed under Option A.
        Question 29. How does the Bureau intend to implement the
    recommendations that law enforcement funding be removed from TPA and
    consolidated in a separate line item?
        Answer. As stated previously, to ensure that TPA law enforcement
    funds are utilized for law enforcement purposes, the budgetary
    authority for distribution of these funds will be consolidated under
    the OLES as outlined in Option A of the Final Report of the Executive
    Committee on the Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian
    Country. Many Tribes have expressed concern for any movement of funds
    out of TPA. We believe the Bureau will accomplish the goal of ensuring
    that law enforcement funds are utilized for law enforcement purposes
    through the aforementioned administrative control of fund allocation
    through the OLES. Distribution of TPA law enforcement funds will then
    be under the direction of experienced, professionally trained law
    enforcement personnel who can provide professional law enforcement
    assessments of relative needs and priorities. Therefore, this change in
    administrative procedure will accomplish the goal of ensuring that law
    enforcement funds are utilized for law enforcement needs and priorities
    as well as implementing the consolidation of budgetary authority as
    included under Option A.
        The Final Report from the Secretary and the Attorney General stated
    that ``mechanisms must be put into place to ensure that law enforcement
    funds are used only for law enforcement purposes.
        Subcommittee staff have informed me that the Office of Management
    and Budget have said that ``no TPA is protected.'' In other words, if
    law enforcement funds are provided in TPA, Congress cannot dictate that
    the Tribes actually use the funds for law enforcement. I understand
    also that Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, John
    Berry, was asked about this and he agreed with the OMB.
        Question 30. What ``mechanism'' does the Bureau intend be employed
    to ensure that the law enforcement funds are used for law enforcement?
        Answer. The Bureau will implement administrative procedures to
    consolidate the budgetary authority under the OLES similar to the fund
    control procedures in place for distribution of other non-base TPA
    programs such as Contract Support and Welfare. The OLES will be
    responsible for distribution of all law enforcement funds appropriated
    to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        In addition to the TPA funding, the Bureau has requested $25
    million in the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead Activity for a new
    initiative on ``improving law enforcement in Indian Country.''
        Question 31. Does the Bureau support moving the TPA funding to the
    Special Programs account? Is this what Secretary Babbitt and Attorney
    General Reno had in mind in their recommendation?
        Answer. As stated previously, the intent behind the joint position
    of the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General as outlined
    in the January 20, 1998, correspondence to the President with regards
    to removing funds from TPA was to ensure that funds specifically
    provided for the law enforcement line item were not redistributed to
    other competitive TPA programs during a given fiscal year. The Bureau
    supports the position of ensuring that law enforcement funds provided
    under Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are utilized for law
    enforcement needs and priorities. It is felt this can be accomplished
    by implementing the consolidation of the budgetary authority of these
    funds under OLES as outlined in Option A along with administrative
    controls which restricts movement of these funds out of the TPA law
    enforcement line item. These controls will be similar to those
    currently in place for non-base TPA programs like Contract Support and
    Welfare. Additionally, in keeping in line with Option A, the Bureau is
    consolidating the remaining law enforcement funds currently at the Area
    \1\ and Central office \2\ levels to the Special Programs activity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Funds currently at the Area level in the budget category, Area
    Office Operations are as follows: Law Enforcement.
        \2\ Funds currently in other accounts than Special Programs at the
    Central Office level are as follows: Non-Recurring Operations: Special
    Law Enforcement and Central Office Operations: Law Enforcement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal year 1999
    budget, Assistant Secretary Gover stated: ``We haven't fully determined
    how we'd allocate the funds for law enforcement, but we suspect that it
    would not be unlike the way we're allocating the other funds in the
    Tribal Priority Allocations.''
        Question 32. In light of the Attorney General's and Secretary's
    recommendations, does the BIA now have a different plan for the
    intended use of BIA law enforcement funding it can share with the
    Committee?
        Answer. With attention currently focused on improving the
    distribution methodology of Federal monies to Indian Tribes, the BIA
    plans to distribute the $25.0 million request based on analysis of law
    enforcement and detention needs in Indian Country. Combined efforts by
    the BIA and the DOJ are underway to contact Tribes to obtain the latest
    data available to analyze and evaluate need, focusing in such areas as
    population, land base, crime statistics, training, manpower/staffing,
    and equipment. This data will allow the BIA to complete a professional
    law enforcement assessment of relative needs and priorities. The
    assessment will allow funding decisions to be made based on identified
    law enforcement and detention needs. The Initiative is a multi-fiscal
    year effort and, considering the extreme needs at some locations,
    priorities will be established.
        Question 33. Will Tribes in Alaska, which is a Public Law 280
    state, be able to take advantage of the Administration's focus on law
    enforcement for Natives?
        Answer. Alaska Native Tribes may apply for grants offered by the
    DOJ. Village public safety personnel are eligible for training programs
    offered through the Indian Police Academy. Currently, the Bureau does
    not provide any law enforcement services in Alaska. In fiscal year
    1999, the Bureau will address the severe shortages in Indian Country
    where there are tribal or Bureau law enforcement and detention programs
    and where there is clear tribal/Federal criminal jurisdiction. Many
    tribes in Public Law 280 or like jurisdictions have expressed their
    desire to have their own police, courts and jails. While we certainly
    agree that criminal justice systems are a part of tribal government,
    the reality is that public safety is extremely costly, particularly in
    280 jurisdictions which lack entire systems.
                             education construction
        The President's budget request includes $86.6 million in education
    construction, an increase of $32.2 million. Within that, the budget
    proposal includes $37.4 million for Replacement School Construction, an
    $18.2 million increase, and $46.2 million for Facilities Improvement
    and Repair, a $14 million program increase.
        Funds are requested for three Replacement Schools, Sac and Fox,
    Pyramid Lake, and Seba Dalkai.
        Question 34. The backlog for school repair and replacement work is
    $695 million. How long does the Bureau anticipate it will take to get
    through the backlog at the rate we're going?
        Answer. The Bureau's Facilities program backlog of repair and
    rehabilitation was $695 million at the beginning of 1998. However,
    ``replacement'' of existing schools that have exceeded their original
    design life are not considered in the $695 million figure. Rather, the
    facilities backlog figure of $695 million is based on repair and
    rehabilitation of existing facilities to meet current health and safety
    related codes and standards such as fire, electrical, mechanical, etc.
    However, over 50 percent of the Bureau funded schools exceed 30 years
    in age, and a large percentage need to be replaced as a result of age
    and condition, but also because of increased student load and the fact
    that schools do not meet modern education needs. The Bureau estimates
    that it would cost, at a minimum, $1.0 billion to replace the Bureau
    schools that have exceeded their design life, and further, it would
    take an additional $200 million to bring the other schools up to
    present standards.
        Excluding replacement, it would take over 15 years to address the
    existing education backlog of $695 million at the proposed fiscal year
    1999 budget request level of $86.6 million. If replacement of all
    schools qualifying was considered, it would exceed 20 years. This
    estimate takes into consideration that additional backlog deficiencies
    will continue to be added to the backlog annually as new needs are
    identified and as current backlog items in the BIA's database for
    funded replacement schools are totally eliminated from the backlog once
    the replacement construction is completed.
        Question 35. How many schools are still on the Replacement School
    Construction Priority List?
        Answer. There are eight schools on the BIA's Replacement School
    Priority List which remain unfunded. Three of these eight schools, Sac
    & Fox, IA (No. 10), Pyramid Lake, NV (No. 11), and Seba Dalkai, AZ (No.
    9) are being requested in the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request.
        Question 36. Does the Bureau intend to get all the way through the
    priority list before publishing a subsequent list?
        Answer. The Bureau is reviewing a plan to recommend to Congress for
    new applications for replacement school construction in early fiscal
    year 1999. Newly prioritized schools under this application process
    will be added to the existing list of unfunded replacement schools. The
    Bureau plans on consulting with Tribes and school boards during the
    summer of 1998 regarding changes to the priority setting process with
    proposed rulemaking planned for the latter part of 1998. It is
    anticipated that approximately 10 schools will be added to the
    replacement school priority list.
        Last year, we added bill language permitting the Tribes to use
    Tribal Priority Allocations funds for the replacement and repair of
    school facilities so long as the work is approved by the Secretary and
    completed with non-Federal or TPA dollars so that the Federal
    government isn't later responsible for finishing something started with
    other, more plentiful, resources.
        Question 37. Do you know if any Tribes have taken advantage of that
    language, which the Bureau retained in its request for this year?
        Answer. FMCC conducted a poll of the Area Facilities Offices
    regarding any contribution made by Tribes of TPA funds toward a major
    facility replacement or repair project. No instance of TPA funds having
    been contributed was determined at either FMCC or the Area Office
    level.
        When Congress pays for a Replacement School, it is because the
    existing school has been used beyond its life expectancy? Usually, the
    school facility is in deplorable condition by the time funding is
    available. However, after the Replacement School is built, in many
    instances the Tribe wants to keep using the old building for other
    purposes.
        Question 38. In the instances where a Tribe chooses to keep an
    obsolete school building even after a replacement is built, is the
    Bureau still responsible for upkeep?
        Answer. In instances where a Tribe chooses to keep an obsolete
    school building after it has been replaced, the Bureau is not
    responsible for the building's upkeep (i.e., facilities operation and
    maintenance). Buildings declared ``excess to Bureau needs'' are either
    sold, demolished or transferred to tribal ownership on an ``as-is''
    basis. When buildings are sold or transferred, the Bureau relinquishes
    its liability for the building.
        The budget request for Education Construction also includes $3
    million for Employee Housing Repair.
        Question 39. The budget justifications state that corrections are
    necessary for about 300 housing units. How many Bureau employee housing
    units are there, in total?
        Answer. There are a total of 4,031 Bureau housing units.
        Question 40. How many of the Bureau school employees are tribal
    members?
        Answer. The table below is an analysis of teaching professionals
    employed at Bureau schools.

                TEACHING PROFESSIONALS EMPLOYED AT BUREAU SCHOOLS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Non-                           Percent
                                    Indian    Indians     Total     Indians
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Teachers (1710 series)......        767        935      1,702         55
    Substitute teachers (1712
     series)....................         32         79        111         71
    Teachers aides (1702 series)         36      1,332      1,368         97
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Totals................        835      2,346      3,181         74
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The total number of Indians within the Bureau school system is 74
      percent, with non-Indians representing 26 percent as of June 9, 1998.

        Question 41. What percentage of Bureau employees live in local
    community housing?
        Answer. Of 10,000 Bureau employees, 2,700 live in Bureau employee
    housing units and 7,300 (or 73 percent) live in local community
    housing. Local community is defined as all locations where bureau
    Central, Area, Agency or School personnel reside, not limited to those
    communities where Bureau employee housing is available. Housing for the
    7,300 employees not in Bureau employee housing units is obtained and
    paid for by those employees. Bureau employees are defined as all
    education and non-education full time equivalent personnel. Not
    included are tribal contract, grant or compact personnel.
        We have required agencies to certify that there is no housing
    available in the local community before allowing the agencies to
    construct government housing.
        Question 42. Does the Bureau require any certification that there
    is not housing available in the local community before building or
    leasing housing?
        Answer. The Bureau requires an approved certification and
    justification prior to any new housing construction. The Bureau also
    complies with the requirement under OMB Circular A-45 for a housing
    needs assessment prior to any new construction. Because of the remote
    nature of many locations such as those in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana,
    North Dakota, and South Dakota, there is often little or no private
    housing available.
                     tribally controlled community colleges
        The President's budget request includes an increase of $5.5 million
    for Tribally Controlled Community Colleges operating grants, for a
    total of $35.4 million. This would represent an 18 percent increase.
        At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the BIA fiscal year 1999
    budget in February, Mr. Gover referred to the tribal colleges program
    as being one of the ``most effective programs that the Bureau funds''.
        Question 43. How does the Bureau measure the effectiveness of the
    tribal colleges program? Does it consider how many students graduate
    with marketable degrees? Placement rates?
        Answer. As part of the Bureau's strategic plan, performance
    indicators were established for Tribal Colleges. The indicators are
    student graduation and student enrollment rates. A measure of
    institutional effectiveness is the annual accreditation process each
    college must successfully complete and sustain. To be accredited,
    tribal colleges must meet general institutional standards established
    by the Commission on Institutions of the Northern Central Association
    of Colleges and Schools. These requirements include having: legal
    authorization to grant degrees, governing boards that possess legal
    powers to establish policies, qualified faculties appropriate to the
    level of instruction offered by the institution, a certified financial
    system and an audit every two years; and conferring degrees based on
    recognized fields of study at the higher education level. An accredited
    college must also disclose its standing with accredited bodies with
    which it is affiliated. An independent team appointed by the Commission
    reviews the school's programs and decides on a school's accreditation
    status. The Office of Indian Education Programs does not collect
    college graduate placement data.
        One of the Bureau's Performance Goals in ``Goals 2000'' is to
    increase student graduation rates from Tribally Controlled Community
    Colleges. For fiscal year 1998, the statistics show that there will be,
    roughly, 21,000 enrolled students. The Bureau expects to graduate a
    total of 932, according to the budget justifications.
        Question 44. Shouldn't about one-quarter of the student body be
    graduating in any given year? That would be over 5,000. Why are less
    than 5 percent graduating?
        Answer. In any given institution of higher education, less than 25
    percent of a given year's student body will be graduating. TCCC
    students have similar reasons for not graduating as students enrolled
    in comparable two-year institutions. Some of these reasons range from
    indecision on college majors, early employment opportunities,
    inadequate financial aid due to student enrollment classification of
    less than 12 credit hours per semester, or change of family
    responsibilities. Many TCCC students enroll in their tribal colleges
    for specific course work to enhance and improve their job skills and
    not necessarily desire to or obtain a college degree. TCCCs enrollments
    reflect a significant level of part-time enrolled students causing an
    extended graduation date other than an anticipated two-year academic
    plan.
        In past years, I have asked the BIA to comment on the standardized
    test taking (SAT, ACT) of Indian students at the high school level--
    which BIA has called ``optional''.
        Question 45. Do the TCCCs require standardized test scores for
    admissions? How do the schools screen potential students? Are they
    graduating students who will succeed in America?
        Answer. Standardized test scores are not required of students
    enrolling in TCCCs. Most colleges have an open admission policy. This
    means that all persons who are graduates of accredited high schools or
    have received GED Certificates and are at least 18 years of age are
    eligible for admission. Students who have not attained a GED or high
    school diploma may seek provisional admission under the ability to
    benefit status. Since the goal is to prepare students for work or
    higher education, they are evaluated on their level of performance and
    then take classes to prepare them for their goal.
        Question 46. Are all the tribally controlled community colleges
    accredited by the States where they're located?
        Answer. Tribal colleges comply with strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation associations. The TCCCs are accredited by regional
    accrediting organizations such as the North Central Accreditation
    Association. Several colleges, including Turtle Mountain Community
    College and Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, have reached the
    highest standards set by the accrediting agencies that enable them to
    be placed on a 10 year cycle for accreditation.
        Defenders of larger increases to funding to the Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges bring up the comparison of $2,800 spent per tribal
    student compared to roughly $4,200 spent per student at non-tribal
    community colleges.
        Question 47. Is the comparison fair, when non-tribal community
    colleges collect the amount they spend on each student from, in
    addition to the state, the communities they serve and students who
    attend? About what percentage of tribally controlled community
    colleges' funds come from federal funding alone? How many tribally
    controlled community colleges have a tuition comparable to that of non-
    tribal community colleges?
        Answer. The comparison of per student expenditures for tribal and
    non-tribal community colleges is complicated. While both types of
    schools compete for teachers and seek to provide quality programs,
    tribal colleges face many unique challenges, including being located in
    geographically isolated areas serving low-income communities.
        The intent of Public Law 95-471 was to provide base funding for
    tribal colleges. The colleges have always been allowed to seek
    additional funds for their operation. In fact, to stay competitive,
    tribal colleges charge tuition and seek other funds to provide quality
    education services and meet accreditation requirements. On average,
    when a TCCC charges tuition it is far below that charged by non-tribal
    community colleges. Also on average, approximately 50 percent of the
    operational funds for TCCCs are from the Federal government.
        Question 48. Tribes are permitted to allocate TPA dollars to the
    tribal colleges. If it's important to them, would you recommend that
    they do so? Hasn't the BIA told the Navajo to do just that for the
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico?
        Answer. In the spirit of tribal sovereignty and self-determination
    individual Tribes establish individual priorities for their own
    communities to distribute their TPA funds. Congress also provided
    Tribes complete reprogramming flexibility with revised reprogramming
    guidelines beginning in fiscal year 1993. If asked to make a
    recommendation, OIEP would encourage the expenditure of funds on
    education programs.
                        united tribes technical college
        At the Indian Affairs Committee hearing in February, 1998, Senator
    Conrad asked Mr. Gover about his commitment to the tribal community
    colleges program, which Conrad identified more specifically by noting
    that the BIA is requesting a $5.5 million increase for fiscal year
    1999.
        Mr. Gover responded not by talking about the tribally controlled
    community colleges for which the increase is requested but about the
    United Tribes Technical College, which does not meet the requirements
    for funding under title one of the TCCC Act. The Tribally Controlled
    Community Colleges Act limits funding under the BIA TCCC program to ONE
    school per Tribe. United Tribes Technical College is owned by five
    owner Tribes, each of which already has a funded Tribally Controlled
    Community College.
        Question 49. Would the Bureau please discuss the funding issue of
    the United Tribes Technical College relative to the Tribally Controlled
    Community College program? How much earmark funding has the UTTC
    received over the years? What is its BIA funding history?
        Answer. Unlike Tribally Controlled Community Colleges that are
    funded under the authorization of Titles I-IV of the Tribally
    Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, UTTC is an
    independent vocational training institution funded by the Bureau under
    its Special Programs/Pooled Overhead activity. For the past twenty
    years, UTTC has received a total of approximately $31 million in Bureau
    appropriations. This equates to roughly $1.5 million annually, not
    including contract support funds.
        The United Tribes Technical College is in the fiscal year 1999
    budget request for $1,810,000. The UTTC program provides services
    beyond post-graduate education, including child care, a residential
    setting, and elementary education services to students' families. I'm
    not certain that's a proper use of funds.
        Question 50. Would the Bureau comment on the purpose of the funding
    for the United Tribes Technical College?
        Answer. Funding for UTTC supports a tribally-controlled residential
    vocational school which offers vocational education courses and
    training at the one-year certificate and two year technical degree
    level. UTTC is a state chartered, non-profit corporation owned by five
    tribes (The Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold, the Standing Rock
    Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux, the Spirit Lake Dakota
    Nation, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) located in whole or
    in part within North Dakota. The corporation is administered by a Board
    of Directors composed of two members of each of these five Tribes.
    Located three miles south of Bismarck, North Dakota, the campus
    includes on-campus student housing for singles and families and on-
    campus day care and elementary school (K-8) services for student
    dependents.
        My staff tell me that the funding request for the United Tribes
    Technical College was not part of the original Bureau request submitted
    to the OMB.
        Question 51. If the United Tribes Technical College is a good
    program, why doesn't the Bureau request funding for UTTC in its initial
    budgets submitted to OMB?
        Answer. The Bureau has supported the United Tribes Technical
    College for 20 years. UTTC has helped numerous adult Indians who reside
    on or near reservations to secure employment in economically depressed
    areas. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request which includes $1.81 million for UTTC.
        In a 1997 report to the Committee, GAO identified UTTC as one of
    only three programs it recommended for rescission of BIA funding.
    Committee staff further understand from talking to staff at BIA, OMB
    and GAO that UTTC doesn't graduate very many students.
        Question 52. What is the United Tribes Technical College's rate of
    graduation? What programs does it have? Is it a state accredited
    school?
        Answer. The United Tribes Technical College is accredited by the
    North Central Association of Colleges and Schools at the Certificate
    and/or Associate of Applied Science level. It offers eight certificate
    programs and eleven Associates of Applied Science Degrees. In fiscal
    year 1996 and 1997, the graduation rate at UTTC has been approximately
    46 percent based on 125 students who have completed their second and
    final year of training from enrollment of approximately 300 vocational
    students. It should be noted that many students have jobs and are
    enrolled part time, and thus require longer to graduate.
        Question 53. In the BIA's opinion, is this a successful program for
    which BIA funding should continue?
        Answer. As the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request
    indicates, the Bureau believes the United Tribes Technical College
    provides valuable services and recommends continued funding of UTTC in
    fiscal year 1999.
        Question 54. Does the Bureau now disagree with the GAO, where it
    agreed before? Why?
        Answer. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    which provides $1.81 million for United Tribes Technical College. The
    Bureau fully supports the continuation of support for UTTC in fiscal
    year 1999. The Bureau would not support a change to the funding level
    requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget.
                       crownpoint institute of technology
        At least one other school, the Crownpoint Institute of Technology,
    in New Mexico, is essentially in the same position as UTTC--another
    tribal college already receives funding for the Tribe it serves, the
    Navajo Nation, so no TCCC funding is available. The Navajo and
    Crownpoint have been told by the Bureau that the Navajo can allocate
    TPA dollars to the school if that's a priority. Each year, for the last
    several, Senator Domenici has requested funding for the Crownpoint
    Institute. And each year, I've sent him away without funding because it
    has been the policy of the Bureau and of the Committee not to earmark
    but in extreme circumstances--like in the instance of rebuilding a
    school destroyed by fire or other disaster. Then I learn that, for
    years, we've been funding an earmark for a tribal college.
        Question 55. Why should one school be given an earmark and not the
    other one?
        Answer. The establishment of Special Programs for United Tribes
    Technical College, National Ironworkers Training Program and United
    Sioux Tribes Development Corporation under the Bureau's Community
    Development Subactivity was the result of Congressional action. Given
    current fiscal constraints, the Bureau cannot support the addition of
    funds for any program or project that would result in the reduction of
    funding for other programs or projects in the President's budget. We
    generally oppose tribal-specific earmarks as these are usually provided
    at the expense of programs that benefit all Tribes.
        Question 56. UTTC has five owner Tribes. Shouldn't they be given
    the responsibility, per the goals of self determination, of deciding to
    allocate TPA dollars to UTTC, if the Navajo have been told that for
    Crownpoint?
        Answer. The Bureau supports the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    which provides $1.81 million for United Tribes Technical College. The
    Bureau would encourage the Tribes to dedicate funds from other sources
    to UTTC. The Bureau supports the United Tribes Technical College at a
    minimal level. Working in collaboration, the college and Tribes must
    secure significant additional funding to maintain quality education
    programs.
        Question 57. Why is the Bureau still requesting earmark funding for
    any program?
        Answer. The Bureau supports the program funding levels in the
    President's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Generally, the Bureau does
    prefer to fund programs that benefit all Tribes.
        According to the GAO, which identified UTTC for elimination of
    funding, UTTC's funding comes at the expense of funding for programs
    which would serve a wider population of Indians.
        Question 58. Also according to the GAO, the Bureau agreed with its
    comments in the report. Where's the disconnect? Does the Bureau now not
    agree with those comments?
        Answer. The Bureau supports the program funding levels in the
    President's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Generall, the Bureau does
    prefer to fund programs that benefit all Tribes.
                               other bia earmarks
        The BIA budget for the last few years has contained requests for
    funding for two other earmark programs, the United Sioux Tribe
    Development Corporation and the National Ironworkers Training Program.
    The United Sioux Development Corporation is a job placement program and
    the Ironworkers Program is a vocational education program. This year,
    the request includes a request of $524,000 for the Ironworkers Program
    but nothing for the tribe job placement program.
        The GAO report which identified United Tribes Technical College for
    elimination also identified the United Sioux Tribes Development
    Corporation and the National Ironworkers Training Program and stated
    that the BIA agreed with that assessment:
        ``These officials [at BIA] agreed with the proposed elimination of
    the National Ironworkers Training Program, United Sioux Tribes
    Development Corporation, and United Tribes Technical College,
    believing, in part, that it is much more effective to fund programs
    that benefit as many Tribes as possible rather than a limited number of
    the Indian population. They also noted that, where warranted, the funds
    should be provided to the Tribes.''
        Question 59. Do you agree with that evaluation now? If not, what
    has changed your mind? If so, why do these programs, with the exception
    of the Sioux Development Corporation, continue to appear in the budget
    request?
        Answer. Many of these programs have been a part of the Bureau's
    budget for over 20 years. The Congress has provided appropriations to
    the Bureau for these programs over time. The Bureau supports the
    funding requests in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, and will
    continue to examine its funding needs and priorities.
        Question 60. Why have these programs been included in the requests
    from BIA in the past? Why did the Sioux Development Corporation
    suddenly lose favor? Are these programs that should receive earmarks?
        Answer. Due in part to strong support from Congress, many of these
    programs have been a part of the Bureau's budget for over 20 years. Due
    to the limited availability of funds and the Bureau's many critical
    responsibilities for fiscal year 1999, the President's fiscal year 1999
    budget does not include funding for the Sioux Development Corporation.
        In the Bureau's budget justifications, the United Sioux Tribes
    Development Corporation is described as a program that tribes can
    support by deciding to allocate their TPA ``Direct Employment program
    funds and other funding sources''. The Bureau request contains nothing
    for this program which received $108,000 for fiscal year 1998.
        Question 61. Can't the same thing--that Tribes can decide to
    support them with TPA and other funds--be said of the other earmarks--
    UTTC and the Ironworkers Training Program?
        Answer. Tribes may choose to dedicate TPA funds toward UTTC and the
    Ironworkers Training Program.
                          indian arts and crafts board
        The Indian Arts and Crafts Board is in the Bureau budget with a
    request for $932,000, a $35,000 decrease--$50,000 program decrease
    offset partially by a $15,000 increase for fixed costs. One of the few
    programs in the Bureau budget for which a decrease is requested, the
    Indian Arts and Crafts Board was featured in a USA Today article on
    February 12, 1998.
        The article said that Assistant Secretary described the collection
    of over 23,000 pieces of pottery, sculpture, paintings, basketry and
    dolls as a ``national treasure''. Yet the article also said that
    thousands of the pieces of artwork are stored in the Department of the
    Interior headquarters--``stacked by water pipes, air ducts and
    electrical lines''--so close together they cannot even be moved to
    inventory them for fear of damaging them.
        Question 62. If these artifacts are so important to this Nation,
    and to the Department and the Bureau which hold them, why are they
    stored this way?
        Answer. Contrary to the February 12 USA TODAY article, these
    collections are not in danger. Approximately two-thirds of the Indian
    Arts and Crafts Board collections are located at the Board's three
    regional museums: the Southern Plains Indian Museum, Anadarko,
    Oklahoma; the Sioux Indian Museum, Rapid City, South Dakota; and the
    Museum of the Plains Indian, Browning, Montana. Approximately one-third
    of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board collections are located in the main
    Interior building. A portion, predominantly paintings, of the
    Washington, D.C., headquarters collection is currently stored in a
    secured and monitored area on the mechanical floor of the main Interior
    building. At the time this area was created as an annex for selected
    items from the headquarters collection. In the early 1970's, it was
    common practice for Interior offices to use the mechanical floor to
    house office equipment, supplies, furniture, and the like. When the
    space was created for the Board, it was furnished with what were then
    considered to be museum-quality painting racks, shelving, and cabinets.
    Over the years, the furnishings have remained functional.
        Over the last several years, recognizing the need for improved
    space and increased access of the collections, new storage space for
    the collection items has been one of the Board's priorities. In 1993,
    the Department began work on a comprehensive plan to renovate the main
    Interior building from 1996 through 2003. Early on, the Board worked
    with the renovation planners to develop appropriate space for the
    Board's headquarters collections, exhibition area, and staff offices.
    In the renovation plans, the Board was allocated ample and ideal space
    to increase visitor access, collection visibility, and promotional
    economic development opportunities for Indian artists and crafts
    producers. The new space was designed to meet the highest museum
    standards and plans were made to move the collections following
    completion of the renovated space.
        In mid-1996, due to federal budget cuts, plans for the Interior
    renovation project were put on hold indefinitely. Thereafter, the Board
    began exploring interim solutions for temporary storage space. The
    Board asked for additional space in the building, and explored the
    possibility of using private art storage companies. At that time,
    additional space was not available in the Interior building and
    estimates for rental of commercial storage space were not feasible
    within the Board's budget. Therefore, the Board renewed its request for
    alternative space within the Interior building to relocate the
    collections from the mechanical floor.
        With growing interest and support from the Department, which was
    advanced further by the formation and findings of a 1996 task force to
    study the Board's overall collections, the Board's latest request for
    additional space was approved. Steps are currently underway to move the
    collections on the mechanical floor to a superior location within the
    main Interior building where the collections can be properly stored,
    processed, and accessed. The new space is being prepared to receive the
    collections, which are expected to be relocated in July/August. The new
    space and furnishings will meet current museum standards and will
    provide greater visibility and access to these unique examples of
    American Indian and Alaska Native culture, heritage, and artistic
    vision. For the longer term, the Department has begun a dialogue with
    the Smithsonian Institution about display arrangements and the storage
    of this valuable art currently in the Interior building.
        Question 63. Why is the Bureau proposing a decrease to the Board's
    budget?
        Answer. This modest reduction reflects the tight budget environment
    for federal expenditure as well as the concomitant efforts by the Board
    to reduce reliance on federal funding through the Board's user fee
    program utilizing its museums and collections. Estimated revenue for
    the Board's recently instituted user fee program is approximately
    $50,000 for fiscal year 1999. It is anticipated that the revenues from
    private sources will continue to grow in the future as the Board
    expands its user fee program utilizing its museums and collections.
        Question 64. What exactly is the Board? Why isn't the collection
    housed by an appropriate museum?
        Answer. Although requests for the Indian Arts and Crafts Board's
    appropriations appear in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets, under
    the Operation of Indian Programs appropriation account, the Board is a
    separate agency under the Office of the Secretary. It was established
    in 1935 (Public Law 74-355) to promote the development of the creative
    work of American Indian and Alaska Native people to (1) improve the
    economic status of Native Americans, (2) ensure the continuing vitality
    of a valuable American heritage, (3) increase Native American
    participation and control in the growing Native American fine arts and
    handcrafts business; (4) enable Native Americans to realize their full
    potential for employment and income from the demand for their creative
    work, and (5) assist Native American cultural leaders who are
    developing an institutional framework to support the preservation and
    evolution of tribal cultural activities. The Board's activities are not
    duplicated in either the federal or private sector, and its policies
    are determined by its five commissioners, who serve without
    compensation.
        The Board administers the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990
    (Public Law 101-644) that regulates the marketing of Indian arts and
    crafts to protect producers and consumers. Annual sales of Indian
    handcrafts and other artwork are over $1 billion.
        The Indian Arts and Crafts Board owns and uses for economic
    development, promotional, educational, and research purposes
    outstanding collections of contemporary and historic American Indian
    and Alaska Native art (23,000 objects) which represent over 50 percent
    of the artwork (painting, sculpture) administered by the Department of
    the Interior nationwide.
        Approximately two-thirds of these collections are located at the
    Board's three regional museums in Oklahoma, Montana, and South Dakota.
    These museums serve as key economic and cultural cornerstones for their
    communities and the surrounding areas, enjoy significant tribal
    support, and host 150,000 visitors annually. The remaining works are
    located in the headquarters collection, which serves as a resource for
    promotional museum exhibitions, other promotional presentations, and
    economic development activities.
        The museums and collections also play an important role in the
    Board's mission by fulfilling the express Congressional authorization
    for the Board to impose a range of user fees in Board museum and
    collection activities. These museums and collections, through admission
    fees, rental fees from Indian owned shops at the museums, and licensing
    the images of the collection objects, provide the main source of
    revenue for the Board to transition away from complete reliance on
    federal funding. Without these museums and collections, the Board would
    have no independent source of revenue.
        The primary purpose of the Board's headquarters collection is
    providing the public with ready access to a pool of objects from which
    promotional/educational exhibitions and economic development activities
    can be created.
        Some objects from the headquarters collection are exhibited in the
    Board's headquarters offices and in the Department of the Interior
    hallway exhibit cases on a rotating basis to impress upon official and
    public visitors the breadth, quality, and appeal of Native American
    creative work. To further increase public access to the Board's
    headquarters collections, three new mobile Indian Arts and Crafts Board
    exhibit cases, featuring a selection of headquarters collection
    masterpieces, have been placed in the main Interior lobby.
        In addition to the Board's own promotional activities, objects from
    the Board's collections are loaned through formal written agreements to
    established and accredited museum facilities for exhibition and
    educational purposes. For example, work from the headquarters
    collection is currently included in two traveling exhibitions--Memory
    and Imagination: The Legacy of Maidu Indian Artist Frank Day, which
    premiered at The Oakland Museum in Oakland, California, and Pottery by
    American Indian Women: The Legacy of Generations, which premiered at
    the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C.
        The article suggested that the artwork ought to be transferred to
    the Smithsonian. The article also suggested that Interior wants to keep
    the art--as a sort of ``turf war''.
        Question 65. What's BIA's response?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior recently re-affirmed the
    central role of the Board's museums and collections with respect to the
    Board's mission. In support of one of the Department's core missions,
    its commitment ``* * * to carry out trust responsibilities of the U.S.
    Government with respect to American Indians and Alaska Natives * * *'',
    and in acknowledgment of the U.S. Government's obligations under the
    Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-
    601), the Department re-examined the role of the Board's collections in
    1996. At the request of the then-Assistant Secretary--Policy,
    Management, and Budget, a task force was assembled to recommend actions
    for the long-term preservation and protection of the Board's
    collections.
        Following careful and extensive study, analysis, site visits, and
    discussions with the Tribes and surrounding communities, the task
    force, which included a representative from the Smithisonian Institute,
    recommended that Interior retain ownership of the Board's collections,
    that the Board's three museums remain in their respective communities,
    and that access and use of the Board's collections be increased. The
    Board supports these recommendations and has undertaken the task of
    increasing access and use of its collections. Currently, the
    Commissioners are exploring preliminary opportunities to partner with
    other institutions to expand access to the collections for promotional,
    economic development, and educational purposes.
        Despite the suggestion contained in the February 12, 1998, USA
    TODAY article, the Department of the Interior is not engaged in a
    ``turf war'' with the Smithsonian. In fact, the Board considers the
    Smithsonian to be a respected partner in the field of Indian art and
    cultural preservation.
        Question 66. Two years ago, the House recommended elimination of
    funding for the Board. The Senate put funding back in. What are we
    accomplishing by continuing to fund it?
        Answer. Within its limited budget of $967,000, the Board has
    continued to achieve significant accomplishments.
        Among the key reasons to continue funding the Board are:
    enforcement of a federal law--the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public
    Law 101-644); operation of three museums that serve as major economic,
    cultural, and educational attractions in their regions; stewardship of
    23,000 historic and contemporary American Indian and Alaska Native art
    and craft work; compliance with the Native American Graves Protection
    and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601); the U.S. Government's
    commitments to Indian Tribes; related cultural heritage preservation,
    cultural patrimony, education, and other intellectual property
    purposes; and promotion of tribal economic development and self-
    reliance.
        In the past two fiscal years, the Board's work included completing
    the final regulations for the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public Law
    101-644); initiating a user fee program to help offset budget
    reductions and reduce reliance on federal appropriations; updating the
    widely distributed ``Source Directory'' of Indian owned and operated
    arts and crafts businesses; promoting over 160 artists and craftspeople
    through individual, group, and special museum exhibitions; promoting
    approximately 300 Indian art businesses; and promptly and thoroughly
    responding to all complaints of misrepresentation. Other activities
    included moving the Sioux Indian Museum and collections into new and
    expanded facilities provided by the City of Rapid City, South Dakota.
    These new facilities represent a model private-local-state-federal
    partnership. During this time, the Board's accomplishments also
    included making artwork available for nearly 300,000 visitors who have
    visited the Board's museums; providing loans of its artwork collection
    to major touring museum exhibitions; providing collection images to
    authors and publishers; assisting in the establishment and development
    of Indian art and craft businesses; serving as an information
    clearinghouse and liaison between Indian artists and artisans and
    businesses looking for work to purchase; and providing a wide range of
    advice to Indian museums, cultural centers, heritage preservation
    organizations, and related projects seeking to establish or expand
    their programs.
        The Board will continue to develop and expand these and other
    economic development activities, with a strong commitment to build up
    an aggressive Indian Arts and Crafts Act enforcement program. The
    Congress charged the Board with the responsibility to enforce this
    truth-in-advertising law, which helps protect American Indian and
    Alaska Native artists and artisans from unfair competition from
    counterfeits. Under the Act, the Board may receive complaints of
    misrepresentation of art and craft work in the marketplace. The Act
    provides both civil and criminal provisions and combats consumer fraud
    that unfairly reduces income of Native Americans in competition with
    cheap imitations. This misrepresentation of Indian art and craft work
    can also seriously erode consumer confidence in Indian arts and crafts
    products and can have wide-reaching negative economic effects. There is
    no other effective enforcement mechanism to ensure such truth-in-
    advertising and the Act's enforcement activities cannot be conducted by
    non-federal entities.
        Under the Act, the Board may also register, without charge,
    trademarks of genuiness and quality on behalf of Indian Tribes, arts
    and crafts organizations, and individuals. This important trademark
    provision is intended to build market visibility and promote genuine
    Indian handcrafts. It is also intended to ensure that Indians receive a
    greater share of the industry profits and to preserve the integrity and
    marketability of authentic Indian arts and crafts products. Through
    these and future programs, the Board protects Indian artists and
    artisans, businesses, and Tribes, as well as consumers, and encourages
    the move by the Tribes and their members toward economic self-reliance.
        Question 67. This Committee is struggling to find funding for
    programs that have marginal success but plenty of potential. Why
    shouldn't we cut the $932,000 for this program, which seems to be a
    dismal failure, and transfer the artwork to an existing museum?
        Answer. We are confident that greater knowledge about the Board,
    its accomplishments, and its role in promoting economic development in
    Indian Country would lead the committee to reject the notion that the
    Indian Arts and Crafts Board is a ``dismal failure''. Its activities
    fully justify the $932,000 proposed in the President's fiscal year 1999
    budget. The Board is the only federal program that is concerned with
    increasing the economic benefits of American Indian and Alaska Native
    creative work in the $1 billion arts and crafts industry. Many
    producers participate while residing on their reservations; however,
    American Indians and Alaska Natives control only a limited portion of
    the marketing of their art and craft work. The Board engages in a
    variety of promotional efforts to change that. For example, the Board's
    ``Source Directory'' publication is the primary means of establishing
    direct contact between consumers and Indian producers.
        In addition to terminating the Board's current activities and
    future agency economic development plans for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, elimination of the Board's budget would create a
    significant hardship for Indian arts and crafts producers and
    businesses and would be a considerable setback for consumers. It would
    also undermine the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and essentially eliminate
    the trademark provision of the Act. Implementation of the Act is an
    inherently governmental function, and this law will not be enforced in
    any meaningful way if the Board is abolished. The Board's regional
    museums and collections will be in jeopardy, and damage to the existing
    relationship(s) between the U.S. Government and Tribes could result.
    The Department would continue to have fiduciary responsibilities for
    the care and preservation of the Board's collections.
        Two years ago when the Board's funding was in question, the Board
    estimated that the cost of closing the agency would be $3.5 million,
    and would require two years to complete. The majority of this cost is
    for the specialized services required to pack the valuable collections
    at their current locations and move them to a suitable repository,
    while maintaining adequate accountability throughout the process. There
    presently is no other suitable facility to display these works and
    hence they would have to be stored indefinitely.
        Continued federal funding of the Board in fiscal year 1999 is very
    important to the Department of the Interior in order to protect the
    considerable national assets administered by the Board, to permit the
    Board to implement the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Public Law 101-644),
    to fulfill the Department's commitments to Indian Tribes, and to
    continue to assist Native Americans in the move toward economic self-
    reliance through the marketing of their work in the lucrative American
    Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts market.
                           family violence prevention
        The budget request for fiscal year 1999 contains $5,000,000 for
    Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention.
        Question 68. Does the Bureau intend that some of the $5,000,000 be
    used to address the growing problem of teen suicide in Indian Country
    and in Alaska Native villages?
        Answer. Under 25 CFR 63.35, Tribes have the ability to establish
    family violence prevention and treatment programs and some Tribes may
    implement treatment programs specifically designed to address possible
    teen suicide risks. However, part 63 gives Tribes considerable choice
    in terms of the focus of their family violence prevention program so it
    is premature to predict how they might structure their programs. The
    needs of the tribal members and the availability of mental health
    services would affect how Tribes design these programs.
        Bureau programs are not the same as the programs offered by the
    Indian Health Service (IHS). Bureau programs are directed at the
    prevention of child abuse and family violence, while the IHS programs
    address the treatment of child abuse and family violence. Funding is
    available in the IHS budget to support treatment activities. Currently
    there is no funding to support the Bureau prevention programs that
    Tribes could initiate. The $5,000,000 requested in the Budget is
    intended to allow Tribes to begin developing and operating Child Abuse
    and Family Violence Prevention programs.
        I believe that the Indian Health Service is the more appropriate
    agency to be providing family mental health counseling.
        Question 69. Would the Bureau support the Indian Health Service
    getting whatever funding was available for those services?
        Answer. The Bureau continues to support the request of $5,000,000
    for Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention for the Bureau for
    which programs are separate and apart from the Indian Health Service
    request for mental health counseling services. The $5,000,000 is not
    intended for mental health counseling services which is the specific
    responsibility of the Indian Health Service. Under 25 CFR 63.35, Tribes
    may use the funds to operate a variety of programs which can include
    child protection and family violence prevention programs, development
    of methodologies for multi-disciplinary investigations, development of
    tribal codes and regulations for child protection and family violence,
    and design and implementation of training programs for prevention of
    child abuse and family violence.
        This Committee has not been able to provide funds for the Family
    Violence Prevention line item in the TPA activity in the past. Given
    the budget constraints, it is highly unlikely that we will provide
    funding for any new items this year, without some offsetting cut to
    another program in the Indian programs.
        Question 70. Does the Bureau have a suggestion for an offsetting
    program cut?
        Answer. With the need so great in Indian Country due to such
    factors as high unemployment rates, alcoholism, and the lowest life
    expectancy of any other category of Americans, it is difficult to
    propose an offset for any one program which benefits Native Americans.
    The need is so great in Indian Country that programs are so
    intermingled and dependent on one another, that ``robbing Peter to pay
    Paul'' would not benefit the Indian community in the long run as the
    net effect would be zero.
                    indian land consolidation pilot project
        The Bureau has requested $10 million to fund a new initiative, the
    Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project. In your prepared remarks, you
    outlined the problem of fractional interests in land and the emphasis
    of this land acquisition program to consolidate ownership of Indian
    lands. You did not, however, detail what the $10 million is for or how
    much, in total, the Administration intends to spend on this program.
        Question 71. Could you tell the Committee how much this is going to
    cost--in total?
        Answer. It is currently estimated that it would cost a total of
    $300 million to acquire all fractional interests which represent less
    than 2 percent interest in an allotment. However, an integral component
    of the proposed program is recoupment of the purchase price through
    placement of an encumbrance on the interest. Ultimately, the net cost
    to the government will be much lower. ``Real'' costs would include:
    theoretical interest costs, shortfalls attributable to overestimates of
    fair market value, and costs related to acquisition of lands with
    administrative costs which exceed their value. Acquisition of these
    interests is also expected to provide savings in the costs to
    administer Indian lands.
        Question 72. The Administration sent up authorizing legislation
    last year, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 2743, on October
    24, 1997. Have any hearings been held? A markup?
        Answer. No hearings or markups have been held on H.R. 2743.
    However, enactment of the Department's legislative proposal is not
    required to implement the pilot program in the fiscal year 1999 Budget
    request.
        Question 73. Do you think this legislation will be enacted this
    Congress, which has about four months of legislative activity left?
        Answer. Both the leadership of the House Resources Committee and
    the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have expressed interest in
    addressing this longstanding problem. The Department believes that the
    likelihood of enactment of the legislative proposal would be greatly
    increased if funds were provided for the pilot proposed in the fiscal
    year 1999 Budget request. Because the Department's legislative proposal
    only includes an authorization for appropriations, Tribes may be
    skeptical that funding would ever be appropriated for this program. In
    addition to the acquisition program, the legislative proposal includes
    important inheritance limitations that will help curb further
    fractionation of Indian lands. The inheritance limitations are somewhat
    controversial, and without funding for the acquisition program, may not
    have adequate support from Tribes and their members.
        Question 74. Is the expenditure of $10 million on Indian land
    consolidation authorized, absent enactment of the Indian Land
    Consolidation legislation that is in the House?
        Answer. Appropriations language in the fiscal year 1999 Budget is
    sufficient to authorize the pilot program. Without this appropriations
    language, the Department has an annual cap of $2 million for general
    Indian land acquisition under 25 U.S.C. sec. 465, however, additional
    authority may be available under tribal-specific statutes. The
    Department does not have any current authority to recoup the purchase
    price as provided for in the proposed appropriations language, nor to
    perform reservation-wide appraisals.
        Question 75. What activities does the Bureau intend to undertake
    with $10 million this year?
        Answer. The requested funding will primarily fund the acquisition
    price and related land acquisition costs of purchased lands. Requested
    funding is estimated to be sufficient to execute a substantial program
    on one or more reservations to effect a measurable reduction in the
    costs of administering these Indian lands and their related trust fund
    accounts. A Departmental task force is preparing for implementation of
    the pilot.
        The task force has developed pilot selection criteria, and has
    solicited and received nominations from Bureau Area Office Directors
    for pilot sites. Site selection is scheduled for early June, 1998.
    Pilot selection criteria include: Tribal interest/willingness to
    participate in pilot; significant level of highly fractionated land
    ownership interests; a location where the trust resources do not have a
    great deal of development; a location with up-to-date land records
    information; consent of any allottee association; and capability to
    make a substantial reduction in the number of highly fractionated
    interests at the requested funding level of $10 million. Proposed sites
    do not have to meet all selection criteria.
                              tribal water rights
        The budget request contains $5 million for a water rights
    settlement with the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation
    in Montana. The authorizing legislation for that settlement has not
    been passed by Congress.
        Question 76. What is the status of the legislation?
        Answer. Authorizing legislation for the Rocky Boys settlement, the
    first Congressionally-authorized settlement in several years, was
    introduced in both the House (H.R. 3658) and the Senate (S. 1899) on
    April 1, 1998. The members of the Montana Congressional delegation are
    working with the respective committees in an effort to arrange a joint
    Senate-House hearing on the identical bills. A hearing before the
    Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is scheduled for June 24, 1998.
        Question 77. The Committee does not usually fund settlements for
    which there is no authorization. Can the first appropriation wait until
    there is authorization?
        Answer. If implementation of the Rocky Boys settlement is not
    initiated in fiscal year 1999, the momentum that has been generated in
    support of this legislation may be lost. Providing the funding needed
    for this settlement in fiscal year 1999 will signal the United States'
    commitment to meaningful protection of the Tribe's water rights in
    particular and of Indian water rights in general.
        Question 78. Does the proposed settlement legislation contain
    penalty provisions, as some settlements have, which will result in
    higher appropriations needs if Congress does not appropriate funds for
    fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The only penalty in the settlement is a provision that if
    the Congress does not provide required settlement funds, the Tribal
    waiver and release of breach of trust and other claims against the
    United States will not be effective.
        The Bureau has requested a $3 million increase to the $500,000
    probate backlog reduction program.
        Question 79. Would you explain that in greater detail?
        Answer. The regulations contained in Title 43, Code of Federal
    Regulations, Part 4 (25 U.S.C. 372) mandates that the Bureau provide
    family heirship data to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of
    Hearings and Appeals, within 90 days from the date an individual's
    death has been reported. Further, the Court cases of Dull Knife v.
    Morton, U.S.D.C., South Dakota, 394 F. Supp. 1299 (1976) and Lee v.
    Andrus, U.S.D.C., New Mexico, Civil No. 81-052-C (1981) directs the
    Department to probate Indian trust estates in conformity with existing
    law and regulations in order to avoid probate backlogs.
        In fiscal year 1992, funds were appropriated to eliminate a pre-
    1991 backlog of approximately 4,600 estates that had not been submitted
    to the ALJ for probate. Significant strides were made in reduction of
    the backlog until 1996. The Bureau was on the average reducing the
    backlog by approximately 700 estates annually. However, Congressional
    budget reductions for fiscal year 1996 (loss of funding and staffing)
    and the elimination of some field ALJ offices resulted in a setback in
    the elimination of the pre-1991 backlog. While the Bureau was
    concentrating its efforts on eliminating the pre-1991 backlog, a new
    backlog was growing and is referred to as the post 1991 backlog of
    estates needing to be submitted to the ALJ for probate.
        In February, 1998, the Bureau gathered data by name of the deceased
    Indians who owned an interest in trust or restricted land and whose
    estate had not been submitted for probate to the ALJ in accordance with
    the regulations contained in Title 43 of the Code of Federal
    Regulations. The data revealed that there were 7,772 estates that were
    pending submission to the ALJ for probate. This figure includes
    approximately 1,600 pre-1991 estates and approximately 6,100 post 1991
    estates. The Bureau is confident that the number of estates identified
    will increase. The reason is that during the process of probating the
    identified estates there will be subsequent deaths (death of heirs
    within an estate being prepared) identified due to the age of some of
    the estates that have not been probated. The Bureau estimates that the
    subsequent deaths will be 20 percent of the identified estate cases, or
    approximately 1,600 additional estates. Therefore, the grand total for
    estates that need preparation of family histories and property
    inventories for submission to the ALJ for probate is approximately
    9,300 estates.
        It is estimated that it requires an average of 40 hours for one
    person to research and prepare one non-complex estate for submission to
    the ALJ for probate at a cost of approximately $1,000. The average cost
    can increase to as much as $1,500 to $2,000 per estate depending upon
    the complexity and age of the estate. This does not include those costs
    associated with obtaining the property inventories which are obtained
    from BIA's Land Titles and Records Office or appraisals that are
    required in some states when the value of the estate exceeds a
    specified dollar threshold. Since the Federal Government does not have
    an inheritance code, state inheritance laws are utilized for the
    probating of Indian trust estates.
        The additional $3 million will be used to address the backlog, both
    the remaining pre-1991 backlog as well as the post-1991 backlog.
    Initial emphasis to eliminate the backlog will focus on the remaining
    pre-1991 estates because these are the oldest cases. Due to the age of
    the estates, these estates will be more difficult to obtain the
    required family history data needed to submit to the ALJ and the
    associated costs to complete the data gathering will be greater for
    each probate. It is anticipated that the pre-1991 backlog could be
    eliminated with the additional $3 million.
        According to the 1996 preliminary figures obtained from the
    National Center for Health Statistics, the national death rate is 448
    per 100,000 persons. Considering that, the Bureau can expect that on
    the average there will be approximately 1,483 new deaths per year of
    individuals owning trust or restricted land or trust income. However,
    we believe that the death rate among American Indians would be slightly
    higher than the national death rate because of environmental and health
    conditions associated with American Indians. Also, it should be pointed
    out that on the average, there are seven heirs to each estate. This
    means that we can roughly expect an additional 7,000 new persons to
    inherit an interest in trust or restricted land during 1998. As the
    number of owners of trust or restricted land increases, there will be a
    continual growth in the number of estates that will need to be
    probated. This increase will only further complicate the ownership of
    trust or restricted land. The fractionated ownership is already
    overtaxing the ability of the Federal Government to properly manage the
    trust resources, maintain ownership in the land titles and records
    systems and timely distribute trust funds. These new heirs create the
    need for the establishment and maintenance of additional records
    (ownership and Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts) as well as
    making completion of trust resource transactions more difficult to
    complete because of the need to acquire consent from all of the heirs
    to the trust/restricted land under consideration for a transaction.
        The costs identified only relate to those dealing with the
    preparation of documentation for submission of the estates to the ALJ.
    Not included are costs associated with posting of Bureau records after
    issuance of the Orders Determining Heirs or Devisees by the ALJs. Such
    records include, but are not limited to, changing land ownership
    records in the Bureau's Land Records Information System (LRIS) as well
    as Bureau agency office land records, i.e., changing payment records
    for leases, lease records, notification to lessees, preparation of
    documents to close estate accounts and distributing the estate's funds
    to the heirs or devisees, etc.
        Failure to obtain additional funding to address the estate backlog
    that has been identified as well as assuring that sufficient funding is
    provided to assure that new deaths are timely submitted for probate
    will result in the continual growth and existence of an estate backlog.
    Further, it is important to point out that eliminating and maintaining
    the probating of Indian estates in a timely manner only treats one of
    the symptoms of the problem. The only way to assure elimination and
    non-recurrence is to address the cause--fractionated ownership. The
    Department has proposed legislation to address the problem, and a
    request for a pilot program is included in the Bureau's fiscal year
    1999 budget request. This legislation proposes to correct and reverse
    the trend of fractional ownership of Indian owned trust and restricted
    lands.
        The Bureau is requesting significant new funding for two programs
    that were not funded in fiscal year 1998, $3 million for Environmental
    Cleanup and $5 million for Water Quality Management Planning.
        Question 80. If the Committee is able to provide only flat funding,
    are either of these a priority over existing programs?
        Answer. Assistant Secretary Gover testified before the House
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in late March. In his testimony he
    recognized the difficult budget climate we face when the Congress and
    the President have really accomplished something very significant in
    the form of a balanced budget. While the Bureau's fiscal year 1999
    budget request includes increases over the fiscal year 1998 enacted
    level, it only begins to reflect the needs in Indian communities.
    American Indians are younger, have greater poverty levels, higher
    unemployment, a greater number of single parent families, and they die
    younger than the U.S. population at large.
        The budget request is a delicate balance. It recognizes the climate
    of limited budgetary resources, focussing limited budget increases on
    critical programs. The Bureau has failed over many years to comply with
    Federal environmental laws. We now have a number of serious situations
    on the reservations and while we are not aware of any that are
    immediately life-threatening, there is no question that we have failed
    over the years to deal with environmental issues, especially involving
    underground storage tanks and landfills. In the 1970s and 1980s, we did
    not do a very good job of identifying the scope of needs that we had,
    and we have just begun a process with EPA to identify the entire range
    of environmental compliance issues, to prioritize them and then come up
    with a plan to present both to EPA and to the Committee for how we are
    going to attack this problem. EPA has begun and will continue to fine
    the Bureau for noncompliance with environmental laws. The budget
    request for these programs is extremely modest if compared to the known
    need on reservations. The funds would be used to address this serious
    situation in a more orderly fashion rather than trying to stay ahead of
    EPA fines, as well as to find the resources within existing, ongoing
    programs to pay these fines year after year.
                             endangered species act
        In fiscal year 1998, the Committee expressed its strong views on
    the manner in which the secretarial order issued by the Department of
    the Interior and the Department of Commerce regarding the
    administration of Endangered Species Act [ESA] in relation to Indian
    tribal lands purported to change the administration of the ESA in ways
    flatly inconsistent with the statute. The Committee further stated its
    expectation that the Department would adhere to the ESA as written.
        On page 154 of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 1999
    Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, the Department
    proposes a $1 million increase in Endangered Species funding to be used
    for the ``satisfactory implementation'' of this very secretarial order.
        Question 81. As the Committee's direction on the Department's
    administration of ESA on tribal lands was clear and firm, please
    explain the justification with which this funding request is made.
    Furthermore, please detail any steps or actions the Department, alone
    or in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, has taken pursuant
    to this secretarial order, and with what justification such actions
    were made in light of the Committee's clear direction on this matter.
        Answer. The budget request of $1 million will not be used
    exclusively for implementation of the Secretarial Order; only 3
    percent, or $33,000, is anticipated to be needed to implement the
    order. The request includes funding for such things as compliance with
    the ESA, habitat surveys and inventories, support for the development
    of Integrated Resource Management Plans for tribal trust resources, and
    training for Bureau and tribal personnel. Thus, implementation of the
    Order is a small part of the requested increase.
        The Department believes that the requested increase for
    implementation of the Secretarial Order is a legitimate and worthwhile
    use of funds for several reasons and strongly disagrees with the
    Committee's assessment. The Department believes that the Secretarial
    Order appropriately implements the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    consistent with the statute.
        The Department strongly believes the recent Secretarial Order
    simply recognizes the trust responsibilities and treaty obligations of
    the United States toward Indian Tribes and tribal members. The Order
    does not circumvent the requirements of the ESA in favor of Indian
    Tribes and does not give preferential treatment for Indian activities
    over those of private landowners.
        In the past, actions have been initiated and decisions made that
    were viewed as disproportionately burdensome to Tribes, in violation of
    treaty and trust obligations, and not in the spirit of government-to-
    government communication. The Secretarial Order was created to rectify
    this while also complying with the ESA.
        The success of the Secretarial Order depends on a clear
    understanding of the Order by both the Tribes and the federal employees
    who deal with Tribes while implementing the ESA. Because much of the
    ESA compliance must be carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on
    behalf of the Tribes, it is important that Bureau employees become
    familiar with the Order. The requested funding would provide training
    to Bureau employees and tribal representatives on carrying out the
    Secretarial Order and implementation of the ESA.
        To date, the Department of Interior has hosted three forums on
    implementation of the Secretarial Order. These forums were held in
    Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Portland, OR. The Portland session
    was co-sponsored with the Department of Commerce. The audience included
    federal employees and tribal members. The intent of these sessions was
    to familiarize federal employees and tribal members with the contents
    of the Order and begin discussion of the most effective ways to
    implement the Order.
                     unresolved hunting and fishing rights
        On page 151 of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' fiscal year 1999
    Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, the Department
    states that $320,000 of the $372,000 of the funding for Unresolved
    Hunting and Fishing Rights program will be used by Boldt Tribes for
    shellfish issues.
        Question 82. Please provide the Committee with the specific
    activities to which the Boldt Tribes dedicated these funds in fiscal
    year 1998, as well as the activities to which the fiscal year 1999 will
    be dedicated.
        Answer. Meetings with the Tribes on how to spend the $320,000 in
    fiscal year 1998 have recently been concluded. The Tribes have decided
    to allocate $270,000 for shellfish work as follows:
      --The Lummi Tribe will produce and provide nursery for clam and
            oyster larvae to seed size for distribution to various western
            Washington Tribes;
      --The Port Gamble, Lower Elwha, Jamestown and Skokomish Tribes will
            conduct surveys and collect biological data to determine
            distribution and stocking density of various shellfish species;
      --The Quileute Tribe will conduct monitoring work with the Washington
            Department of Health to determine if shellfish is safe for
            consumption; and
      --The Squaxin Island and Suquamish Tribes will conduct marine
            surveys, collecting data necessary to comply with the court's
            implementation order;
        The Tribes further requested that the remaining $50,000 in
    fiscal year 1998 be allocated in support of a newly established
    tribal hunting committee created for the purpose of developing
    an Intertribal Wildlife Coordination Program to better
    coordinate hunting issues with the Washington Department of
    Fish and Wildlife as a follow-up to the August 1997 ruling in
    Washington versus Buchanan.
        Expenditures for fiscal year 1999 will be determined in
    tribal meetings scheduled for next year.
                                    ------

                     Question Submitted by Senator Cochran

        Question. Recognizing that the waiting list for school
    construction is very long, and in the interest of finding ways
    to move schools off the list by accomplishing the needed
    construction, I suggested last year that BIA look into
    developing a pilot project that would allow Tribes to match
    funds for this purpose. Please provide a status on that
    project, and particularly the prospect for implementation.
        Answer. In mid-April 1998, the Navajo Nation President and
    tribal representatives from the Crow Creek and Mississippi
    Choctaw Tribes met with key staff from the Bureau's Office of
    Indian Education Programs and Facilities Management and
    Construction Center. The purpose of this meeting was to begin
    preliminary discussions regarding tribal/BIA funding
    partnerships for replacement school construction and to discuss
    potential revisions to the priority setting process for
    replacement school construction which will take into
    consideration the funding partnership concept. The Bureau
    intends to consult with Tribes and school boards during the
    summer of 1998 regarding the revisions and the funding
    partnership concept. The Bureau will consider implementation of
    a pilot project or projects to test the validity of the
    concept.
                                    ------

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici

    Indian water rights funding
        Several New Mexico Indian Pueblos are very upset about the lack of
    funding in the Albuquerque Area Office for water rights negotiations.
        What bothers me about this situation is the fact that I am hearing
    about funds going to Minnesota and Montana while Arizona and New Mexico
    Tribes--where the vast majority of pending cases are--see declining
    resources while the national total goes up.
        The Zuni, Acoma, Laguna, and Taos Pueblos have made strong appeals
    to me to try and secure water rights funding for their on-going water
    negotiations.
        The first problem in tracking this funding is that the money comes
    from two sources in non-recurring funds at the BIA. The first source is
    Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, which has an Administration
    request for an increase of $3.5 million over 1998 or a new total of
    $14.5 million. The second source is Water Management, Planning, and
    Pre-Development, level funded by the Administration at about $8
    million.
        From both sources, New Mexico Tribes received $3.48 million in
    1996; $2.87 million in 1997; and $2.38 million in 1998--clearly a
    steady decline while demand for these funds is on the increase due to
    active negotiations in the Rio San Jose, the Rio Grande, the Little
    Colorado, and other water basins around New Mexico.
        Despite the supposed high priority for active negotiations in both
    sources, New Mexico definitely is being short-changed for reasons that
    I simply do not understand. I have no quarrel with the formal BIA
    priorities, but I do have a quarrel with the application of these
    priorities in New Mexico.
        Question 1. Please explain these disparities to me, but, more
    important, please help me to see that the BIA follows its own
    guidelines in distributing this vital water resource funding in the
    Southwest, and especially in New Mexico.
        Answer. The Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation Program is a
    critical component of the Bureau's efforts to carry out the United
    States' responsibility to protect, defend, and manage American Indian
    reserved water rights and other related issues in accordance with the
    highest fiduciary standards. Reductions in funding over the past
    several years have seriously affected the Bureau's ability to fund, or
    fully fund, many requests. Thus it is becoming increasingly difficult
    for the Bureau to meet its trust responsibilities. The $3.5 million
    increase requested would restore funding for the Water Rights
    Negotiation/Litigation Program to the fiscal year 1995 level.
        When funding requests are received for both federal and tribal
    activities, they are evaluated using established national ranking
    criteria to address the highest priority of both litigation and
    negotiation needs. For fiscal year 1998, an evaluation panel of Bureau
    area office program personnel was established. The panel was comprised
    of representatives from Area Offices with some of the most active water
    rights issues, including the Albuquerque and Phoenix Area Offices. This
    panel worked diligently to review all funding requests and to apply the
    established criteria for ranking each request.
        For fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Albuquerque and Phoenix
    Area Offices have consistently received 60 percent of the water
    resources funds available while overall program funding levels have
    decreased. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Minneapolis Area Office
    did not receive Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation funding and their
    fiscal year 1998 funding from the Water Resources Management, Planning
    and Development Program was reduced by almost 50 percent from fiscal
    year 1997. The Billings Area Office has not received funding in excess
    of the Albuquerque or Phoenix Area Offices since fiscal year 1996.
        The Bureau will continue every effort to ensure that the funds
    available are distributed to address the higher priorities and provide
    adequate funding for worthy projects in support of Indian water
    resource activities.
                       new mexico indian school requests
    Navajo preparatory school (BIA contract school)
        Navajo Prep is requesting $1.4 million for replacement of utility
    infrastructure. This request includes costs for sewer, water,
    electricity, storm drainage, natural gas, and communications needs.
        Navajo Prep is located in Farmington, NM, serves 190 students, and
    is eligible for BIA Facilities Repair and Improvement (FI&R) funds.
    They are seeking funds to build a new campus to serve 300 students.
        Answer. The Bureau requested $37.4 million in the fiscal year 1999
    President's Budget for Seba Dalkai Boarding School, Sac and Fox School,
    and Pyramid Lake High School which are ranked Nos. 9, 10, and 11 on the
    Bureau's replacement school construction priority list. If requested
    funds are provided, construction of these schools would start in the
    early spring of CY 1999 and be completed in the fall of CY 2000. The
    fiscal year 1999 budget request does not include any funds for the
    Navajo Preparatory School. The replacement school construction needs
    have been determined through a nationwide priority setting process
    directed by the Congress. The Bureau will continue to utilize the list
    until the last school is funded for construction.
    Canoncito community school (BIA school)
        This Pre-K-12 school was designed for 225 students. Current
    enrollment is 471 students. To alleviate overcrowding, they are seeking
    funds for six portable classrooms at about $210,000. They would also
    like to see a new school on this site. Their current basic structure
    was built in 1935.
        Answer. On March 31, 1998, the Bureau called for new applications
    for portable classrooms which are planned for funding in fiscal year
    2000, 2001 and 2002. The applications are due on June 1, 1998. An
    application package for portable classrooms has been sent to the
    Canoncito Community School, as well as all other eligible Bureau funded
    schools, for their use in applying for any additional justifiable
    portable classrooms. Bureau staff have discussed this need for
    additional classrooms with school board representatives and is aware of
    the overcrowded conditions. If the Canoncito School board applies for
    portable classrooms, the Bureau will consider the application based on
    the established needs-based criteria provided to all schools and will
    rate and rank the application accordingly. If the application is ranked
    high relative to other applications, the BIA will consider funding the
    need in future budget requests.
        With regard to the school's desire for a new school, the Bureau's
    current plan includes a call for new applications for replacement
    school construction in early CY 1999. Newly prioritized schools under
    this application process will be added to the existing list of unfunded
    replacement schools. The Bureau plans on consulting with Tribes and
    school boards during the summer of CY 1998 regarding changes to the
    priority setting process, with proposed rulemaking planned for the
    latter part of CY 1998. Approximately 10 schools will be added to the
    existing replacement school priority list.
    Isleta Elementary School (BIA School)
        This K-6 school was built in 1930. There are thirteen (13) portable
    classrooms on site. There are 236 students and 17 staff members. 62
    students are taught in the main building with the remaining 174
    students in portable classrooms. The main building is an old adobe
    building with few of today's classroom necessities. The auditorium is
    too small to be used for physical education, there is no storage space
    in its three classrooms, windows do not open, and the roof continues to
    leak.
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $3.2 million
    for Portable Classrooms. The Bureau will continue to repair education
    buildings as funding is appropriated. The existing health and safety
    criteria-based ranking system will be used to determine project
    ranking.
    Mariano Lake Community School (BIA School on Navajo Nation)
        This school is in transition from a BIA operated school to a BIA
    contract school. Their FI&R needs exceed $390,000 including the
    replacement of two 1,000 gallon propane tanks that are not in
    compliance with codes. They need three three-bedroom staff quarters for
    an additional $195,000, and their top priority is a 10,880 square foot
    gymnasium.
        Current enrollment is 281 with 64 boarding students. This school
    serves the Crownpoint area.
        Answer. This school is not on the Bureau's Replacement School
    Construction priority list established in 1993. The Bureau will
    continue down the list until the last school is funded for
    construction. To fund this request would circumvent the priority
    setting process and longstanding policy of using the existing
    replacement school priority list approved and frozen by Congress.
        The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Education Facilities
    Improvement and Repair is $46.2 million. The Bureau uses the automated
    priority ranking method to establish the list from which to determine
    what projects can be funded for FI&R work. This school is not on the
    Facilities Improvement and Repair list. The Bureau determines critical
    life safety issues and addresses them as a first priority. The
    planning, design, and construction activities are established through
    the facilities improvement and repair (FI&R) nationwide priority
    setting process. The Bureau is encouraged by recent Presidential
    initiatives to increase funding for the Nation's school infrastructure
    including increases in Bureau school construction funding levels. The
    Bureau is aware that the condition of many of the existing schools
    remains poor, however, the Bureau continues to work with respective
    Tribes and school boards to identify any immediate dangerous safety and
    health conditions which are eligible to be corrected with Minor
    Improvement and Repair or Emergency funds.
    Shiprock Alternative Schools (BIA Schools)
        This school has 182 high school students; 200 elementary students;
    a special education program for 20 students; and a residential facility
    with 85 students. At-risk youth who are having social or academic
    problems in conventional settings make up the student body.
        This school is number 12 on the national replacement school
    priority list. Planning is complete and design is funded. Most
    buildings are over 50 years old.
        Answer. This project is currently ranked number 12 on the Bureau's
    replacement school construction priority list. The planning phase of
    the project is complete and the School Board, using a Public Law 100-
    297 grant, is scheduled to start the design phase of the project in the
    summer of 1998. The Bureau anticipates requesting funds for
    construction of this project in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
    The Mescalero Apache K-12 School
        In 1954, the Mescalero Elementary was built with BIA funds. It
    became a BIA funded public school through the Tularosa Public School
    system. This K-6 elementary school was destroyed by arson in 1990. The
    Tularosa school system collected the insurance, and the BIA helped with
    temporary facilities.
        Question 2. The Mescalero Apache Tribe is now seeking funds for the
    construction of a new K-12 school to serve the entire reservation. I
    understand that the BIA is again responsible for the school, and I am
    very interested in verifying its status as a BIA school, and the
    possibility of its becoming a priority for BIA replacement and new
    construction funds.
        The destruction by fire is normally a cause of high priority
    consideration by the BIA, and I do not yet understand why the Mescalero
    Apache school has not been made a priority in the BIA school
    construction program?
        Answer. The Mescalero Tribe leased land for a nominal fee ($1.00)
    to the State of Mexico for a 25-year period. The local school district
    then located, constructed (in 1958), and operated a public K-6 grade
    elementary school on the reservation land. The annual lease
    subsequently expired with no new lease agreement being reached. A
    chronology of events on this school follows:
        February 18, 1990.--The Mescalero Public School burned down (K-6).
        February 19, 1990.--Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
    90-5 in support of the Tularosa Public School Board of Education and
    requested portable classrooms from BIA and the State.
        May 20, 1990.--Albuquerque Area Education Administration notified
    the Tribe that no funds are available from the Office of Indian
    Education Programs (OIEP) for the emergency.
        August 6, 1990.--The Office of Construction Management (OCM) met
    with tribal Representatives and agreed to have a Technical Team
    determine suitability of a tribal community center for conducting
    classes in school year 1990-91. The Tularosa School District had used
    the community center part of school year 1989-90. The building was
    found to be seriously deficient for use as a school. The Facilities
    Management and Construction Center (FMCC) looked at options to upgrade
    tribal buildings or acquire portable classrooms.
        August 6, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe passed Resolution No.
    90-28, indicating that the Tribe and school district have failed to
    reach an agreement on location and operation of a public school (school
    district proposed to build a new school located off tribal lands, which
    would require student busing). Also, the school would include other
    public students. The Tribe requested BIA to assume operation
    responsibility for a proposed tribal school in 1990-91.
        August 15, 1990.--Plans for a steel building to be purchased and
    erected by the Mescalero Apache Tribe were transmitted to FMCC for
    review.
        August 16, 1990.--A meeting was held regarding the school between
    the Secretary of Interior, Manuel Lujan; the Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs, Eddie Brown; and the President of the Mescalero Apache
    Tribe, Wendell Chino. The Department/BIA position held was that the
    Bureau would not support taking over the education program from the
    Mescalero Tularosa School District until an agreement was reached to
    operate an accredited public school.
        August 22, 1990.--Letter sent to the Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs from the Albuquerque Area Director requesting $387,000 to
    renovate tribal building for classrooms (building purchased by Tribe).
        August 24, 1990.--Letter sent from the Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs to the President of the Tribe specifying conditions for
    granting assistance to tribal school. The Tribe was independently
    obtaining facilities and hiring teachers for school year 1990-91.
        October 9, 1990.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted interim
    application for Tribally Controlled Grant School (Public Law 100-297).
        April 4, 1991.--Letter sent from the Assistant Secretary for
    Policy, Management and Budget to the Appropriations Committees bringing
    the committees up to date on the status of the school. No agreement was
    reached between the Tribe and the public school district, and the Tribe
    obtained and erected a building for 250 students.
        April 11, 1991.--OIEP approves the Mescalero School to become a
    Bureau-funded school, effective July 1, 1991. Safety deficiencies are
    required to be corrected at the school before occupation.
        November 25, 1991.--The Mescalero Apache Tribe submitted an
    application for new school construction.
        January 6, 1993.--Federal Register Notice for ``Education
    Facilities Construction Priority List of fiscal year 1993'' was
    published. Mescalero's application for fiscal year 1993 was considered,
    however, because the school when destroyed by fire was not a Bureau
    owned or operated facility, the application did not receive a high
    ranking on the priority system. The application was competed and
    evaluated along with 66 other requests. Only the top five schools were
    added to the 1992-93 list which contained 16 schools in total.
        The Bureau Education and Facilities programs provide funding for
    the annual operation of the Mescalero Tribal School. The Bureau
    recognizes the needs of the Mescalero School and other schools in
    Indian Country. However, the fiscal year 1992-993 Education Facilities
    Construction Priority list of 16 schools was frozen by the Congress in
    fiscal year 1993. Through fiscal year 1998, the Bureau has received
    funding for the first eight schools on that list. In fiscal year 1999,
    funding for three additional schools is requested which will leave five
    schools remaining. With our fiscal year 1999 projected annual rate of
    appropriations, we anticipate completing the list of 16 prioritized
    schools in the year 2001 or 2002. The Bureau is concerned about
    Mescalero and other schools where students are faced with being
    educated in classrooms that do not meet code requirements or modern
    standards. The Facilities Management and Construction Center and the
    Office of Indian Education Programs, at the direction of the Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs, are currently reviewing completion of the
    replacement school projects and looking at a new replacement school
    application process. Depending on appropriation levels, the Bureau is
    anticipating being able to solicit replacement school applications when
    the new process is established in 1999. This will provide Mescalero
    with the opportunity to compete for a replacement school in a national
    prioritized ranking process.
    Crownpoint Institute of Technology
        BIA operating funds of $1.8 million plus contract support costs of
    $400,000 are needed to stabilize the operating funds for CIT. Sixty-one
    percent of CIT graduates have jobs in the private sector. It is the
    only vocational education school on the Navajo Nation and enrolls 426
    students.
    Acoma-Laguna-Canoncito High School
        We have been asked for a special appropriation of $14 million for
    this new high school. Indian school repair, renovation and
    replacement--a crisis in three R's in Indian country S. Con. Res. 86
    concurrent resolution on the budget
        Answer. This project is not currently on the Bureau's replacement
    school priority list. The fiscal year 1998 Interior Appropriation Bill
    language prohibits the Bureau from expanding grades for any school or
    dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by the
    Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau school systems
    as of October 1, 1995. The Acoma-Laguna-Canoncito High School is not
    presently in the Bureau school system.
    Overall assessment of Indian school physical conditions
        Today there is a $1.5 billion backlog of repairs, renovation, and
    replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA schools, including
    elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.
        A December, 1997 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
    concluded that ``the cost of the total inventory of repairs needed for
    BIA education facilities (elementary and secondary only) is $754
    million. This includes $693 million for repairs to school buildings,
    including dormitories for students. It also includes $61.7 million in
    repairs needed for education quarters such as employee housing.
        The footnote to this estimate notes that $754 million ``does not
    include the costs of replacing school buildings. BIA's priority list
    for constructing education facilities includes eight unfunded school
    replacement projects with a total estimated cost of $112 million.''
    The BIA construction priority list
        Mr. President, we in the Senate who pay close attention to this BIA
    priority list for school construction are well aware that this list has
    been frozen for several years now. This means that the eight school
    scheduled for replacement are the ones on this frozen priority list. I
    am attaching this list of 16 total BIA schools from the
    Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Record.
    Obviously, a school that is replaced would be deleted from the list of
    school needing repair. The GAO report includes the costs of schools
    scheduled for replacement. In short, the GAO estimate does not fully
    estimate the costs of replacement schools.
        To get a rough idea of the costs of replacing these schools,
    including those that are not on the frozen priority list, I have
    checked with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover.
    His office informs me that 50 percent of the 185 BIA schools are over
    30 years old and fail to meet current codes and standards.
        The GAO, has noted that 25 percent of BIA schools are over 50 years
    old, and, of course fail to meet the same standards for safety and
    teaching.
    Total BIA schools needing replacement and repair
        There are 93 BIA schools that should be replaced--well beyond the
    current priority list of 16. At an average cost of $180 per square
    foot, these 93 schools would cost one billion dollars to replace.
        Replacing these 93 oldest BIA schools would leave about $200
    million in repair and renovation costs for the remaining 92 BIA
    schools.
        This simple arithmetic gives us a current estimate of about $1.2
    billion to bring all federally operated BIA schools up to par.
    Indian community colleges
        These Indian community colleges fall into two categories: those run
    by the BIA and those that are tribally controlled community colleges.
        In the first category, those run by the BIA, Haskell (Kansas) and
    SIPI (Albuquerque) are the only two that are fully federally operated
    by the BIA. The BIA now has 26 tribally controlled community colleges
    eligible to receive funds through the Tribally Controlled Community
    Colleges Act, and one more, United Tribes Technical College, funded
    through the BIA's Community Development funds.
        In total, then, there are 29 Indian Community Colleges with direct
    BIA funding, and one, Crownpoint Institute of Technology, that is
    funded primarily through the Carl Perkins Vocational Education program
    of the U. S. Department of Education.
        These Indian community colleges have an estimated repair and
    renovation cost of about $310 million. Replacement costs, such as the
    Shiprock branch of Navajo Community College, are not included. The
    Shiprock branch is estimating the costs for a new campus at about $28
    million. The need for married student housing at Crownpoint Institute
    of Technology is also not included.
    Total BIA schools and Indian community colleges
        For the sake of simplicity, we can easily estimate that total
    repair, renovation, and replacement costs for all elementary,
    secondary, and post-secondary BIA schools and tribal schools eligible
    for BIA funds, exceed $1.5 billion.

                           gao report on bia schools

        For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to submit an
    edited version of the GAO study on Indian school repair needs.
    Please keep in mind that this report is focused on elementary
    and secondary schools only.
        The GAO finds that 47,200 Indian students are served by 173
    schools. The BIA count is 185 schools and over 50,000 students.
    The BIA schools range in size from 15 to 1,144 students, with
    about half of these schools enrolling fewer than 200 pupils.
        Growth is very high in these schools with an increase in
    student enrollment of 25 percent since 1987. Most of this
    growth has occurred in the last 5 years.
        About 10 percent of all Indian students attend BIA schools,
    funded or operated by the BIA. The vast majority or 90 percent
    of Indian students in America attend regular public schools.
        BIA schools are located in 23 states, but are highly
    concentrated in 5 states--North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona,
    New Mexico, and Washington.
        BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition that
    even central city schools and lack more key facility
    requirements than typical American schools.
        The BIA schools are older and less able to support computer
    and communications technology than average American schools.
        Conclusion (S. Res. 100 on Education of American Indians)
    In addition to the physical needs of our federally operated
    Indian schools and colleges, there is a parallel crisis in
    operating funds for Indian schools nationwide.
        American Indian students have the highest dropout rate of
    any racial ethnic group (36 percent) and the lowest high school
    completion and college attendance rates of any minority group.
        Average annual funding for Indian college students is
    $2,900 compared to $6,200 for Americans as a whole.
        Senate Resolution 100, introduced in the First Session of
    this Congress which I introduced with the cosponsorship of
    Senators Campbell, Inouye, Johnson, Dorgan, and Wellstone,
    discusses the overall situation of Indian education and calls
    upon the 105th Congress to address these issues through major
    education bills under consideration.
        I urge my colleagues to review Senate Resolution 100, and
    support its passage by this body in order to draw more needed
    attention to the major problems we face today in Indian
    education.
        I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 100 be made a part of
    the Record, along with the BIA school construction priority
    list, and my summary of the GAO report on Indian school
    repairs.
                                    ------

                      Questions Submitted by Senator Burns

        Question 1. What can we, as Congress, do to ensure that
    funding uses are being reported correctly by the BIA and the
    Tribes themselves?
        Answer. The Bureau has its finances audited annually by the
    Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General (IG).
    Tribes that receive more than $300,000 annually in Federal
    funds are required under the Single Audit Act to have an
    independent audit that is reviewed by the Inspector General.
    All of these audits are currently required because of laws that
    Congress enacted to safeguard federal appropriations. In
    addition, the Bureau adheres to the guidelines for
    reprogramming imposed by the Appropriation Committees and
    reports to Congress both on the reprogramming of funds managed
    by the Bureau (quarterly) and reprogramming of tribal funds
    from Tribal Priority Allocations (semi-annually) in accordance
    with those guidelines. It is the position of the Bureau that
    these laws are adequate to ensure that funds are being
    correctly reported.
        The Bureau has received qualified options from the IG for
    the last two years. The qualifications are not related to the
    execution and reporting of appropriated dollars. The
    qualifications are primarily related to collection and
    accounting for revenues and debts owed to the Bureau and
    accurate accounting and depreciation of property.
        On the tribal side, most Single Audit Act audits are found
    to be acceptable and accurate. The primary issues on tribal
    audits relate to timeliness of filing and the needs for
    improvements in accounting systems as tribes take on additional
    programs and add tribal business operations. When abnormalities
    in fund management are discovered, the Tribes are directly to
    correct the problems.
        Question 2. How do you plan to decrease unemployment and
    increase economic growth by increasing funding to the Tribes?
        Answer. While the Bureau's fiscal year 1999 budget request
    includes increases over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, it
    only begins to reflect the needs in Indian communities. It
    remains true that American Indians are younger, have greater
    poverty levels, higher unemployment, a greater number of single
    parent families, and they die younger than the U.S. population
    at large. Unhappily, these trends are actually deteriorating at
    this time. The budget request is a delicate balance. It
    attempts to address only a small portion of need Tribes have to
    bring programs for Indian communities anywhere near neighboring
    non-Indian communities. Tribes want to decrease unemployment
    and desperately desire opportunities for economic growth so
    that they can even consider becoming less dependent on the
    federal government for resources, as much as the Bureau does.
        The Bureau's appropriations included resources for several
    programs directly related to economic development, including a
    Direct Loan program, a Guaranteed Loan program, an Indian
    Business Development Grant program, a Community and Economic
    Development Grant program, and Technical Assistance to Indian
    (business) enterprises. Budget reductions over the last several
    years have eliminated all but the guaranteed loan program, even
    while Tribes have voiced needs in this area and the Bureau has
    requested and justified funding. In the guaranteed loan
    program, the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $4.5 million
    will subsidize $34.6 in guarantee loan commitments. The fiscal
    year 1999 proposed appropriation of $4.5 million will subsidize
    up to $59.7 million in guarantee loan commitments, an increase
    of over 70 percent.
        The only thing that will help Tribes attempt to resolve the
    problems of unemployment and lack of economic development is
    devoting more resources to close the gap between the well-being
    of non-Indian and Indian communities.
        Question 3. What exactly does the BIA see as its long term
    goal to be achieved by the year 2000?
        Answer. The Bureau has a number of long term goals
    identified in its Government Performance and Results Act
    Strategic Plan. These goals range from emphasis on improving
    and increasing Indian Self-Determination to increasing the
    efficiency of administrative support services within the Bureau
    and to the Tribes. One goal is ``to provide quality
    investigative and police services and technical expertise to
    Indian Tribes.'' This goal is receiving the greatest emphasis
    in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request. The goal is
    supported by the multi-year Presidential Initiative on Law
    Enforcement in Indian Country which includes joint funding
    requests in fiscal year 1999 for the Department of the
    Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of
    Justice. The combined funding will make significant progress
    toward resolving the crime problems in Indian Country in its
    first year (of the four year Initiative) by improving the
    delivery of law enforcement services through increased law
    enforcement personnel available ``on the street'' and
    additional training being provided to Tribal and Bureau law
    enforcement personnel.
        Question 4. What short term fixes do you think need to be
    done this year in order to move us toward this long term goal?
        Answer. With regard to the Bureau's strategic goal on law
    enforcement the most immediate need is to put additional
    trained, uniformed officers in Indian Country and eliminate
    dual roles of personnel at detention centers whose daily job
    requirements currently range from jailer, dispatcher, to cook.
    This goal can be achieved by supporting the funding increase
    proposed for law enforcement in the President's budget request
    so that additional personnel may be hired and additional
    training courses may be provided to ensure quality service.
                                    ------

                     Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan

        Question 1. On March 31 of this year, you had a meeting
    with USDA officials and representatives of the Three Affiliated
    Tribes concerning the Tribes' request to have Farm Service
    Agency farm loans transferred from the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture to the Department of Interior as authorized by
    section 638 of the 1996 farm law. Such an action would protect
    the trust status of these lands. What decision has been made
    regarding this inter-agency transfer request? If no decision
    has been reached, when can such a decision be expected? If the
    request of the Three Affiliated Tribes is being turned down,
    please explain your reasoning for this decision.
        Answer. The decision is under review but is not final. The
    process of transferring these debts is being studied and a
    draft transfer agreement is being prepared. We expect to reach
    a decision by September 30, 1998.
        Question 2. Therapeutic Model Schools, such as the Circle
    of Nations School in North Dakota, were established to serve
    children having a wide range of needs not able to be met in a
    traditional school setting. Therefore, these institutions
    require specialized personnel and other resources to created
    comprehensive programs to meet a wide variety of needs from
    counseling to substance abuse to learning disabilities. Would
    you support special appropriations to these designated
    institutions to evaluate students and develop and deliver
    services which recognize the special needs of their students?
        Answer. To date, the Bureau has provided a total of
    $767,600 additional dollars to the Circle of Nations School in
    an effort to implement the therapeutic model, beginning in
    School Year 1993-94. As a result of our efforts, earlier
    problems with the school administration and the implementation
    of a specific therapeutic model have been resolved and the
    overall educational program at the school improved
    considerably.
        In addition, we have requested $550,000 in fiscal year 1999
    for the training of residential and instructional staff in all
    Bureau-funded schools. Approximately half of that amount will
    be spent specifically for training of the dormitory and
    boarding school staff who spend the greatest amount of time
    with the residential students. Building on our experience at
    Circle of Nations School and hearing directly from other on-and
    off-reservation schools and dormitories, the Bureau recognized
    the need for intense training in counseling techniques and
    other skills for all residential staff, including those at
    Circle of Nations School.
        Question 3. I am also concerned that formulas for
    allocating special education funding under the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act may not recognize the particular
    scope of services provided by therapeutic model schools. Can
    you assure me that the Department will look into this matter
    and report back to me with regard to its options under this
    program?
        Answer. The formulas for allocating special education
    funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
    have been sent to Tribes, tribal organizations, school boards
    and parents for comment in the Tribal Consultation Booklet. The
    Consultation meetings were held between April 22, 1998 and May
    14, 1998. All comments and options are now being reviewed
    before any decision on a formula is made final. A report will
    be submitted outlining special education funding allocation
    options.
        Question 4. As you know, for the last two months my office
    has been involved with the Department and numerous other
    federal agencies in trying to reach a solution to the problems
    of PCB contaminated schools on the Standing Rock Reservation.
    What actions are you taking to identify other schools and
    facilities under your control in North Dakota which may be
    similarly contaminated?
        Answer. The Bureau became aware of PCB contamination at
    Standing Rock in early February, 1998. Soon thereafter, the
    Aberdeen Area Director sent a letter educating all the Agency
    Superintendents and Education Line Officers in the Area,
    including North Dakota, about the issue of PCB light ballasts,
    and directing them to conduct PCB ballast inventories. Fort
    Totten Agency has reported that they do not have PCB-containing
    light ballasts. The other Agencies in North Dakota (Fort
    Berthold and Turtle Mountain), and elsewhere in the Aberdeen
    Area, are currently compiling their PCB inventories.
        The Aberdeen Area is treating all reports of leaking PCB
    ballasts as emergency abatements, even if PCBs have not leaked
    into the occupied space of the buildings. Non-leaking ballasts
    are being scheduled to be retrofitted under the Bureau's Minor
    Improvement and Repair program.
        In North Dakota, the Bureau has been participating in the
    PCB remediation at Ft. Yates on the Standing Rock Reservation.
    At this time all that remains to be completed at that project
    is the installation of new ceiling tiles and carpet in the
    administration building and elementary school and carpet in the
    high school library. Ceiling tile installation began in the
    administration building on May 11, 1998. The carpet for the
    elementary school and high school is on site. Despite extensive
    post-remediation PCB sampling conducted by the Bureau's
    contractor, the Tribal school board has indicated that it would
    like to perform additional PCB testing in the elementary
    school. The installation of the carpet must wait until that
    testing program is complete. The Bureau has also obtained
    quotes for replacing light ballasts that may contain PCBs in
    schools that are on the Standing Rock Reservation but are not
    in Ft. Yates.
        In addition to these efforts in North Dakota and the
    Aberdeen Area, the Bureau is also developing a nationwide PCB
    inventory and phase-out program. All Areas are being instructed
    to determine the date of manufacture of light ballasts (most
    manufactured prior to 1978 contain PCBs) and their condition in
    all Bureau buildings, including schools and recreation
    buildings. Once this inventory is complete, the Bureau will
    develop a long range plan and budget proposal to phase out all
    PCB light ballasts. In addition, all Bureau facilities will be
    examined for PCB and other environmental contamination as part
    of the Bureau's environmental auditing program.
        A formal report was submitted to the Committee on the PCB
    issue, action taken and future plans for testing other school
    facilities.
        Question 5. The Spirit Lake Nation, the Turtle Mountain
    Band of Chippewa, and the Three-Affiliated Tribes at Fort
    Berthold are all party to an agreement with the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture for a Rural Area Economic Partnership (REAP)
    pilot program which is designed to mitigate the negative
    effects of out-migration and lack of employment opportunities
    and job losses in rural communities. President Clinton, in
    making a commitment to the REAP program, indicated his intent
    that an interagency working group be committed to addressing
    the issue of revitalizing rural communities. How is BIA
    participating in the REAP pilot program?
        Answer. The Bureau is not yet involved in this effort. We
    are aware that Fort Berthold is in the Southwest REAP Zone and
    that Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain are in the CONAC REAP
    Zone.
        Question 6. If BIA is not yet involved, tell me how the
    agency will work with the Tribes mentioned here, and the USDA,
    to provide technical and financial assistance devoted to
    success of the REAP program in Indian country?
        Answer. Upon requests from the Tribes, the Bureau will
    provide technical assistance to the extent we are capable and
    will provide financial assistance if available.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gorton. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
    will stand in recess until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, April 23, when
    we will receive testimony from the Forest Service.
        [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Tuesday, April 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Thursday, April 23.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gorton, Cochran, Domenici, Burns,
    Bennett, Gregg, Campbell, Byrd, and Bumpers.
        Also present: Senator Craig.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENTS OF:
            JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
                ENVIRONMENT
            MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            RANDLE PHILLIPS, BUDGET COORDINATOR
            DR. ROBERT LEWIS, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
            FRANCIS PANDOLFI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Gorton. I will call the meeting to order and want
    to apologize to all of our witnesses for the chaotic schedules
    the Senate follows with its votes.
        We have Mr. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources
    and Environment, Mike Dombeck, the Chief of the Forest Service,
    and many of their staff here with them.
        A year ago, the budget agreement and Senator Stevens'
    generosity allowed this subcommittee to provide a substantial
    increase of well over $100 million for Forest Service programs.
    That will not be the case this year. The total for nondefense
    discretionary funding available for the entire Appropriations
    Committee under our budget resolution is less than a freeze
    level.
        I will, of course, try to persuade Senator Stevens to
    provide the subcommittee with an allocation that is somewhat
    better than a freeze, but success in that question is dubious
    and we certainly will not have anything like the $1 billion
    contemplated in the President's budget.
        So our outlook would be a pessimistic one as we look at the
    Forest Service budget in spite of the President's request for
    $150 million more.
        It is more pessimistic and more negative for the witnesses
    here today because I detect almost no sentiment favoring
    increases for the Forest Service. Several members of this
    subcommittee and many other members who have spoken to me
    believe the fiscal year 1998 level is excessive based on the
    performance and behavior of the Forest Service.
        During last year's hearings, I expressed my own concerns
    about the Service and what seems to be its departure from any
    kind of wise, multiple use mission to one almost exclusively
    devoted to preservation. If, in fact, preservation and
    preservation alone is the goal of the Forest Service, there is
    little sense in funding the agency at levels that are higher
    than when true multiple use management provided a significant
    commodity output in addition to providing quality noncommodity
    benefits, such as recreation.

                                roads moratorium

        I want to briefly discuss some of the recent events that
    highlight my concern. First, in January, Mr. Dombeck, you
    issued unilaterally a significant new proposed policy on forest
    roads. Despite the expressed request of a number of Members of
    both the House and the Senate, myself included, to work with
    the Forest Service in developing a revised roads policy, you
    ignored those requests and, instead, issued a policy
    unilaterally that would impose a moratorium on road
    construction in roadless areas.
        This action will only further reduce your planned timber
    sale target, which has already been on a steady decline since
    1990, by 100 million board feet based on your own estimates and
    significantly more over the long-term based on information from
    other knowledgeable sources.
        In addition, I believe that your action endangers the
    critical road construction program essential for preserving
    environmental and economic health.

                              communications plan

        Last month, Chief Dombeck, you announced your natural
    resources agenda. As a part of the communications plan for the
    agenda and your proposal to stabilize county payments, which is
    a part of that agenda, you had directed all line officers to
    initiate a massive public relations campaign that appears to
    violate laws against lobbying to influence legislation on the
    part of the executive branch.

                           gao accountability report

        In yet another case, just last month, before a combined
    House oversight hearing on the Forest Service, Representative
    Norm Dicks suggested that the Forest Service should be put
    under the management of a control board until its
    accountability and performance could be improved. At that
    hearing, the General Accounting Office reported that, after a
    decade of conducting more than 45 audits and reviews that made
    hundreds of recommendations for improvement, and despite
    recommendations from numerous internal task forces:

        The agency has not acted on some recommendations, has
    studied and restudied others without implementing them, and has
    left the implementation of others to the discretion of its
    independent and autonomous regional offices.

        Additionally, the GAO stated that the Forest Service is
    possibly, ``a decade or more away from being accountable for
    its performance.''
        Well, if it is a decade or more away from being accountable
    for its performance, perhaps it should be a decade or more away
    from getting any additional appropriations.
        The GAO reported on other significant performance problems,
    including a steadily increasing amount of overhead expenditures
    and an inability to account for more than $215 million in its
    fiscal year 1995 budget.
        Chief Dombeck, I understand that you have brought your
    assistant, Francis Pandolfi, with you. The prospect of putting
    the Forest Service under a control board leads me to want to
    ask him several questions about these issues. As a long-time
    corporate businessman who has been with the Forest Service for
    little more than a year, I am quite interested in Mr.
    Pandolfi's perspectives on whether or not the Forest Service is
    even capable of cleaning up its accountability mess without a
    major and potentially painful restructuring.
        For both Mr. Lyons and Mr. Dombeck, as I and several of my
    colleagues examined the record over the past year, it seems
    clear that the agency's performance and behavior represent an
    institutional arrogance that Congress must take strong action
    to correct. I expect during this hearing that significant
    emphasis will be placed on this problem.
        I now reserve time for Senator Byrd who is not here yet. He
    will be asked to give his opening statement as soon as he
    appears.
        I am sorry that I don't have a list. I see a tremendous
    amount of interest here on the part of my members, so I think I
    will just work my way down the line and start with Senator
    Cochran.

                    opening remarks of senator thad cochran

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I welcome the
    witnesses and express my personal appreciation for the
    cooperation of Secretary Lyons and Mike Dombeck on some
    initiatives that we are undertaking in my State of Mississippi
    in the national forests. We, for a long time, have found that
    it is a good place to experiment with wildlife habitat
    enhancement initiatives. We have some programs underway there
    which I have visited and become aware of for which I want to
    compliment you.

                              franklin county lake

        We hope to get more cooperation in the future on the
    development of the Franklin County Lake on the Homochitto
    National Forest. I have tried to visit all the forests and stay
    in touch with what is going on there, not only in terms of the
    programs for managing the timber resources but also in the
    management of the entire natural resource that the forests
    provide in our State.
        So with those, I think, more kind and gentle words, which
    may be refreshing to hear, we look forward to continuing to
    work with you and trying to solve the problems that we face in
    our State and in the Nation as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Campbell.

               OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I also welcome Chief Dombeck. I am not going to belabor
    this, but I also had expressed some concern and opposition to
    that roadless moratorium to which you spoke.

                        ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST WIND STORM

        We have had a lot of calls from our constituents,
    particularly in western Colorado, concerned about that. I am
    sure we will get into that. But I did want also, on the other
    hand, to thank Chief Dombeck for helping us get that emergency
    appropriation for what was called the blow down. We lost
    something like 13,000 acres of trees and we did get some help
    from the Forest Service manager and the local economies. But
    also it appears that the Forest Service is going to allow some
    limited logging, maybe of about a third of it or so. I think
    that is very timely because once those trees are down and dead,
    as you know, they don't last too long before the bugs get them.
        So I appreciate your looking into that and trying to move
    that logging forward as quickly as you can.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig has asked to join us here
    today. He is a member of the full committee, though not a
    member of this subcommittee, as I remember. But he is the
    chairman of an analogous subcommittee of the Committee on
    Energy and Natural Resources.
        Senator Craig.

                        OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy. I
    do appreciate it and am pleased to be here to question the
    chief and the secretary this morning as we deal with their
    budgets.
        As you know and as many on this committee know, for the
    last 2\1/2\ years I and my Subcommittee on Forestry have held
    probably the most extensive series of oversight efforts--now I
    believe over 20-odd hearings or more--on the U.S. Forest
    Service. We have looked at it from top to bottom. We have gone
    through two chiefs and all the retired chiefs. Mr. Lyons has
    been before us on numerous occasions.
        I am told that it is probably now one of the more extensive
    reviews of the Forest Service since the days of Hubert
    Humphrey, when we did the National Forest Management Act in the
    1970's. From that we have attempted to produce some legislation
    that addresses some of the problems that all of us are
    concerned about today.
        The difficulty with all of that, Mr. Chairman, is that,
    while the Forest Service has been a cooperating agency to
    provide us with the information, they and the administration
    have staunchly resisted any effort to change, to adjust, or to
    even work in a way with Congress that would assist in bringing
    about some of these concerns that are now being expressed.
        And, of course, as we know, the GAO on I don't know how
    many occasions now has looked at the Forest Service with great
    detail only to say just exactly what you said, Mr. Chairman,
    and that is that this is an agency with great problems that
    cannot fix itself.
        Now I had an opening statement prepared. But let me say to
    the chief this morning what I am about to do. I noticed that
    the President yesterday, on Earth Day, suggested that our
    national forests are more than a mere paper plantation. Then he
    went on to talk about what they ought to be.

                              management problems

        Chief, the problem is not that we want to cut trees and the
    President doesn't get it. The problem is you. The problem is
    Mr. Lyons. The problem is the management of the U.S. Forest
    Service. It is not an agency in the red for the first time in
    its history. Its budgets are in shambles.
        So, Mr. Chairman, what I will do this morning is only read
    what the Christian Science Monitor said this morning.
        Now that is not a conservative paper. It is not a liberal
    paper. It may be slightly center of green on its positions as
    relates to the environment. It said this: ``Behind the
    beguiling public service ads featuring Smokey the Bear and his
    woodland friends lies an unpleasant story of bad management.
    For more than 10 years * * *'' and I will have to recognize
    that you have not been there for 10 years, Chief. So all the
    blame cannot totally rest on your shoulders. But fixing it has
    to.
        ``For more than 10 years now, the U.S. Forest Service has
    been promising everybody--itself, its parent, Department of
    Agriculture, and Congress--that it would get its act together.
    But recent testimony by the General Accounting Office,
    Congress' investigative arm, reveals its inability to collect
    revenues, its inefficiencies, its outright waste that have cost
    taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
        ``The Forest Service often doesn't get fair market value
    for goods. Private concessions, resource lodges, marinas,
    guides, services aren't paying what they should. The service
    does not collect enough from rights-of-way, pipelines, power
    cables, communication wires. Instead of sealed bids for timber,
    it relies on oral bids, losing some $50 million a year.''
        Well, I may agree with some of that. I don't agree with all
    of that. But there is a problem there.
        ``The agency has done little to reduce costs. The 1995
    internal report showed it was losing up to $100 million a year
    from inefficient decisionmaking. It took 10 years and $13
    million simply to revise the management plan of Alaska's
    Tongass National Forest.'' I mean, 10 years.
        ``It loses money because it often doesn't comply with
    environmental and planning requirements. It's financial
    statements are unreliable and cannot account for millions in
    spending. It has weak contracting practices. It put $443
    million at risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Field offices don't
    comply with Federal purchasing requirements.
        ``In Fiscal 1995, the service could not figure out how it
    spent $215 million of its $3.4 billion in operating and program
    funds. It doesn't know what its assets are worth or the actual
    value of its multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog.
        ``Amazingly, its 4-year-old computerized accounting system
    can't cope with the year 2000 problem.
        ``The GAO estimates it could take 10 years,'' as the
    chairman referenced, ``to fix the basic problems. The time to
    start is now.
        ``The White House, the Agriculture Secretary and Congress'
    oversight and Appropriations Committees must act. The Forest
    Service should be held accountable if it doesn't improve soon.
    Senior personnel should be replaced if progress isn't evident.
    Congress must structure the service's budget to get results.
        ``America's precious forests and the wildlife they shelter,
    a resource that belongs to all of us, deserve no less.''
        That is the Christian Science Monitor this morning, in part
    in response to what the President said yesterday.
        The Congress has acted: 2\1/2\ years, 20-plus oversight
    hearings, all of us pleading for cooperation and help to get
    this job done.
        Mr. Lyons, you promised to help us 3 years ago. Yes; we've
    got a problem. Yes; it needs to be fixed.

                              bipartisan solutions

        I don't know how many times I have asked you to come and
    sit down and build a congressional-administrative bipartisan
    effort to solve the problem. And we have been turned down
    flatly.
        The problem is not cutting too many trees. The problem is
    not the people of my State and the school districts that now go
    wanting because of your mismanagement.
        I met with all of the school superintendents in 10 northern
    forest bound counties that are having to consider next year's
    school budgets, cutting them, maybe going to 4 day weeks, or
    dramatically taxing the very limited private base that they
    have. Why? It is because the Forest Service cannot manage. That
    is why.
        Am I concerned today? I came back from my State steaming--a
    State that is so beautiful it raises now hundreds of times more
    trees than it even considers cutting; a State this morning
    where the skies are filled with smoke over Boise because now
    you are burning.
        Idaho is very frustrated. I am very frustrated. And the
    Forest Service is in shambles.
        We deserve better. The forest deserves better. And the
    professional people of the Forest Service deserve better than
    what they are getting.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. I have some questions and I will hold off
    until then.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Burns.

                      prepared statement of senator burns

        Senator Burns. I have a statement. I will just put it in
    the record and I will make my statement as we ask questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. That's fine.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this to be one of the most
    important hearings we have in the Appropriations process. The
    state of Montana has a great deal of land under the authority
    of the National Forest Service. So any decisions made in
    Washington have a direct impact on the citizens of Montana, and
    their ability to do live and do business. Unfortunately in
    recent years those decisions have had a very negative impact on
    the people in Montana.
        Due to the decisions of this Administration in relation to
    the Forest Service, I have had to come to this and other
    subcommittees asking for assistance for communities that have
    seen their way of life threatened. These decisions ranging from
    the Northwest Forest plan to the recent moratorium on roads
    have placed many of the communities in Montana in a very
    delicate situation. They are living on the edge and their
    ultimate survival is threatened by these decisions and actions.
        I remember a time when the Forest Service was very highly
    looked upon in the field. The staff and the people in the field
    were a real part of the land and their communities.
    Unfortunately this is no longer the case. People now look down
    upon the Forest Service. This places those people in the field
    and on the ground in a very difficult position in dealing with
    their neighbors.
        The future of the Forest Service is about as dark as I have
    ever seen it. People just don't seem to think that this agency
    can do it's job in a reasonable and workable manner. This of
    course should not be seen as a reflection on the people in the
    field, but instead a condemnation of the decision making
    processes and the management decisions made in Washington.
        The recent decision on the moratorium of road construction
    is just one example. This decision has placed the people on the
    ground to make decisions and react to this plan in a manner
    which has complicated the life of people out there just trying
    to make a living. Without consultation with either Congress or
    the population, in the areas effected, the Washington office
    made a decision which does effect us all in various ways.
        Recently, Chief Dombeck came before the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee to defend his budget. Throughout this
    hearing the Chief emphasized his desire to consult and work
    with Congress and it's committees on land use policy. I have
    not seen any real evidence of that action yet. Which makes me
    wonder just how committed this Administration and this Chief
    are to making this all work.
        Even more recently Senator Baucus, Congressman Hill and I
    introduced legislation to complete the final phase of the
    Gallatin National Forest land consolidation. We worked on this
    with the understanding that the Forest Service had completed a
    great deal of the work on the appraisal necessary to equate the
    lands to be exchanged.
        During the recent recess I found that this work was far
    from being completed. This lack of action on the part of the
    Forest Service places the completion of this land exchange in
    peril. This is unacceptable considering the time they have had
    to work on this very land exchange. I have discussed this with
    the Chief during a recent meeting, in my office, and it is my
    hope that this will speed up the process and get this action
    moving.
        Since I am on the topic of land exchanges, let's move on
    the Royal Teton Ranch exchange in Montana. This is the land
    located directly north of Yellowstone National Park. The
    Administration included this land acquisition in the $699
    million package which came to this committee earlier this year.
    A sore topic with both this committee and the committee which
    has authorization authority over most of this land
    acquisitions, but let's get beyond that. On this list the
    Forest Service was committing a total of $6.5 million to the
    purchase of this land. I am concerned how negotiations for this
    land are moving forward.
        Chief Dombeck I am sure you are aware of the concerns I
    have about this land exchange. It is imperative that the State
    of Montana continue to have authority over the wildlife that
    come into this area, and believe it or not it is my opinion as
    well as that of Governor Racicot that the Forest Service is in
    the best position to manage this land area.
        What I am hearing from numerous sources however, is that
    the Department of the Interior wants to keep authority here. I
    need you Chief Dombeck, to step up and work with the Governor
    and the people of the state to protect the interests of the
    state. As I have stated your agency is in the best position to
    manage these lands and make sure that Montana is protected.
        I could continue on but think it is important that we hear
    from the Chief before we all have to move on to other
    responsibilities. I am committed to working with both the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member to put together an
    appropriations bill that we can all get behind and support.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman for this hearing and for the time this
    morning.

                    summary statement of hon. james r. lyons

        Senator Gorton. We will have statements now from our two
    chief witnesses.
        Secretary Lyons, you are first. As always, your full
    written statements will be included in the record.
        You have gotten sort of a hard time up here. So if you want
    to start out informally and use your oral time in that respect,
    you are, of course, free to do so.
        Mr. Lyons. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear once again before the
    subcommittee.
        Senator Craig, let me just say that I would be pleased to
    meet with you at any time. And, in fact, you may not be aware,
    but I recently accepted an invitation to join you and Ms.
    Chenoweth in Idaho, I believe on May 17, to look at forest
    management issues there. It is something we have tried to set
    up for about a year. So I would be glad to come out and join
    you.
        Senator Craig. It's one thing we are doing there that is a
    good thing both you and I have done.
        Mr. Lyons. Good. I will look forward to that trip, then.
    Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chief and Francis and I are
    prepared to address all the questions that have been raised
    today in your opening statements. What I would like to do in my
    opening time, however, is to focus in on some of the issues and
    controversy obviously surrounding the Forest Service budget,
    particularly related to correspondence that we have received
    from Chairman Murkowski, subcommittee Chairman Craig, Chairman
    Young, and subcommittee Chairwoman Chenoweth on the House side
    related to our budget and concerns related to how we are
    investing taxpayer dollars in the management and stewardship of
    the national forests.
        As I said, recently we received a letter regarding agency
    management direction. That letter raised the specter of funding
    the national forest management at what was termed a custodial
    level.
        If I could, Mr. Chairman, Chief Dombeck has already
    provided a response. What I would like to do this morning is
    offer some of my own perspectives on that letter. I would like
    to submit the letter as well as the Chief's response for the
    record.
        Senator Gorton. The letter will be included in the record.
        Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]
        Letter From Senator Frank H. Murkowski, Senator Larry E. Craig,
          Representative Don Young, and Representative Helen Chenoweth
                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                     Washington, DC, February 20, 1998.
    Hon. Mike Dombeck,
    Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
            DC.
        Dear Mr. Dombeck: As you know, there is presently very little
    agreement on a discrete mission for the National Forest System.
    Consequently, there is no consensus on appropriate governing statutes,
    nor any real collaboration within government or among competing
    interests in setting management goals. Neither Congress, the
    Administration, nor the Forest Service have been able to consider
    together, let alone find, cost efficient and effective ways to
    streamline the legislative, regulatory, and legal morass in which the
    Agency currently finds itself. In the face of continuing controversy
    over Forest Service management, it is increasingly clear that the costs
    of managing the National Forest System are increasing (in some cases
    dramatically) and may, in the view of some, outweigh the benefits being
    received by interest groups, communities, and the public. While it is
    painful for us to contemplate, the time may have come to instead
    consider ways to reduce the investment of billions of dollars each year
    in light of the increasingly diminished returns on that investment.
        This is not our preferred course. But the trend of present events--
    accelerated by some of the Administration's own initiatives--suggests
    we may be moving in this direction irrespective of our preferences.
    Consequently, we would like your assessment of the costs and savings
    from converting to custodial management of the National Forest System.
    We also would like your assessment of the savings that might be
    available--through down-sizing the agency, out-sourcing some management
    functions, or other alternatives--to match such a management approach.
    In order to accurately and thoroughly assess what a conversion to
    custodial management might mean--particularly if events are already
    moving in this direction--we need to more fully understand both the
    biological and financial implications of this management strategy.
        Most Americans believe that each generation should leave the public
    resources in a better condition than they received them from their
    parents. Thus, we first want you to generally assess: (1) how past
    management has changed the condition of the federal lands in the last
    100 years; (2) the condition they are in today, compared to what the
    current forest plans call for; and (3) the ecological condition of
    those lands if no vegetative management or man-induced, prescribed fire
    are practiced on the National Forests System for the next 100 years.
        As you are aware, many forest ecosystems in the West are currently
    severely overstocked, and becoming progressively more so. The age-class
    distribution of their forests suggests they are increasingly
    susceptible to natural pathogens and catastrophic fires. If Congress
    were to direct the Forest Service to manage National Forest System
    stands under only custodial management--with only the most limited
    active management intervention and fire suppression limited to avoiding
    spread to other ownerships--what will be the biological conditions of
    these forests in one hundred years? Specifically, how much less
    productive would soils be due to severe erosion after fire? How will
    wildlife and fisheries resources be affected by radical changes to
    habitat conditions?
        Turning to the financial part of the question, we recognize there
    are a limited number of activities which must continue under even a
    custodial management regime. For example, some fire suppression must be
    continued (to avoid spread to other ownerships). We also understand
    that a limited amount of land line location and survey work must be
    carried out to ensure the integrity of National Forest boundaries.
    Additionally, the Forest Service will incur costs to maintain right-of-
    way access to private lands within the National Forests. There will
    also be some costs associated with wildlife and fisheries restoration
    and enhancement work which must be carried out in the National Forest
    System under any fully approved Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery
    Plan (this is distinguishable from the costs of any restoration and
    enhancement work which is discretionary, whether or not that management
    is prescribed in existing forest plans, which would not be part of a
    custodial management regime and would occur naturally more slowly).
    Additionally, funds will be needed to administer existing contracts,
    permits, leases, or other instruments--through the termination date of
    these instruments. Finally, funds will be needed to cover the cost of
    maintaining only those roads in the National Forest System which are
    currently designated as a Federal, State, or County highway, road, or
    right-of-way, and any recreation facility that is accessible from such
    a road. We assume continued management of any recreation facility that
    is still accessible and would want to evaluate the costs and how they
    should be borne, including management by other entities.
        Please provide an estimate of what the above efforts would likely
    cost on an annual basis. Additionally, if you feel any other work will
    be required to properly discharge custodial responsibilities, please
    provide us with the legal citations which list the work you believe
    will be needed, along with the specific legislative language which
    directs the additional management.
        In addition to the above information, please provide specific
    answers to the following questions and transmit your response no later
    than March 20, 1998. We intend to discuss these issues with you in a
    preliminary way at our budget oversight hearings in late February and
    early March. Your prompt and more detailed response will help us
    develop our final Committee recommendations for the Forest Service
    fiscal year 1999 Budget.
        1. Please provide the total amount of acres in the National Forest
    System as of October 1, 1997.
        2. Please provide the total number of acres, under the existing
    National Forest Management Act (NFMA) forest plans, available for
    active management for the production of commodity and non-commodity
    goods and services in the National Forest System as of October 1, 1997.
        3. Please list all management activities which will have to be
    carried out under a custodial management regime. Please also provide
    the statutory citation which requires this work to be carried out in a
    specific area or areas (please be specific and quote the actual
    language which requires this work to be carried out).
        4. Please provide the current number of Full Time Equivalent
    (FTE's) positions employed by the U.S. Forest Service in all three arms
    of the Agency.
        5. Please provide the number of the employees, the salaries, and
    other compensation which could be saved by shifting to custodial
    management, as described above, with any additions you believe
    necessary. Include savings in support functions which would no longer
    be necessary. Exclude from these savings the estimated cost of
    providing the following management activities: (1) the decadal per acre
    average cost of providing fire protection (pre-suppression and
    suppression) times the number of acres so treated per decade to prevent
    the spread of fires to adjacent ownerships; (2) the cost of any land
    line surveys planned over the next decade; (3) the expected annual cost
    of administering existing grazing, mining permits, and mining claims
    and special use permits; (4) any costs for maintaining roads needed to
    maintain access to private in-holdings; and (5) the minimum cost of
    stream or habitat rehabilitation work required under existing, approved
    ESA Recovery Plans.
        6. Please provide the fiscal year 1998 per-acre cost of management
    of the lands entrusted to the Forest Service. This cost should be
    computed based on the funds appropriated for the National Forest System
    and the authorized expenditures of trust funds in fiscal year 1998
    divided by the number of acres entrusted to the U.S. Forest Service.
        7. Please estimate any additional or reduced costs of fighting
    wildfire in the National Forest System given the more limited road
    access mentioned, and a de-emphasis on suppression that does not
    threaten other ownerships.
        8. Please describe the number of person days and the associated
    cost in the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, Department
    of Justice, and the Council on Environmental Quality that have been
    expended each of the last five years related to conflicts over current
    management. Please also estimate how much money was spent, in each of
    the last five years, to deal with appeals and lawsuits over National
    Forest System management. Include costs associated with support
    functions and a description of how these costs were calculated.
        9. Please estimate the cost of reducing the number of FTE's to a
    level needed to carry-out custodial management on all National Forest
    System acres (comparable to 1950's management). Assume that the Agency
    will only be able to use existing early-out authority or Reduction in
    Force (RIF) authority. Also, assume that the Agency will have to absorb
    the cost of these reductions. In calculating these cost estimates,
    assume necessary reductions would occur early in fiscal year 1999 or
    early in fiscal year 2000 using orderly RIF or other appropriate
    procedures.
        10. According to the fiscal year 1998 Presidential Budget Request,
    driving for pleasure is the most popular recreational use of the
    National Forest. In a recent Journal of Forestry article, the President
    of the Society of American Foresters is quoted as saying less then 4.5
    percent of the recreation use on the National Forests occurs in the
    congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Please describe the
    reductions in on-road and off-road visitor use which are likely to
    occur as a result of a custodial management regime which allows only
    those roads currently listed as part of the Federal, State, or County
    road systems to remain open. Assume other agencies will shoulder the
    administrative responsibility and cost of road maintenance.
    Additionally, estimate the loss in recreation user fees which will be
    experienced as a result of such a policy.
        11. Please provide an analysis of the portion of the fiscal year
    1998 Forest and Environment Research budget that is spent in direct or
    indirect support of National Forest System management programs. Please
    specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support a
    custodial management regime.
        12. Similarly, please provide an analysis of the portion of the
    fiscal year 1998 State and Private Forestry budget that is spent in
    direct or indirect support of National Forest System programs. Please
    specify what percentage of this would be necessary to support custodial
    management.
        As you might guess by these questions, we are trying to respond to
    questions about whether it is financially or environmentally prudent to
    continue to shift to management regimes that are more costly and
    produce less benefits. Since you seem bent on producing fewer and fewer
    results from the National Forests at rapidly increasing costs, many
    will press Congress to seriously consider the option to simply move to
    custodial management of our National Forests in order to stem the flow
    of unjustifiable investments. That will mean the Agency will have to
    operate with significantly reduced budgets and with far fewer
    employees. Before taking this step though, it is only fair to let the
    Forest Service articulate how our National Forests and the various
    constituencies might fare under a carefully considered custodial
    management regime.
                Sincerely,
                                       Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman,
                                               Senate Committee on Energy
                                                   and Natural Resources.
                                       Larry E. Craig, Chairman,
                                               Subcommittee on Forests and
                                                   Public Land Management.
                                       Don Young, Chairman,
                                               House Committee on
                                                   Resources.
                                       Helen Chenoweth, Chairman,
                                               Subcommittee on Forests and
                                                   Forest Health.
                                     ______

                        U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                                Forest Service,
                                        Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
    Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
    Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Murkowski: Thank you for your letter of February 20,
    1998. Like you, I am deeply committed to the wise and careful
    management of our national forests for the use and benefit of present
    and future generations. Your letter recognizes that achieving this
    objective can sometimes be controversial. As our first Chief, Gifford
    Pinchot, stated over 100 years ago, management of the national forests
    involves ``many great interests, which sometimes conflict a bit.''
        Your letter implies that the mission of the Forest Service has
    somehow changed, presumably because of the decrease in commercial
    timber harvest. As a consequence, you suggest the Forest Service has
    taken on a ``custodial'' role in management of the national forests and
    the Agency's budget and funding should be reduced. I take a different
    view.
        I believe that the reduction in timber harvest and the dramatic
    increases in use and demand of the national forests for other values
    such as recreation, drinking water production, and fish and wildlife
    habitat does not translate to a changed mission for the Agency. Rather,
    it speaks to the increased importance of national forests to the lives
    of all Americans. Certainly, timber harvest and the production of other
    commodities will continue on national forests. But these activities
    must take place within the context of maintaining and restoring
    watershed health and sustainability.
        Indeed, the use and management of national forests has changed
    significantly in recent years. Such change is inevitable as we respond
    to different social values, new scientific knowledge, and renew our
    commitment to ensuring the long-term health, diversity, and
    productivity of the land. These changes do not reflect a ``new
    mission.'' In fact, over 100 years ago, Congress wisely defined the
    mission of national forests to go far beyond timber and other commodity
    production. In 1897, Congress defined the purpose of the national
    forests through the Organic Act:
        ``[To] improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for
    the purposes of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to
    furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of
    the citizens of the United States.''
        The three primary goals of the Organic Act, protecting the forest,
    protecting watersheds, and providing sustainable supplies of timber,
    parallel the Forest Servicer's recently announced natural resource
    agenda for the 21st century. The natural resource agenda focuses on
    four key areas: watershed health and restoration, sustainable forest
    ecosystem management, forest roads, and recreation. The agenda was
    developed by my leadership team and, I believe, is squarely in line
    with both Congress' goals in establishing the national forests and the
    conservation values of mainstream America.
        Our agenda, the Strategic Plan we are developing under the
    Government Performance and Results Act, and our 1999 budget request
    reflect a vigorous program of active management of the national
    forests. In the coming years, we look forward to working with you and
    your colleagues, local communities, and all who use and care for
    national forests to further refine and implement our agenda. We do not
    believe that the American people would expect, or deserve, any less.
        Our answers to your specific questions are enclosed. I have sent an
    identical response to Chairmen Craig, Young, and Chenoweth and a copy
    to each of the respective ranking Democratic members.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Mike Dombeck, Chief.
        Enclosure.
                        responses of u.s. forest service
    I. In response to the questions in the third paragraph on the first
            page of your letter, we have briefly summarized some of the
            history and ecological changes on National Forest System (NFS)
            lands:
        Evolution of Federal land management.--During most of the 19th
    Century, it was national policy to transfer substantial portions of
    Federal (Public Domain) lands to private use and ownership. During this
    period, more than 1 billion acres, or over half the land area of the
    United States was transferred from Federal to non-Federal ownership.
    The period from 1900 to World War II was one of consolidation and
    limited management for most Federal land management agencies. From 1896
    to 1910 the area of forest reserves (national forests) rose from 18 to
    168 million acres.
        By the late 1800's. tens of millions of sheep and cattle were being
    grazed on these Federal lands. Efforts to bring livestock numbers down
    to the carrying capacity of the land were a primary focus of Forest
    Service managers during the pre-World War II period. Nationally,
    another main focus of Forest Service efforts was the control of
    wildfire. Prior to the 1930's, uncontrolled wildfire annually
    devastated large areas of public and private wildlands. Wildfire
    prevention and suppression became the focus of highly successful
    cooperative efforts among Federal agencies and State and private
    landowners. By 1960, the average annual area consumed by wildfire was
    reduced by more than 90 percent.
        The expanding economy following World War II created a substantial
    increase in the demand for timber. National forest and Bureau of Land
    Management timber sale levels increased from 2-4 billion board feet per
    year in the late 1940's to 11-14 billion board feet in the 1960's and
    beyond. By the 1960's, Federal forests were meeting almost 20 percent
    of the Nation's total consumption of wood volume. National forest
    recreation visitation also increased dramatically; annual visits
    increased from about 5 million in the early 1920's to 18 million in
    1946, 93 million in 1960 and 233 million in 1975.
        The use of clearcutting as a forest management tool increased
    dramatically on the national forests after World War II. Much of the
    public concern over national forest land management practices was
    focused on the visual and ecological effects of clearcutting. These
    conflicts led eventually to the passage of the National Forest
    Management Act of 1976. The level of national forest timber sales has
    declined from an annual average of 10-12 billion board feet during the
    1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, to 3-4 billion board feet today.
        Current Condition of NFS lands.--Given the varied history of NFS
    lands, it is difficult to summarize their current condition. There are
    substantial differences between NFS lands in the East and South, those
    in the interior West, and those on the Pacific Coast and Alaska. The
    condition of NFS lands in the East and South has improved dramatically
    over the last century. After millions of acres of abandoned and
    depleted farm and forest lands became NFS lands, feral cattle, dogs,
    and goats were eliminated and the land rehabilitated. Today, these
    areas provide superb habitat supporting rich populations of many
    wildlife species.
        Many ecosystems within the national forests were originally subject
    to relatively frequent low-intensity wildfires as well as occasional
    stand-replacing conflagrations. The forest ecosystems most in trouble
    tend to be those formerly subject to a frequent, low-intensity fire
    regime, particularly forest ecosystems of western national forests
    where fire frequency has been substantially reduced. When fires do
    occur in these areas today, they are often destructive, soil and
    watershed damaging, stand-replacing fires. Strategies for the
    restoration of ecosystem health in such areas often involve the use of
    prescribed fire, frequently in conjunction with mechanical treatment.
        In higher elevation forests, which tend to be cooler and moister,
    the ecological effects of fire exclusion are typically less profound
    than in the lower elevation forests, at least over the short term. But
    even in these forests, reduction in fire frequency has had substantial
    ecological effects. Aspen communities have been reduced substantially,
    and many meadows and openings have diminished in size or have
    disappeared altogether. The ecological diversity and ``patchy-ness'' of
    the forest landscape has been reduced. Such forests are subject to
    increased insect epidemics and to larger and more intense stand-
    replacing conflagrations than typically would have occurred in the
    past.
        Introduced exotics also present major biodiversity and ecosystem
    health problems in some areas, especially on rangelands in the West and
    forestlands in the East and South.
    II. The following information is provided in response to the numbered
            questions commencing near the bottom of the second page of your
            letter:
        Question. Please provide the total amount of acres in the National
    Forest System.
        Answer. The National Forests and Grasslands encompass 191,644,936
    acres.
        Question. Please provide the total number of acres, under the
    existing National Forest Management Act (NFMA) forest plans, available
    for active management for the production of commodity and non-commodity
    goods and services in the National Forest System.
        Answer. Commodity and non-commodity goods and services encompass a
    myriad of activities including, but not limited to recreation,
    wilderness, grazing, timber and mineral production, fishing, water
    supplies, heritage, and other aesthetic values. All 191.6 million acres
    of Forest Service lands produce commodity and non-commodity goods and
    services related to these benefits.
        Question. Please list all management activities which will have to
    be carried out under a custodial management regime. Please also provide
    the statutory citation which requires this work to be carried out in a
    specific area or areas.
        Answer. We are not certain what ``custodial management'' means. In
    your letter you outlined some of the components that you would include
    under a custodial regime. Your partial list includes a limited number
    of activities to be implemented under your custodial regime. We would
    not be able to limit our management to such a narrow list given the
    vast body of laws and statutes that guide our work. We would need
    specific direction on which of the laws would not require enforcement
    under your interpretation of custodial management.
        Question. Please provide the current number of FTE positions
    employed by the Forest Service in all three arms of the agency.
        Answer. Based on information provided in the fiscal year 1999
    President's Budget for the Forest Service, the total number of FTE
    positions for fiscal year 1998 is 36,311 in the three arms of the
    Agency.
        Question. Please provide the number of employees, the salaries, and
    other compensation which could be saved by shifting to custodial
    management as described above, with any additions you believe
    necessary. Include savings in support functions that would no longer be
    necessary.
        Answer. As in the response to question 3, we have only a limited
    understanding of what you mean by ``custodial management.'' Forest
    Service actions are guided by many laws, and we are mandated to carry
    out a range of activities under those laws. It is impossible for us to
    identify which activities we would not undertake.
        Question. Please provide the fiscal year 1998 per-acre cost of
    management of the lands entrusted to the Forest Service. This cost
    should be computed based on the funds appropriated for the National
    Forest System and the authorized expenditures of trust funds in fiscal
    year 1998 divided by the number of acres entrusted to the U.S. Forest
    Service.
        Answer. Based on information provided in the fiscal year 1999
    Explanatory Notes to Congress, the fiscal year 1998 budget directly
    impacting Forest Service lands is approximated below:

    Fiscal year 1998 budget directly impacting Forest Service lands

    NFS.....................................................  $1,348,377,000
    Wildland fires..........................................     584,707,000
    Reconstruction/construction \1\.........................     162,308,000
    State and private forestry \2\..........................      16,500,000
    L&WCF \3\...............................................      52,976,000
    Other \4\...............................................       5,090,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
        Subtotal appropriated...............................   2,169,958,000
    Permanent appropriations \5\............................     260,098,000
    Trust funds.............................................     261,885,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
        Grand total.........................................   2,691,941,000

    The cost per acre of management would be calculated as $2,691,941,000
    divided by 191,644,936 acres, or about $14 dollars per acre.

    \1\ Excludes $2,737,000 for Research Construction.
    \2\ Only includes the insect and disease prevention and suppression
    portion of the Forest Health Management budget line item.
    \3\ Excludes special one-time Title V Land Acquisition amount of $167
    million.
    \4\ Excludes $92,000 for Gifts, Donations and Bequests.
    \5\ Excludes Payments to Counties and States.

        Question. Please estimate any additional or reduced costs of
    fighting wildfire in the National Forest System given the more limited
    road access mentioned, and a deemphasis on suppression that does not
    threaten other ownerships.
        Answer. As stated in our response to questions 3 and 5, we do not
    have enough information to develop or evaluate a ``custodial
    management'' scenario. We do note that our current preparedness
    organization is designed around protecting high value resources,
    including lives and private property. Shifting to a less active
    management regime might increase, rather than decrease, fire
    suppression costs if access was more limited and vegetation was not
    managed to reduce fire spread and intensity.
        Question. Please describe the number of person days and the
    associated cost in the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture,
    Department of Justice, and the Council on Environmental Quality that
    have been expended each of the last 5 years related to conflicts over
    current management. Please also estimate how much money was spent, in
    each of the last 5 years, to deal with appeals and lawsuits over
    National Forest System management. Include costs associated with
    support functions and a description of how these costs were calculated.
        Answer. Based on estimates from the Forest Service regions and
    Washington Office, the Forest Service spent an average of $5.1 million
    annually on processing appeals in the last 5 years, and $4.9 million
    annually on litigation. The Office of the General Counsel estimates it
    spent an average of $0.3 million annually on appeals and $2.2 million
    on litigation in the same period. We have no information on
    expenditures of the Department of Justice or the Council on
    Environmental Quality.
        Question. Please estimate the cost of reducing the number of FTE's
    to a level needed to carry-out custodial management on all National
    Forest System acres (comparable to 1950's management). Assume that the
    Agency will only be able to use existing early-out authority or
    Reduction in Force (RIF) authority. Also, assume that the Agency will
    have to absorb the cost of these reductions. In calculating these cost
    estimates, assume necessary reductions would occur early in fiscal year
    1999 or early in fiscal year 2000 using orderly RIF or other
    appropriate procedures.
        Answer. As in the response to question 3, we are unclear as to the
    definition of custodial management. Forest Service actions are guided
    by just under 200 laws, and we are mandated to carry out a range of
    activities under those laws. It is not possible for us to identify
    which activities we would not undertake.
        As for the changes in FTE totals, the fiscal year 1999 President's
    Budget reflects a total of 35,526 FTE's. Barring other changes, such as
    an authorized buyout, we would estimate that fiscal year 2000 would
    reflect a similar total.
        Question. According the fiscal year 1998 Presidential Budget
    Request, driving for pleasure is the most population recreational use
    of the national forests. In a recent Journal of Forestry article, the
    President of the Society of American Foresters is quoted as saying that
    less [than] 4.5 percent of the recreation use on the national forests
    occurs in the Congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Please
    describe the reductions in on-road and off-road visitor use which are
    likely to occur as a result of a custodial management regime which
    allows only those roads currently listed as part of the Federal, State
    or county road systems to remain open. Assume other agencies will
    shoulder the administrative responsibility and cost of road
    maintenance. Additionally, estimate the loss in recreation user fees
    which will be experienced as a result of such a policy.
        Answer. Again, answering this question with precision is difficult
    because we do not understand what is meant by ``custodial management.''
    Would all 373,000 miles of forest roads be closed, or would the 20
    percent of the roads that handle an estimated 80 percent of the
    recreation use remain open?
        Question. Please provide an analysis of the portion of the fiscal
    year 1998 Forest and Environment Research budget that is spent in
    direct or indirect support of National Forest System management
    programs. Please specify what percentage of this would be necessary to
    support a custodial management regime.
        Answer. The Forest Service conducts research in accordance with the
    authorities described in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
    Research Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 353, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600 (note),
    1641 (note), and 1641-1648. There is no reference in the 1978 Act to 16
    U.S.C. 1609, which defines the National Forest System, nor does the
    1978 act contain any direction or limitation, expressed or implied,
    that research shall only pertain to national forests. Rather, the 1978
    act explicitly states purposes and authorizations that apply to all the
    Nation's forests:
      --Section 2(a)(1) states, ``Congress finds that scientific
            discoveries and technological advances must be made and applied
            to support the protection, management, and utilization of the
            Nation's renewable resources * * * .''
      --Section 3(a) states, ``The Secretary is authorized to conduct,
            support, and cooperate in investigations, experiments, tests,
            and other activities the Secretary deems necessary to obtain,
            analyze, develop, demonstrate, and disseminate scientific
            information about protecting, managing, and utilizing forest
            and rangeland resources in rural, suburban, and urban areas.''
      --Section 3(a)(5) provides for the Forest Inventory and Analysis and
            Forest Health Management programs as does Section 3 of the
            Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.
      --Section 4(c) states, ``In implementing this Act, the Secretary may
            cooperate with international, Federal, State, and other
            governmental agencies, with public or private agencies,
            institutions, universities, and organizations, and with
            businesses and individuals in the United States and in other
            countries.''
      --Each of the four program areas in Forest Service Research and
            Development simultaneously support management activities on
            private lands, State and other Federal lands, as well as the
            national forests. For example, research addressing wildland-
            urban interface management issues is useful to the residents
            and local governments at the interface, without respect to
            whether the wildlands are national forests, State forests, or
            privately owned forests. Providing research results to private
            landowners and State and local governments is how forest
            research began in the Department of Agriculture. In fact,
            forest research within the Department of Agriculture began in
            the mid-1870's--30 years before the forest reserves were
            transferred to USDA in 1905. Since then, research results have
            often benefitted private, State, and Federal resource
            management simultaneously. Attempting to distinguish research
            specific to the national forests from research applicable to
            the Nation's forests creates false distinctions because the
            same cover types and ecological conditions exist on a variety
            of land ownerships.
      --There is an increasing demand for intensive forest management
            research that benefits the national forests and grasslands,
            along with other Federal, State and private lands. These
            landowners have traditionally obtained this information from
            Forest Service Research and Development. As ecological
            conditions change, new knowledge and technology will be needed
            to track and predict forest conditions and effects at the
            stand, watershed, and landscape levels. These will be truly
            unique research and development needs the Forest Service is
            best suited to provide.
        Question. Please provide an analysis of the fiscal year 1998 State
    and Private Forestry budget that is spent in direct or indirect support
    of the National Forest System programs. Please specify what percentage
    of this would be necessary to support custodial management.
        Answer. About $16.5 million (45 percent) of the Federal lands
    expanded budget line item of the Forest Health Management budget line
    item directly or indirectly supports NFS programs through insect and
    disease prevention and suppression. (The remainder supports activities
    on other Federal and State and private lands.) This support includes:
      --forest insect and disease survey and monitoring to detect and
            evaluate pest outbreaks,
      --financial and technical assistance for prevention and suppression
            treatments for native and exotic pests,
      --technical assistance to land managers in insect and disease
            prevention, pesticide use, hazard tree recognition, and
            biological control of noxious weeds,
      --participation of insect and disease specialists in forest plan
            development and implementation,
      --development of pest-resistant trees to restore species that have
            been seriously impacted by exotic diseases (for example western
            and eastern white pines and Port-Orford cedar).
        Again, without a clear definition, we are unwilling to engage in a
    speculative exercise to define or evaluate a hypothetical custodial
    management scenario.

                       national forest system management

        Mr. Lyons. The letter states, ``There is presently very
    little agreement on a discreet mission for the National Forest
    System.'' Obviously, I disagree with that.
        Both the Forest Service mission and the mission of the
    National Forest System are clear and well defined in statute
    and regulation and in agency policy. As an administration, we
    have worked hard within the parameters of current law to try to
    resolve many resource management issues--everything from
    conflicts over old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest to
    concern about agency consultations under the Endangered Species
    Act.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked through a
    number of difficult issues over time and I appreciate your help
    and guidance as we have tried to deal with those issues.
        While values differ and the interests of one constituency
    may, at times, be at odds with the desires of another, we have
    tried to seek balance, reason, and dialog among those interests
    as a means of resolving these difficult issues.
        We continue to be guided by sound science and professional
    judgment while placing greater emphasis than others may have on
    seeking local input and advice.
        The national forests are managed by law for multiple use.
    This requires, by statute, that these lands be managed for the
    production of wood, water, fish and wildlife, range, and
    recreation, without concern for the use that returns the
    highest profit.
        We continue to work to seek efficiencies. But the returns
    on investment cannot and should not be measured by net revenues
    returned to the Treasury or board feet produced.
        In fact, the Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960
    calls for:

        Harmonious and coordinated management of the various
    resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
    productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
    relative values of the various resources and not necessarily
    the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
    return or the greatest unit output.

                            natural resources agenda

        Seeking the highest net social public benefits from
    national forests requires that these other benefits are
    considered and addressed.
        In February, Chief Dombeck made a presentation to agency
    employees regarding his view of the agency's mission. His
    natural resources agenda included a focus on watershed health,
    sustainable forest management, the critical issue of forest
    roads, and the values of outdoor recreation. I know that Mike
    will provide you more detail in his remarks. But I believe that
    what Chief Dombeck stated clearly and unequivocally is his view
    of the agency and national forest mission, to answer the
    specific and primary concerns in the letter that he received.
        Although the Chief's agenda has generated some controversy,
    I would assert, Mr. Chairman, that what Mike has rolled out is
    really the result of the evolution in thinking of the agency
    and of its leadership over the past decade or so.

                          national recreation strategy

        For example, former Chief Dale Robertson distinguished
    himself as a leader in promoting recreation on the national
    forests. During his tenure, the Forest Service announced its
    National Recreation Strategy, which was the forerunner of the
    outdoor recreation strategy which is focused and refined in
    Mike's agenda. In fact, Chief Robertson's strategy was in
    response to the work of the President's Commission on America's
    Outdoors, which was initiated by President Bush.
        Chief Dombeck's focus on watershed health and sustainable
    forestry are also the product of an evolution in the thinking
    of the forestry community and Forest Service leadership about
    key natural resource issues.

                              course to the future

        You may recall that Mike's predecessor, Jack Ward Thomas,
    issued a document he called ``The Forest Service Ethics and
    Course to the Future,'' in which he outlined an agency agenda
    that included many elements similar to Chief Dombeck's natural
    resources agenda. Among the priorities set by Jack were:
    Protect ecosystems; restore deteriorated ecosystems; and
    provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of
    ecosystems.

                        sustainable forestry principles

        Now I do not mean to suggest that Mike is not an original
    thinker. I would suggest, as well, that Mike's emphasis here
    reflects the coming together of many ideas related to the
    present and future management of the national forests. In fact,
    I would suggest that the sustainable forestry element of Mike's
    agenda is fully consistent with the sustainable forestry
    initiative launched by the timber industry's American Forest
    and Paper Association. In fact, that document refers to
    sustainable forestry in this way, and this is a quote from
    American Forest and Paper Association's ``Sustainable Forestry
    Principles and Implementation Guidelines.'' ``Sustainable
    forestry is to practice sustainable forestry to meet the needs
    of the present without compromising the ability of future
    generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land
    stewardship ethic, which integrates the reforestation,
    managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for
    useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water
    quality, wildlife, fish habitat, and esthetics.''
        I think that sounds like a fairly good mission statement.
        I should also point out in the industry's ``Sustainable
    Forestry Principles,'' Mr. Chairman, that attention is given to
    the need to protect special sites--in fact, principal forest
    States--to manage their forests and lands of special
    significance--i.e., biologically, geologically, or historically
    significant--in a manner that takes into account their unique
    qualities.
        I think that sounds very similar to something that Chief
    Dombeck has initiated recently.
        So many of the ideas and objectives regarding the future of
    forestry and forests in the United States are really the result
    of an evolution in thinking over time. And, in fact, I would
    suggest that our goal is to ensure the most productive use of
    our lands in terms of all its possible uses for the greatest
    number of Americans.

                                roads moratorium

        The one area of strong disagreement among some in the
    Congress clearly is over this matter of roads and the future of
    road building policy for the Forest Service. There, too, I
    would suggest that, frankly, there is more that we agree on
    than on which we disagree.
        If you would not mind, I would like Brooks Preston from my
    office to help me. We will just run through a couple of charts
    that quickly illustrate some of the points I want to make this
    morning.
        Mr. Lyons. In the national forests, we have 386,000 miles
    of road, enough to circle the globe 16 times. Most of these
    roads are poorly maintained or, frankly, not maintained at all.
    This is not the result of intentional neglect, but simply the
    lack of resources and a clear strategy for maintaining the
    transportation infrastructure we need and, frankly, for
    eliminating what we do not need, and what we agree we do not
    need.
        Some 20 percent of this road system--actually 22 percent,
    which we call our arterial and collector system--gets 80
    percent of the public use on the national forests. It is used
    for rural commerce, for access to recreation, hunting, and
    fishing, for management, and for commercial activities, like
    logging.

                              recreation use roads

        The fastest growing use of National Forest System roads is,
    in fact, for recreation. That is illustrated by this next
    chart.
        You can see that use of the national forests for recreation
    is skyrocketing, and each and every one of you sees this in the
    forests in your States. Idaho and Washington are excellent
    examples.
        Of that portion of the road system that gets the most use,
    we only have sufficient funds to maintain 40 percent of the
    mileage to the standard for which it was built. I would suggest
    that with growing recreation use, those standards are
    inadequate. Roads that were built to standards to meet the
    needs of logging trucks are not going to meet the needs of Ford
    Explorers, and we see that. That is a problem.

                                 bridge safety

        The problem is compounded by the fact that nearly 1,000 of
    the 7,000 bridges that we administer are deemed structurally or
    functionally deficient by the engineers who monitor them. In
    short, they are unsafe.
        As a result, more and more we are being forced to limit
    road use because of concern for public safety on a rapidly
    deteriorating road system.
        So how do we deal with this dilemma? What is the prudent
    way to approach it? I would suggest two ways.

                                roads moratorium

        The first is to call a time-out on new road building until
    we understand the dimensions of our problem and what resources
    we can muster to deal with it. This time-out, as Mike has
    called it, has stirred a great deal of controversy. But the
    fact is that we have not proposed a permanent moratorium on
    road building and we continue to reconstruct roads to improve
    forest access for many uses, including timber.
        The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes reconstruction of 584
    miles of road by the Forest Service, primarily to address
    environmental impacts of these roads, and reconstruction of
    nearly 3,000 miles of road by timber purchasers to access
    proposed timber sales. Timber purchasers would also build 403
    miles of road in already roaded areas.
        So you can see this time-out on road building in roadless
    areas is not about cutting off access to the national forests,
    as some would have you believe. In fact, it is about taking a
    thoughtful and prudent look at our policies regarding the entry
    and management of roadless areas.
        Road construction and reconstruction in roaded parts of the
    forest will continue as needed. The moratorium proposal is part
    of a broader strategy to better manage forest roads by deciding
    which roads must be maintained and which can be decommissioned.

                             roads decommissioning

        As you can see from this chart, Mr. Chairman, we began
    decommissioning roads back in 1991 under authority provided by
    the Appropriations Committee. But if you look at the numbers,
    you can see that, although we have increased decommissioning,
    in fact we are decommissioning roads at a rate more quickly
    than they are building new roads. If you add up the miles of
    reconstructed roads in addition to those that we are
    constructing, you will find out that, in fact, improving access
    in that manner actually exceeds what we are doing in terms of
    decommissioning roads.
        I should also point out that the decommissioning is of
    roads that were called for to be decommissioned in existing
    land and forest management plans.

                  roads maintenance and reconstruction backlog

        Now, the second thing we need to do is to begin to deal
    with the tremendous backlog of maintenance and reconstruction
    needs that we have on the road system, a $10.5 billion backlog.
    I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of road maintenance and
    reconstruction of roads and bridges, those that get extensive
    public use, is and should be a national priority.
        High-use roads on the national forests represent 55 percent
    of the total public lands highway system, as illustrated here
    (indicating). And we have identified the other elements that
    belong to our sister agencies involved in land use management.
        Although we have proposed an increase in road maintenance
    funds in this budget, appropriations will never get the backlog
    of current road reconstruction and maintenance needs addressed.
    As I said, it is $10.5 billion.
        The consequences of this backlog are: Decreased safety for
    forest roads and bridges; degradation of watersheds resulting
    from increased erosion; and other environmental and rural
    community impacts.
        I am certain you would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this
    situation is intolerable and, in fact, it is a national
    disgrace.
        Mr. Chairman, we need your help and the Congress' help to
    address it. I also have information for the members of the
    committee reflecting the relative road mileages for national
    forest roads in each of your States. If I could, I would
    provide that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                          National Forest Road Program

            State                                                      Miles

    Alabama.......................................................     1,632
    Alaska........................................................     3,458
    Arizona.......................................................    30,493
    Arkansas......................................................     9,926
    California....................................................    44,861
    Colorado......................................................    18,462
    Florida.......................................................     4,128
    Georgia.......................................................     1,523
    Idaho.........................................................    33,894
    Illinois......................................................     1,115
    Indiana.......................................................        84
    Kentucky......................................................     1,333
    Louisiana.....................................................     2,806
    Maine.........................................................        79
    Michigan......................................................    11,174
    Minnesota.....................................................     4,473
    Mississippi...................................................     2,643
    Missouri......................................................     2,354
    Montana.......................................................    31,289
    Nebraska......................................................       796
    Nevada........................................................     5,858
    New Hampshire.................................................       435
    New Mexico....................................................    22,687
    New York......................................................         4
    North Carolina................................................     2,305
    North Dakota..................................................       857
    Ohio..........................................................        73
    Oklahoma......................................................       690
    Oregon........................................................    71,995
    Pennsylvania..................................................     1,207
    Puerto Rico...................................................        23
    South Carolina................................................     1,657
    South Dakota..................................................     4,322
    Tennessee.....................................................     1,525
    Texas.........................................................     2,547
    Utah..........................................................    11,548
    Vermont.......................................................       239
    Virginia......................................................     2,757
    Washington....................................................    22,191
    West Virginia.................................................     1,720
    Wisconsin.....................................................     7,530
    Wyoming.......................................................    10,746
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   379,439

                                heavy-use roads

        Mr. Lyons. I would just point out, for example, that in
    Washington State, we have 5,400 miles of road that fall into
    this heavy-use category and that need improvement. It is 580
    miles in West Virginia; 2,600 miles in New Mexico; 10,300 miles
    in Montana; 8,500 in Idaho; 6,000 in Colorado. Senator Cochran,
    I would be glad to get you the Mississippi mileage as soon as I
    get back to my office. [Laughter.]
        [The information follows:]

        It is 952 miles in Mississippi.

                          custodial forest management

        Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, as stated in Chairman Murkowski's
    letter to the Chief, ``Most Americans believe that each
    generation should leave the public resources in a better
    condition than they received them from their parents.''
        To do so, however, requires more than a custodial budget,
    if I understand the intended meaning of that word in the letter
    that Chief Dombeck received. To the contrary, what is required
    is an investment in our natural resource heritage to insure
    that the unintended consequences of past management are
    corrected to improve our environmental performance overall and
    to insure that the national forests can continue to sustain
    production of all the goods and services that come from these
    lands.
        The roads example I offered is a case in point.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the
    investments called for in this budget are critical to our
    ability to provide stable and sustainable production of timber,
    water, fish and wildlife, range, and recreation on the national
    forests.

                               prepared statement

        More and more, the economies of rural communities are
    dependent upon a mix of national forest products and services--
    not just timber anymore. We need to work with the communities
    and the counties to understand their needs, to help them
    understand our capabilities and the limitations of the land,
    and to find a balance that will provide greater stability for
    those communities in the future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Now I will turn to Chief Dombeck to address these issues in
    greater detail.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of James R. Lyons

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss
    the Forest Service's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
        This morning I'd like to present a brief overview of our
    budget request and highlight some of the priorities we've
    identified. In his testimony, Chief Dombeck will address these
    issues in greater detail.
        Mr. Chairman, recently Chairman Murkowski of the Senate
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Subcommittee
    Chairman Craig along with House Resources Committee Chairman
    Young and Subcommittee Chairman Chenowith wrote to Chief
    Dombeck to raise concerns regarding agency management direction
    and to raise the specter of funding national forest management
    at a ``custodial'' level. While I know that Chief Dombeck has
    replied to this letter and the questions it posed, I want to
    offer my thoughts on the issues raised as a means of
    illustrating the budget priorities presented by the
    Administration in our fiscal year 1999 budget request.
        Let me start with the issue of agency mission.
        The letter states, ``there is presently very little
    agreement on a discrete mission for the National Forest
    System.''
        I disagree.
        Both the Forest Service mission and the mission of the
    national forest system are clear and well-defined in statute,
    regulation, and agency policy. As an Administration, we have
    worked hard within the parameters of current law to resolve
    resource management issues, from conflicts over management of
    old-growth forests in the Pacific North West to concern about
    agency consultations under the Endangered Species Act. While
    values differ and the interests of one constituency may, at
    times, be at odds with the desires of another, we have sought
    balance, reason and dialogue among those interests as a means
    of resolution. We continue to be guided by sound science and
    professional judgment while placing greater emphasis than
    others may have on seeking local input and advice. As evidence,
    I would offer the work being done by the regional leadership
    team overseeing the Columbia River Basin project to include
    affected counties and communities in the dialogue and
    decisionmaking processes.
        The national forests are to be managed for multiple-use, by
    law. And this requires, by statute, that these lands be managed
    for the production of wood, water, fish and wildlife, range,
    and recreation without concern for the use that returns the
    highest profit. We continue to work to seek efficiencies, but
    the returns on investment cannot and should not be measured by
    net revenues, returns to the Treasury, or board feet. In fact,
    the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 calls for,
    ``harmonious and coordinated management of the various
    resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
    productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
    relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily
    the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar
    return or the greatest unit output.'' Seeking the highest net
    societal public benefits from national forests requires that
    these other benefits are considered and addressed.
        Our continuing inability to measure the returns on
    investment in terms of improved water quality, wildlife habitat
    restoration, reduced risk of wildfire, or recreation quality
    hamper our ability to gain a true picture of the valuable
    products of our management. Unfortunately, we continue to be
    challenged simply on the basis of what we produce from the
    forests, the commodities that come out of the woods. But that's
    only part of the picture. A truer perspective would also take
    into account what we leave behind the condition of the resource
    following management. For that is what affects the resources
    we're entrusted to manage and the communities we serve for the
    decades to follow. That is our true legacy.
        In February, Chief Dombeck made a presentation to agency
    employees regarding his view of the agency's mission. His
    natural resources agenda included a focus on watershed health,
    sustainable forest management, the critical issue of forest
    roads, and the values of outdoor recreation. I know that Mike
    will provide you more detail on his remarks. But I believe
    Chief Dombeck stated clearly and unequivocally his view of the
    agency and national forest system mission, to answer the
    specific and primary concerns expressed in the letter to him.
        Although the Chief's ``Agenda'' has generated some
    controversy, I would assert, Mr. Chairman, that what Mike has
    rolled out is really the result of the evolution in thinking of
    the agency and its leadership over the past decade or so. For
    example, former Chief Dale Robertson distinguished himself as a
    leader in promoting recreation on the national forests. During
    his tenure the Forest Service announced its National Recreation
    Strategy, the forerunner of the outdoor recreation strategy
    which is focused and refined in Mike's agenda. In fact, Chief
    Robertson's Strategy was in response to the work of the
    President's Commission on American's Outdoors, initiated by
    President Bush. Chief Dombeck's focus on watershed health and
    sustainable forestry are also the product of an evolution in
    the thinking of the forestry community and Forest Service
    leadership about key natural resource issues. You may recall
    that Mike's predecessor, Jack Ward Thomas, issued a document he
    called ``The Forest Service Ethics and Course to the Future'',
    in which he outlined an agency agenda that included many
    elements similar to Chief Dombeck's Natural Resources Agenda.
    Among the priorities set by Jack were: (1) Protect Ecosystems;
    (2) Restore Deteriorated Ecosystems; and (3) Provide Multiple
    Benefits for People Within the Capabilities of Ecosystems.
        Sound familiar? I would suggest, as well, that Mike's
    emphasis on Sustainable Forestry is fully consistent with the
    Sustainable Forestry Initiative launched by the timber
    industry's American Forest and Paper Association. So, many
    ideas and objectives regarding the future of forestry and
    national forest management in the United States are, in fact,
    converging. Chief Dombeck has simply brought these issues into
    focus with his ``Natural Resources Agenda''. Our goal is to
    ensure the most productive use of our lands--in terms of all
    possible uses--for the greatest number of Americans.
        The one area of strong disagreement between this
    Administration and some in the Congress is over the matter of
    roads and future road building policy. And there, too, I would
    suggest that there is more that we agree on than we disagree.
        We have 386,000 miles of roads on the national forests,
    enough to circle the globe 16 times. Most of these roads are
    poorly maintained or not maintained at all. This is not the
    result of intentional neglect, but simply the result of a lack
    of resources and a clear strategy for maintaining the
    transportation infrastructure we need and for eliminating what
    we agree we do not.
        Twenty percent of this road system--the arterial and
    collector roads--gets eighty percent of the public use. Use for
    rural commerce; for access for recreation, hunting, and
    fishing; for management; and for commercial activities like
    logging. The fastest growing use of national forest system
    roads is, in fact, for recreation. No surprise, because
    recreational uses of the national forests eclipse National Park
    visitation and are growing at a ``significant'' rate.
        Of that portion of the road system that gets the most use,
    we have only sufficient funds to maintain 40 percent of the
    mileage to the standard for which it was built. That's a
    problem. And, the problem is compounded by the fact that nearly
    1,000 of the 7,000 bridges we maintain are deemed structurally
    or functionally deficient by the engineers who monitor them.
    This is a public safety nightmare. As a result, more and more
    we are being forced to limit road use because of concern for
    public safety on a rapidly deteriorating road system.
        How do we deal with this dilemma? I'd suggest, in two ways.
        The first is to call a time out on new road building until
    we understand the dimensions of our problem and what resources
    we can muster to deal with it. This ``time out'' has stirred
    much controversy. But, the fact is that we have not proposed a
    permanent moratorium on road building. And, we continue to
    reconstruct roads to improve forest access for many uses,
    including timber. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes
    reconstruction of 584 miles of road by the Forest Service,
    primarily to address environmental impacts of these roads, and
    reconstruction of nearly 3,000 miles of roads by timber
    purchasers to access proposed timber sales. Timber purchasers
    would also build 403 miles of road in already roaded areas. The
    table below provides a brief summary of the forest road program
    since fiscal year 1995.

                                                   FOREST ROAD PROGRAM
                                                       [In miles]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal years--
                     Accomplishment indicator                 ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1995       1996       1997     1998 \2\   1999 \3\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Road construction purchaser credit.......................        441        417        392        504  .........
    Road construction by purchaser...........................  .........  .........  .........  .........        403
    Road construction appropriated funds \1\.................         27         46          8         11          8
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total..............................................        468        463        400        515        411
                                                              ======================================================
    Road reconstruction purchaser credit.....................      1,690      2,301      3,210      3,130  .........
    Road construction by purchaser...........................  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,957
    Road reconstruction appropriated funds \1\...............        726        552        384        292        584
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total..............................................      2,416      2,853      3,594      3,422      3,541
                                                              ======================================================
    Road decommissioning.....................................      2,126      1,440      1,787      1,500      3,500
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Appropriated construction and reconstruction figures include recreation, timber, and general purpose roads.
    \2\  Estimate.
    \3\  Proposed.

        So you can see, this ``time out'' on road building in
    roadless areas is not about cutting off access to the national
    forests as some have alleged. In fact, its about taking a
    thoughtful and prudent look at our policies regarding the entry
    and management of roadless areas. Road construction and
    reconstruction in roaded parts of the forests will continue as
    needed. We will build or reconstruct about 4,000 miles of road
    in fiscal year 1999 under the proposed budget. Our budget
    provides for the decommissioning of 3,500 miles of road--as
    already identified in current forest plans. The moratorium
    proposal is part of a broader strategy to better manage forest
    roads by deciding which roads must be maintained and which can
    be decommissioned.
        The second thing that we need to do is to begin to deal
    with the tremendous backlog of maintenance and reconstruction
    needs on our existing road system. I believe, Mr. Chairman,
    that the issue of road maintenance and reconstruction of roads
    and bridges--those that get extensive public use--is and should
    be a national priority. Although we tend to focus, nationally,
    on national park and other public land roads, we need to
    support national forest roads as well. High use roads on the
    national forests represent 55 percent of the total public lands
    highway system. And, although we have proposed an increase in
    road maintenance funds in this budget, appropriations will
    never get the backlog of current road reconstruction and
    maintenance needs addressed--that's $10.5 billion and growing
    each year. The consequence of this backlog is the decreased
    safety of forest roads and bridges, and the degradation of
    watersheds resulting from increased erosion. I am certain you
    would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this situation is intolerable.
    In fact, it is a national disgrace. Mr. Chairman, we need your
    help and the Congress' help to fix it.
        On another subject, Mr. Chairman, you are aware that
    Secretary Glickman chartered a Committee of Scientists last
    fall under the National Forest Management Act. The Committee
    has been operating since the beginning of this year and will
    produce a report by late spring. It's mission is to review and
    critique the forest planning process and to guide the
    development of new forest planning regulations. I commit to you
    that based upon the committee's efforts, we will work to
    complete a new draft of the forest planning regulations for
    public comment before the end of fiscal year 1998. Then, I hope
    we can work together to lift the current prohibition on forest
    plan revisions, and structure a new approach to forest
    planning.
        Mr. Chairman, as stated in Chairman Murkowski's letter to
    the Chief, ``Most Americans believe that each generation should
    leave the public resources in better condition than they
    received them from their parents.'' To do so, however, requires
    more than a ``custodial'' budget if I understand your intended
    meaning of the term. To the contrary, what is required is an
    investment in our natural resource heritage to ensure that the
    unintended consequences of past management are corrected, to
    improve our environmental performance overall, and to ensure
    that the national forests can continue to sustain production of
    all the goods and services that can come from these lands. The
    roads example I just offered is a case in point.
        The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget also provides
    for and the Chief has called for a reinvestment in the health
    of the nation's watersheds. Increasingly, water is the most
    valuable commodity produced on the national forests. Our
    responsibility is to ensure that the water we produce is clean
    and clear, fishable and swimmable.
        Every major metropolitan area in the West, from Los Angeles
    and Portland to Boise, Denver, and Albuquerque depends upon the
    national forests for their water supplies. Our budget would
    increase funding for watershed assessments and riparian area
    restoration. It would seek to increase efforts to reduce fuel
    build-ups through improved thinning of densely-stocked stands
    and salvage of dead and dying timber. Hazardous fuels reduction
    efforts--including thinning, prescribed fire and other fuels
    management techniques--have increased from 300,000 acres in
    fiscal year 1990 to a projected 1.5 million acres in fiscal
    year 1999. It calls for more acres of prescribed fire to clean
    up fuels remaining after thinning and salvage operations. More
    and more, our timber sale program is focused on improving
    forest stand conditions and watershed health in this manner.
        Chairman Murkowski's letter to Chief Dombeck also suggested
    that: ``There will also be some costs associated with wildlife
    and fisheries restoration and enhancement work'' related to ESA
    concerns. Part of our road maintenance and reconstruction
    effort is intended to address the effects of poorly maintained
    roads on aquatic habitats. Recently, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service indicated that it would recommend listing of
    thirteen populations of five different salmon from northern
    California to Washington State. The road investment we propose
    is critical to our efforts to restore salmon habitat on federal
    forest lands and our work in partnership with both Governor
    Kitzhaber of Oregon and Governor Locke of Washington to avert
    the potential impacts of salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout
    listings on both public and private lands in the Pacific North
    West. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous to consider
    improvements in salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest without
    investing in restoration of the deteriorating national forest
    system roads, which are causing harm to the waterways that are
    key to the salmon's survival.
        Also critical to addressing our obligations for species
    recovery under the ESA is increased funding for the agency's
    fish and wildlife program. The reason is simple, the national
    forests are the home to more threatened and endangered species
    than any other part of the federal domain. That is, in part,
    because we continue to manage so much relatively undisturbed
    habitat on which these species depend. In part, it is also by
    design. In the Pacific North West, for example, a conscious
    decision was made to manage for the spotted owl, the marbled
    murrelet, and to protect watershed critical to salmon,
    steelhead, and threatened and endangered species of trout on
    national forests. In fact, it was this policy decision that
    helped make possible the development of habitat conservation
    plans for the forest lands of companies like Weyerhauser and
    Plum Creek.
        In summary, I strongly believe that the investments called
    for in this budget are critical to our ability to provide
    stable and sustainable production of timber, water, fish and
    wildlife, range, and recreation on the national forests. More
    and more, the economies of rural communities are dependent upon
    a mix of national forest products and services. We need to work
    with the communities and the counties to understand their
    needs, to help them understand our capabilities and the
    limitations of the land, and to find a balance that will
    provide greater stability for the future.
        Our past focus on timber almost to the exclusion of other
    resource values and services only served to increase economic
    instability, particularly for isolated communities. I fear that
    any effort to limit our management activities by reducing our
    budget will have a further destabilizing effect for rural
    people. The best course is to invest in land stewardship with
    the communities as partners and to use the considerable
    resources of the federal government to aid the communities at
    risk. We seek the opportunity to work with you toward this end.
    Because, our ability to work together--this subcommittee, the
    Congress, and the Administration--will ultimately determine the
    health of this nation's natural resources and the
    sustainability of the communities which benefit from the
    stewardship of these resources.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.

                       summary statement of mike dombeck

        Senator Gordon. Chief.
        Chief Dombeck. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and committee
    members.
        Since Jim focused on the natural resource issues, I would
    like to spend more time talking about the business and
    accountability side of the Forest Service.
        I believe that, as Senator Craig mentioned, in order to
    resolve these problems, it is important that we work together.
    I know that there are philosophical differences. There are
    philosophical differences almost everyplace. I can even find
    them at home. But the important thing is that we continue to
    work together.
        I want all of you to know that I am available at anytime to
    meet and talk about these issues and continually search for
    common ground.

                              business management

        I would like to focus now and spend just a few minutes
    talking about the business side of the Forest Service. I
    certainly acknowledge the problem. The 100-plus inspector
    general and General Accounting Office reports that were
    discussed at the March 26 hearing in front of the joint
    committees with the House is a record of some of the challenges
    that we have as an organization. From the day I came on board,
    I indicated to employees and others that in order to be good
    resource managers, we have to be good business managers and we
    have to be good human resource managers.
        The Forest Service is equivalent to a Fortune 500 company.
    It has 30,000 employees, a $3 billion budget, and its business
    and accounting systems need to be up to snuff and up to date.
        While I was Acting Director of the Bureau of Land
    Management, we got our first clean financial audit in 1995. And
    although the budget structure in that organization is certainly
    a much less complex organization than the Forest Service, the
    job was done there and I believe the job can be done at the
    Forest Service. But it is going to take time.
        It took Jack Welch 10 years to work on General Electric
    [GE], and we have complexities beyond many of those that GE had
    that have evolved over time.
        I would say, very simply, from the management standpoint,
    as I view the Forest Service and the challenges that we have,
    the complexity is killing us. It is taking up resources. It has
    moved the resource manager out of the field, back into the
    office, with less time in the woods, less time dealing with
    customers, less time dealing with loggers, recreationists, and
    so on. We want to work on that situation together.
        Can it be fixed? Yes; here is what we think it needs.
        First of all, we need general agreement on resource
    priorities and a good business system will help us achieve that
    agreement. We need employees that are well trained in business
    management practices. We are an organization of some of the
    best resource managers and scientists in the world in areas of
    silviculture, fire management, watershed work, engineering, and
    the list goes on and on.
        However, the focus has not been on the business side of the
    organization. I intend to place a very high level of focus on
    that area and make sure that we have the right skill mix to
    achieve what we need.
        We need accurate and current information. We find ourselves
    in a situation where we are drowning in data and where we lack
    information.
        Just to give you an idea of the complexity of the situation
    we face: Some management codes do as little as 5,000 dollars'
    worth of business a year. We have too much under a microscope,
    and that complexity is a situation we need to deal with.
        To achieve success, we are going to need a strong
    partnership with Congress, with the committees here to move
    forward with that. Then we will need time to deal with the
    issue.
        I have taken some actions. I do not want to leave the
    impression that we have been looking the other way as this is
    going on.
        As I indicated on my first day on the job, as I talk with
    employees we continually emphasize the need for good business
    management practices, human resource management practices, and
    natural resource management skills. We cannot have one without
    all three.

                            management action taken

        I brought in Francis Pandolfi, the day I came to work, from
    the private sector, a chief executive officer with 25 years of
    experience and a Harvard MBA, to help with the situation. Some
    leadership changes have been made. I want to move quickly to
    fill the positions that we have.
        We initiated a Coopers & Lybrand study, I might add. One of
    the suggestions George Leonard made to me, in addition to
    Francis, was to bring in a big 10 accounting firm to take a
    look at our structure, take a look at the situation we deal
    with, and to make recommendations. We have that report and
    Francis would be happy to discuss any details you have.
        I found myself as Chief with 35 direct reports. We have
    reduced that number to, I think, about 10 or 11. It was a
    situation from the standpoint of immediate supervision with a
    breadth of almost unmanageable proportion.
        We initiated the Chief's reviews that have been in the
    Forest Service Manual for many, many years. And yet, I was
    unable to find anyone that had participated in one. And the
    objective that we are placing on the Chiefs' reviews--and we
    will be doing them at all the major units this year--is to
    begin to look ahead of the headlights. We are spending so much
    of our time dealing with the immediate concern of the day that
    the big issues that are coming upon an organization of this
    size are going unattended. We need to spend more organizational
    energy of the Deputy Chiefs, the Regional Foresters, looking
    ahead of the headlights. What is coming at us 5 or 10 years
    from now and what could we have done 10 years ago to avoid some
    of the situations we are in today? I believe it is important
    that we deal with that.
        We are working with the Department to implement a new
    general ledger. There are some problems with that. But we are
    working on those and we will keep you informed as that
    develops. And, of course, there is the natural resources agenda
    that I have put forward.
        So the bottom line is on the accountability and business
    management sides, much of the topic of the Christian Science
    Monitor article that you quoted from, Senator Craig. Can the
    Forest Service be fixed? Yes; we need to do it together. We
    need to be aggressive about doing it.

                               prepared statement

        But I believe it can be done. It is going to take
    commitment. There will be a tremendous saving in doing it, and
    the long-range objective that I have is we not only want a
    Forest Service that is a better place to work, but we want an
    organization that works better.
        I would thank you.
        I would like to ask that my written statement be entered
    into the record.
        Senator Gorton. It already has been ordered.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Mike Dombeck
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, and Members of the Committee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
    President's fiscal year 1999 Budget.
        I have had the honor of serving as Chief of the Forest Service for
    the past 16 months. During that time I have worked hard to focus our
    direction toward these broad goals:
      --Restoring and maintaining the health of the land;
      --Ensuring accountability for what we do on the land, our financial
            resources and business systems, and the civil rights of our
            employees; and,
      --Promoting collaborative stewardship, partnerships, and decisions
            based on the best science.
        I realize philosophical differences exist over how best to achieve
    these goals, or perhaps over the goals themselves. I believe that even
    as we recognize these differences, it is important to maintain good
    working relationships.
        Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today, I want to concentrate on the
    important elements of the President's Budget and how it relates to the
    Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda, and also discuss the Agency's
    financial management systems and the improvements that are needed.
    First, let me provide a brief thumbnail sketch of the overall budget.
        Overall, the President's Budget for the Forest Service proposes an
    increase of 2 percent in discretionary funds. We will manage the 191.6
    million acres of forests and grasslands and a $30 billion
    infrastructure with a work force which is 2 percent smaller than in
    fiscal year 1998. We will provide services in support of approximately
    860 million visits annually by the public. We will manage a road system
    consisting of 373,000 miles used by 1.7 million vehicles daily for the
    purpose of recreation. With the total Forest Service budget of $3.3
    billion, we will provide conservation leadership that emphasizes
    watershed health and sustainability of services and products that come
    from the national forests. The budget includes Presidential Initiatives
    that provide $127.3 million for support of such priorities as: the
    Clean Water Action Plan; recreation; road, trail, and facility
    maintenance; and research. In addition, there are funding increases in
    other important areas, such as hazardous fuels reduction, and wildlife
    and fisheries habitat management.
    Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda
        With that brief overview, let me talk about the budget in the
    context of the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda. The Agenda is
    tiered to the goals and objectives described in our Strategic Plan
    prepared under the requirements of the Government Performance and
    Results Act (GPRA). The Agenda identifies and prioritizes areas of
    emphasis within the objectives of our strategic plan. The strategic
    plan at the national level, and the forest plans at the local level,
    set land management direction for the Forest Service. Fulfilling the
    Agenda will help strengthen the confidence of our constituents in the
    Forest Service's ability to manage our public land.
        The four key emphasis areas of the Natural Resource Agenda are: (1)
    Watershed Health and Restoration; (2) Sustainable Forest Management;
    (3) National Forest Road System; and (4) Recreation.
    Watershed Health and Restoration
        Let me start by discussing Watershed Health and Restoration, which
    is one of the primary reasons for creation of the national forests. For
    many years, our nation's approach to conservation was based on the
    premise that we must protect the best of what remains as exemplified by
    progressive laws which created wilderness areas and wild and scenic
    rivers. Healthy watersheds are the foundation for sustainable multiple
    use management, including providing clean water for people and other
    outputs. Sustaining the health of the land must be our overriding
    priority. Compared to fiscal year 1998, the President's Budget contains
    important funding increases to accelerate this part of the Agenda, such
    as:
      --A $12.6 million increase to provide an additional 12,000 acres of
            watershed improvements, and expand clean-up of hazardous
            substances sites that impact natural resources and public
            health and safety.
      --A $15 million (or 30 percent) increase for hazardous fuels
            reduction, a critical tool for restoring forest health. This
            will result in a reduction of fuels on almost 1.5 million
            acres. The proposed fiscal year 1999 program builds on strong
            support Congress shows in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations
            Act for hazardous fuels reduction.
      --A $20 million increase in Rangeland Vegetation Management. The
            increase would allow the Forest Service, in partnership with
            other USDA and Interior agencies, to begin the first year of a
            multi-year cooperative effort to address both the status and
            the restoration of rangelands. It would provide for the
            restoration of approximately 42,000 acres of range vegetation
            through non-structural improvements in the Western States, and
            the control of noxious weeds on 55,000 acres.
      --Increases for both the Road Maintenance Program and the Road
            Reconstruction and Construction program focused on improving
            watershed health and public safety. I will discuss these
            important programs in more detail later in this testimony.
        Only by accepting our responsibility for maintaining watershed
    health can we move forward with a more balanced approach to watershed
    protection and the provision of grazing, timber, and other outputs. I
    have often said that on a national scale our nation's forest and
    grasslands are basically healthy. But there are areas where
    deterioration is of great concern. We take this responsibility
    seriously, and we are taking action. For example, on the Clearwater
    National Forest, the winter storms of 1995 and 1996 produced erosion on
    old logging roads that caused considerable watershed damage. The Forest
    is working with the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Nez Perce
    Tribe, and local agencies to plan and identify funding for the
    obliteration of 200 miles of these roads over the next two years.
    Sustainable forest management
        The second point I want to address in the Natural Resource Agenda
    is Sustainable Forest Management. Two thirds of the nation's forest
    land is managed by owners other than the Federal government.
    Sustainable forest management cannot be achieved in the U.S. without
    full engagement by all forest landowners. Only by forming coalitions
    among communities, conservationists, industry, and all levels of
    government can we address the complexity of achieving sustainability
    across the landscape.
        The President's fiscal year 1999 budget supports the effort to
    achieve sustainable forest management in a number of areas, such as:
      --An increase of $10 million for Forest and Rangeland Research with
            primary emphasis given to: accelerating annualized inventories
            and improving analytical capability under the Forest Inventory
            Analysis program (FIA); expanding the forest health monitoring
            program and accelerating integration with FIA; and, increasing
            research critical to better understanding and mitigating the
            impacts of climate change as it relates to forests and
            rangelands;
      --Funding increases for a number of State and Private Forestry
            programs to help individual landowners, communities, and States
            capture the benefits of trees and forests through planning and
            stewardship. These programs include the Forest Stewardship
            Program, Stewardship Incentives Program, Forest Legacy Program,
            and the Urban and Community Forestry Program.
        In addition, using our own inventory and monitoring data, and
    collaborating with other land management agencies and organizations, we
    plan to develop a national report on the condition of the Nation's
    forests based on the Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management
    of Temperate and Boreal Forests. These non-legally binding criteria and
    indicators (C&I) are endorsed by a number of countries--such as the
    United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Russia, and others--that
    contain 90 percent of the world's temperate and boreal forests and 60
    percent of all forests on the globe. The C&I provide a common
    understanding of what is meant by sustainable forest management and a
    common framework for evaluating progress toward achieving
    sustainability. A broad array of U.S. stakeholders, including State
    Foresters, and environmental and industry groups support use of the
    C&I.
    National Forest Road System
        Mr. Chairman, now let me turn to the third area of the Natural
    Resource Agenda. That area is the National Forest Road System. Needless
    to say this issue has received extensive attention since I announced
    development of a new road management policy in January 1998.
    Unfortunately, the majority of this attention has focused on the
    proposed interim policy for road construction in roadless areas. I know
    many on this Committee are very concerned about that policy. Mr.
    Chairman, this proposed interim rule is only one of several important
    aspects of this forest roads proposal. By concentrating on the roadless
    policy, attention has been diverted away from the broader issue of
    managing overall road access. That is unfortunate because the forest
    road system is, in many places, the best of the rural transportation
    system. We must do a better job of meeting these local needs.
        I am very concerned about the condition of the forest road system.
    Today, our road system accommodates 1.7 million vehicles per day that
    are being driven for recreational purposes. This is 10 times the
    traffic experienced in 1950. This compares to 15,000 vehicles per day
    for timber related activities, which is about the same as the 1950
    level. While recreation related vehicle use has increased, today there
    are 7,600 less miles of road available to passenger type vehicles than
    in 1991. Our inability to fully maintain the roads we have has resulted
    in the gradual degradation of the road system. The Forest Service has a
    road maintenance and reconstruction backlog of over $10 billion. It is
    a plain and simple fact that we have not been fully funded to care for
    the roads we currently have, and poorly maintained roads can seriously
    degrade watersheds and pose a threat to public safety. We are proposing
    to begin to reverse this trend through improved management policies,
    and our budget priorities.
        The Forest Service has sought public input on the scope and nature
    of a proposed revision of the national forest system road management
    policy. In proposing this, we asked for feedback on three expected
    outcomes. First, as fewer forest roads are built today, we will ensure
    they are built to minimize adverse environmental effects. Second,
    existing roads that are no longer needed or that cause significant
    environmental damage will be removed. Third, roads that are most
    heavily used by the public will be made safer, and any adverse impacts
    on water quality, aquatic habitat, and fisheries, will be reduced.
        We have also sought public input on our interim roadless proposal
    to temporarily halt road construction in most areas of the national
    forest system that do not presently have roads. This proposal
    recognizes that we cannot afford to manage our existing road system. We
    will use this time to engage the Congress and the American people in a
    constructive dialogue about where and when new roads should be built on
    national forests.
        The President's Budget supports the need to improve management of
    the road system we currently have and need to maintain. For example,
    the budget proposes:
      --An increase in the Roads Reconstruction and Construction Program of
            $8 million (or 9 percent). The increase will be focused on road
            reconstruction to protect and restore watersheds, improve
            safety, and provide appropriate access for utilization of
            forest resources.
      --A $22 million (or 26 percent) increase in the Road Maintenance
            program that would fund the decommissioning of 3,500 miles of
            roads, which is less than 10 percent of the total need
            identified by the Agency. It would also increase the percent of
            system roads maintained to standard from 38 percent in fiscal
            year 1998 to 45 percent in fiscal year 1999.
    Recreation
        Mr. Chairman, the fourth and last emphasis item in the Natural
    Resource Agenda is Recreation. The President's Budget provides strong
    support for the recreation program and contains important proposals to
    permanently implement the many successes we have found with new
    recreation initiatives. The national forests and grasslands are the
    largest supplier of outdoor recreation opportunities in America. With
    the majority of Americans easily able to access National Forest System
    land from practically anywhere in the country, it is clear the national
    forests are America's backyard for recreation. The national forests had
    more than 800 million visits in fiscal year 1997, and we expect this
    demand to increase to 1.2 billion visits over the next 50 years.
        The President's Budget recognizes the important challenges
    represented by this increasing demand for recreation, and has proposed
    a $21.1 million increase in the Recreation Use Program over the enacted
    amount in fiscal year 1998. A priority emphasis for these funds is the
    maintenance of recreation sites, such as restoration and replacement of
    water and sanitation facilities, as well as high priority trail
    maintenance in wilderness and non-wilderness areas. We are using
    appropriated funds, fees generated from the Recreation Fee
    Demonstration program, support from partnerships, and other measures to
    address our critical recreation program needs. For example, funds
    generated under the Recreation Fee Demonstration program on the Siuslaw
    National Forest were used to rehabilitate resource damage to meadows
    around Mary's Peak Recreation Area, upgrade garbage collection services
    and add restrooms at the Sandlake Recreation Area, and complete
    resource restoration work and maintain facilities at the Oregon Dunes.
        I want to briefly discuss the Recreation Fee Demonstration program.
    In fiscal year 1997, approximately 35 million visits occurred on the 40
    sites currently operating under the program. An additional 43 sites
    will be added in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1997 the Forest
    Service collected over $7 million of which $3.7 million will be
    expended for maintenance work. The remainder will be used for enhanced
    services. We expect collections to increase in fiscal year 1998 to
    approximately $18 million. These collections are critical for helping
    us provide the services American's expect from the national forests.
    However, let me emphasize that America's recreational use of the
    national forests is highly dispersed. Those 35 million visits to
    Recreation Fee Demonstration sites represent only 4 percent of the
    total recreation visits on the national forests. American's expect a
    lot from us in terms of the quality of their recreation experience, for
    both dispersed use and at fee sites. The President's Budget recognizes
    those expectations. The budget proposes increased appropriations for
    recreation and assumes that the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
    receipts will be used in addition to appropriated funds as the
    authorizing statute intended; otherwise, the backlog will continue to
    grow.
        Also in the fiscal year 1999 budget is a proposal to permanently
    authorize Forest Service retention and use of receipts from recreation
    sites, including that portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    receipts outside of the Recreation Fee Demonstration pilot program. We
    estimate that beginning in fiscal year 2000, total resources generated
    under this proposal will be about $26 million.
    Payments to States proposal
        We are very aware of the importance of revenues to county
    governments and the effects upon the local economies when their sources
    of revenues diminish. As timber production on the national forests has
    declined in recent years, the payments generated by the forests have
    dropped in some cases precipitously. The Congress recognized this in
    1993 by enacting special legislation for the spotted owl forests which
    provided an annually declining percentage of average 1986-90 receipt-
    sharing payments for the affected areas. In 1997 that guarantee dropped
    to 76 percent, and it will decline to 70 percent in 1999 under the
    current legislation.
        In order to provide all county governments with a predictable level
    of payments from the national forests, the Administration is proposing
    legislation to stabilize the payments. Our fiscal year 1999 proposal
    will fix payments at $270 million, which is $37 million above the
    amount paid based on 1997 receipts. This figure of $270 million is
    based on providing each county with the guarantee currently extended to
    the owl forests of 76 percent of the 1986-1990 average payment. For
    those counties where the 1997 payment was greater than that amount, the
    payment would be frozen at the 1997 level. The program will continue to
    be funded by a permanent appropriation to ensure that payments will not
    decline in future years. I understand that some counties located in the
    Eastside project area of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
    Management Project have written to the Office of Management and Budget
    asking for stability in their 25 percent payments. We would like to
    work with you to design a fair system for these and all counties.
    Financial management systems
        As I mentioned earlier, one of my goals is to improve our financial
    management and business systems.
        I agree with the audit findings of the General Accounting Office
    (GAO) and the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Agency's
    financial systems and administrative processes must be improved. The
    complexity of the processes and the interrelationships of the
    activities we manage require a systematic and comprehensive approach.
    We have worked extensively with these groups in the past and are
    currently working with OIG to address a number of fiscal and audit
    issues. We welcome their advice and input into improving our Agency
    business management practices.
        The Forest Service operates on an accumulation of faulty or
    outdated information systems--some more than 20 years old--that are not
    integrated to perform the analysis to make sound decisions, and verify
    accountability. All of our corporate processes and information must be
    linked in an integrated, performance-based framework.
        I realize that we have significant improvements to make in
    financial management and accountability, and I want you to know that I
    am committed to my employees, the Congress, and the taxpayers to see
    that these improvements are made. I will continue to take aggressive
    action to ensure that the Forest Service becomes one of the most
    efficient agencies in the Federal Government. While we acknowledge that
    there is much work yet to be done, we have made a good start in
    implementing long-needed changes.
        In conjunction with the USDA Chief Financial Officer and the OIG,
    we are working towards implementing a new general ledger system called
    foundation financial information system (FFIS). While we are making
    progress in some aspects of FFIS implementation, the Forest Service and
    the National Finance Center still face uncertainties due to the
    complexity of the Agency budget and program requirements. USDA is
    working with an outside consultant to decide how to proceed. USDA will
    inform Congress once decisions are made on the most effective and
    efficient way to move forward. As we work through the implementation of
    FFIS, we plan to modify our own financial management requirements and
    identify where Congress in its authorizing and appropriations processes
    can help us to achieve a strong and accountable financial management
    system.
        In addition, I commissioned a study by the Coopers and Lybrand
    accounting firm to review our financial management situation. Their
    report, released in March, makes recommendations on streamlining and
    clarifying our financial management systems. I intend to carefully
    review these recommendations and take appropriate action to strengthen
    financial management in the Forest Service.
        Many of the accountability issues we face were years--even
    decades--in the making. We have already made some progress in
    addressing concerns regarding the Agency's management and financial
    condition. But we still have a very long way to go. It will take time
    before we can address effectively the full range of fiscal and
    management accountability issues. Major changes take time. It will take
    several years to turn this situation around and we urge the Congress
    and the Federal audit branches to recognize these major shifts and work
    with us as we strive to meet the mandate of improving the financial
    health of the Agency. Combined with the complexity of the
    interrelationships among our programs and the migration to new
    information systems, we face a great task, and we look forward to the
    reward.
        That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

                              forest service staff

        Chief Dombeck. I would like to introduce the key Forest
    Service staff that are here who can provide details on
    questions. Starting at my right is Francis Pandolfi. Randy
    Phillips is here for Bob Joslin. Deputy Chief Bob Joslin's
    mother had a heart attack yesterday and he had to fly to
    Arizona to deal with that unfortunate situation. We hope she is
    doing well.
        I have Robert Lewis, Deputy Chief for Research; Janice
    McDougle from State and Private Forestry; Clyde Thompson,
    Operations; and Ron Stewart from Programs and Legislation.
        I also have Kim Thorsen from law enforcement here as well
    as Luther Burse, our Director for Civil Rights.
        With that, we would be happy to answer any questions and
    enter into any dialog and hope it will be very helpful.
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Chief Dombeck.
        Senator Byrd, if Senator Domenici thinks he is going to be
    better treated sitting over there beside you, he is in error in
    that connection. [Laughter.]
        But you are the ranking member, a friend, and a supporter.
    You did not have an opportunity before the speakers to make an
    opening statement. So you can both make an opening statement
    and ask your questions now.
        Senator Domenici, you will be treated in order. [Laughter.]
        Senator Domenici. Let me just say that I told Senator Byrd
    that there were so many Republicans, I figured I would sneak in
    over here and I may get called on sooner. [Laughter.]

                       remarks of senator robert c. byrd

        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, Scriptures say that a word
    fitly spoken is like apples of gold and pictures of silver. I
    think it would be appropriate to fitly speak a word on this
    subject. Now that Mr. Domenici has come over to this side of
    the aisle, the intelligence quotient on this side of the aisle
    has shown a precipitous rise with a commensurate decrease on
    the other side of the aisle. [Laughter.]
        As the only representative of my party--and I don't do an
    excellent job of that, as you will notice in some of my votes--
    --
        Senator Gorton. I have. [Laughter.]
        Senator Byrd [continuing]. I do welcome Senator Domenici to
    this side of the aisle.
        Seriously, I join with all others in welcoming Chief
    Dombeck before this subcommittee. He has been in charge of the
    Forest Service for a little over a year now. The issues
    confronting the agency are of great concern to many people and
    the challenges facing the Forest Service are not easily
    solvable.
        So I look forward to hearing more of his testimony and to
    exploring ways that the Forest Service can continue to play, as
    it has played for over a long period, a constructive role in my
    State of West Virginia, to assistant in responsible management
    and stewardship of our forestry resources.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I was late in arriving. I am perfectly
    willing to await my turn and yield to you.
        Senator Gorton. Oh, no. Why don't you go ahead, Senator
    Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. I will be quite brief in that
    regard.

                          hardwoods technology center

        Chief, we have already talked a bit about the Princeton
    Hardwoods Technology Center and I look forward to your having
    an opportunity to think about this for a few days as we
    discussed. Then, as soon as possible, if you can get back to
    me, I want us to get this facility on the right track. I will
    be eagerly awaiting your analysis of the situation and your
    advice and comments.

                          seneca rocks visitors center

        With regard to the Seneca Rocks Visitor Center, which was
    destroyed by fire in 1992, what is the current schedule for the
    completion of the facility and when do you expect that it will
    be open for public visitation?
        Chief Dombeck. Well, Senator, we hope to have the facility
    open in July of this year, and I hope you can participate in a
    dedication of that event. We hope to have the center fully
    operational with the displays and everything in place by spring
    1999. I am one, at least until I got this job, who got to the
    mountains of West Virginia fairly often to be up on Spruce Knob
    or go camping. In fact, I did cut a Christmas tree off the
    Monongahela National Forest that was in my office this year. I
    also want you to know that I did pay the $5 for the permit for
    that tree. [Laughter.]
        So I am also looking forward to seeing the completion of
    that and hope that we can participate in the dedication
    ceremony when that is completed.
        Senator Byrd. What are the estimated costs for operations
    of the visitor center and what plans does the Forest Service
    have for developing its budget for next year to accommodate the
    additional operating costs that will accompany this facility?
        Chief Dombeck. I do not have that information with me, the
    specific operational costs. But I would be happy to provide
    that to you for the record.
        Senator Byrd. Very well.
        [The information follows:]

                          Seneca Rocks Visitor Center

        The estimated annual operating cost for the Seneca Rocks
    Visitor Information Center is $275,000. The Monongahela
    National Forest and the Southern Region Headquarters are
    exploring partnership opportunities to offset the increased
    costs of operation and maintenance for the Seneca Rocks Visitor
    Information Center.

                        west virginia forestry research

        Senator Byrd. We have three research activities in West
    Virginia--Morgantown, Parsons, and Princeton. I understand the
    staffing and funding for these locations are maintained in the
    fiscal year 1999 budget at the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
        Is that correct?
        Chief Dombeck. Yes; and let me ask Deputy Chief Robert
    Lewis, who has a personal knowledge of and directs these
    programs.
        Dr. Lewis. Thank you and good morning, Senator.
        We do maintain the extended level that we had last year at
    all three labs, at the Princeton Center as well as Morgantown,
    and at Parsons as well. Our plans are to continue to do that.
        Senator Byrd. While the budgets for these locations are not
    decreasing, they also are not keeping pace with inflation and
    other uncontrollable cost increases.
        What are the consequences to the research program of the
    Forest Service not receiving increased funding to address these
    costs?
        Dr. Lewis. We have had to deal with the rate of inflation
    through managing our research program through attrition. The
    overall impact has been a reduction in the number of scientist-
    years as we provide operating funds for our scientists that
    they might be productive.
        So the overall impact has been a decrease in the research
    effort. For example, the agency is now down to 548 scientist-
    years, permanent full time, as compared to about 1,000 about 10
    years ago.
        Senator Byrd. So some equipment and facility improvements
    get deferred, I assume.
        Dr. Lewis. We have both equipment deferrals, as well, which
    would be an impact.
        Senator Byrd. When these types of investments can no longer
    be put off, then what will the agency do? Will it defer hiring
    and filling of vacancies?
        Dr. Lewis. We can defer hiring and filling of positions
    only to a point. And at that point we end up closing a number
    of locations.
        Senator Byrd. Yes; though I am not suggesting that you do
    that. We want to keep abreast of these needs.
        What actions are being taken to fill the vacant unit leader
    and scientist positions at Princeton?
        Dr. Lewis. We currently have an employment certificate to
    fill the project leader's job down at Princeton. Our No. 1
    candidate did not accept the position, but we have made an
    offer to the No. 2 candidate on the list. We hope to have that
    position filled shortly.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions. I will
    submit them.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, your questions and the talk
    about Princeton reminded me that last night I had dinner with a
    friend whose avocation is thoroughbred horses. He told me of a
    recent trip to Charlestown in West Virginia and commented on
    the magnificence of the roads and the schools in that area. I
    was beginning to wonder after this opening whether there would
    be any building sites left in West Virginia.
        Senator Byrd. There will be building sites left.
        Senator Gorton. I suspect so and that we will hear about
    them. [Laughter.]
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment about the
    schools.
        You have before you a product of a two-room school. I
    started out in 1923 in a two-room school. We had outside
    plumbing and we drank spring water. It was all in one bucket
    and we all drank out of one dipper. So far as I know, we are
    all well and healthy, still.
        We have progressed a long way from the two-room school. But
    it might be a good thing if all the children of our country
    could have the experience of going to a two-room schoolhouse
    and attending there for a year. They learn from the upper
    gradesmen and they have dedicated teachers. Mine did not get
    paid very well, but they were highly dedicated.
        Well, so much for the two-room schoolhouse.
        Senator Gorton. In any event, I regarded the comments last
    night as a great compliment to the senior Senator from West
    Virginia.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Cochran has only a few brief
    questions and I am going to turn to him next. The others, in
    order of appearance, are Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, and
    Senator Bennett. I am going to defer my own questioning to the
    end because it is quite extensive.
        So, Senator Cochran, we will go to you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                         mississippi forestry research

        One of the functions of the Southern Research Laboratory at
    Stoneville, MS, is to develop programs in the management of
    bottomland hardwood resources and a greater understanding of
    the hydrology and other aspects that are unique to this
    important national resource.
        There is concern that as we focus on the Forest Service we
    think about public lands, but there are a lot of private lands,
    particularly in the South, that could benefit from technical
    assistance and research that is done at these Federal
    facilities, like Stoneville.
        I know Dr. Lewis has personal experience at that facility.
    It is where he started out his career and now he is at a point
    of high level of importance in the Forest Service. We
    congratulate you on your outstanding career and what you
    continue to do for the country in this capacity.
        But my question--and I will submit this so that you will
    have a greater opportunity to talk about some specifics--is how
    we can do a better job at these research facilities. We have
    subunits located in Oxford and there is a Forest Service lab at
    Mississippi State University. All are working on specific
    problems. But particularly the bottomlands hardwoods is a
    concern of mine as it is with many private landowners in our
    State. How do we reforest more effectively the cropland that
    had been cleared once upon a time and is now being put back
    into bottomland hardwood resources?
        Also, there is some specific research at the Forest Lab at
    Mississippi State University on the termite issue. We have had
    some pesticides that have been taken out of use because of
    dangers to health and human safety. They are trying to do
    something to find substitutes there.
        I hope you will look at those issues. You may be able to
    respond now on this subject of the bottomlands hardwoods
    research. I don't know whether Mr. Dombeck or Dr. Lewis want to
    respond to that. But I have those questions that I want you to
    look at and provide answers for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                 Wood Products Insect Research, Starkville, MS

        The mission of this unit is to define the role of termites
    in forest ecosystems, to improve protection of wood against
    damage, and to understand the impact of termites on forest
    health. It is the primary federal research unit working on
    control of termites in buildings. All new termiticides must
    undergo extensive laboratory and field testing by this unit
    prior to EPA registration. Field testing and screening sites
    are located in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South
    Carolina, and on Midway Island and in the Panama Canal Zone.
    The unit works closely with the Department of Defense, state
    termite inspection agencies, chemical and wood products firms,
    and Mississippi State University. In addition, the unit
    conducts research on the role of termites and other insects in
    decomposition of wood in forest ecosystems enhancing nutrient
    cycling. This unit collaborates with the International
    Institute of Tropical Forestry in the Forest Service's tropical
    forestry program located in Puerto Rico.

    center for southern bottomland hardwood and wetland forest ecosystems,
                                 stoneville, ms

        This new research work unit, formed in fiscal year 1996, is
    a consolidation of the following former four units and includes
    units formerly administered at Starkville and Oxford, MS:
        Technology of forest tree seeds.--This unit develops
    methods of collecting, conditioning, and storing eastern forest
    tree seeds that will generate and maintain high seed quality.
    Research results are used forest nursery and seed orchard
    managers with National Forest System Region 8, forest industry,
    and southern state forestry agencies. The unit is a partner in
    the tree seed research cooperative at Mississippi State
    University and collaborates in regional, national, and
    international projects of the cooperative. The location will
    still be open with two scientists.
        Multiple-Resource Management of Southern Bottomland
    Hardwood and Wetland Forest Ecosystems.--This unit provides the
    information required for ecologically sound management
    guidelines necessary to maintain, protect, or enhance the
    structure, function, productivity, and value of southern
    bottomland hardwood and wetland forest ecosystems. Research
    results are used by land managers in Federal and state
    agencies, forest industry, and non-industrial private forest
    landowners to manage natural stands of bottomland hardwoods.
    Expanding efforts to reforest marginal agricultural land and to
    restore forested wetlands have caused a resurgence of interest
    in research results for this unit in artificial regeneration
    methods. This unit participates in the Southern Research
    Station's Ecosystem Management Program, and with ``Partners in
    Flight'' to develop landscape-scale approaches to forest
    management for multiple resources, including habitat for
    sensitive neotropical landbirds.
        Watershed Ecosystem Research for the Mid-South Upper
    Coastal Plan and Interior Highlands.--This unit, located at
    Oxford, MS, was closed in fiscal year 1996 and the research
    transferred to Stoneville. The location will still be open with
    three scientists. This new sub-unit conducts hydrologic and
    aquatic ecological research to identify rational forest
    management strategies that will aid in the maintenance of
    diverse, healthy ecosystems; allow sustainable use of forest
    resources, promote recovery of depleted species and
    communities; and product quality water. It is the key sub-unit
    for watershed in the Mid-South states.
        Management of Insect and Disease Pests in Southern
    Hardwood/Wetland Forest Ecosystems.--This unit develops pest
    management strategies and guidelines necessary to minimize
    insect and disease losses in intensive culture and multi-use
    stands of southern hardwoods. This is the lead Forest Service
    unit for studies of oak wilt.

                        forestry research related issues

        Chief Dombeck. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
        I would just like to say to Senator Byrd that I spent 4
    years in a four-room school. [Laughter.]
        It also had the plumbing out back for the first 4 years.
    Then we did get more modern plumbing.
        I wanted to make two or three points because I know a lot
    of the issues that the committee has made in opening statements
    talk about significant concerns about the Forest Service. I
    also want to point out that 490 million acres of forests are in
    private ownership, and--not only in research, but in the State
    and private forestry programs and the need for good
    information--the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program is an
    area where I see no opposition from State Foresters to academia
    to the Forest Supervisors and private land owners. They need
    those services. They want that information.
        I just want to point out that one of the things that keeps
    me going in a job that is fairly controversial like this one is
    to continually look across the spectrum because there are many,
    many areas of agreement. The Stewardship Incentives Program is
    one that is important because the number of tracts of land 50
    acres or less in the United States has doubled from 1978 to
    1994. Not only is this fragmentation occurring, but also the
    turnover, rate, the rate of turnover, is increasing. And yet,
    we only have 5 percent of those private land owners who have
    professionally based management plans for whatever the
    objectives.
        I just want to thank you for your support for research and
    these programs that are important. I know that Dr. Lewis has
    personal knowledge of what goes on at Stoneville since he
    worked there for a number of years.

                         mississippi forestry research

        Dr. Lewis. Thank you, Chief Dombeck, and thank you, Senator
    Cochran. I was born about 15 miles from Stoneville.
        Senator Byrd, I went to school in a one-room schoolhouse,
    which was also our church, by the way. [Laughter.]
        I can relate to that very well.
        Senator Cochran, Stoneville, MS is where I started out. The
    bottomland hardwood problem and opportunity is tremendous
    there. In fact, we have a number of exciting, interesting, and
    very productive research reports that came out of Stoneville,
    which is internationally known. For example, there is the work
    on cottonwood--the eastern cottonwood, poplars--known all over
    the world, in fact.
        Mike Dombeck and I had an opportunity to visit with people
    at the World Forestry Congress last year where we had an
    opportunity to talk about the poplar council internationally.
    Also the termite work at Starkville, MS, is extremely
    important. As you pointed out, we have some major problems.
    Chlordane, for example, was once the primary termiticide used
    to treat and prevent termites. That has now been lost. We have
    to have alternative treatments. We are working with the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency in evaluating the efficacy as
    well as the safety of alternative methods of treatment for
    termites.
        That is an area that we would really be happy to address.
    We look forward to following up with written responses to your
    questions.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.

                              franklin county lake

        The only other subject I wanted to mention, which I
    mentioned in my opening statement, is the Franklin County Lake
    on the Homochitto National Forest. We hope you will take a look
    at that and give us a status report and what you plan to do to
    help accomplish the goal of establishing that resource, that
    recreational resource.
        Chief Dombeck. We will be happy to do that, Senator
    Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                                    Projects

        This project--the Recreational Lake and Complex at Porter
    Creek, Franklin County, Mississippi, Homochitto National
    Forest, Homochitto Ranger District--was initiated by the
    community leaders in Franklin County, MS. They have tried for
    30 years to secure federal funding to build a 1,100-acre lake
    to diversify their economy. The community leaders requested
    that the USDA Forest Service assist them in improving the rural
    development and economic diversity of the area.
        This project could create private sector business
    opportunities, assist existing local businesses, improve water
    quality by remedying raw sewage flow into Porter Creek, and
    prevent additional head-cutting of streams in the watershed.
    They are now attempting to leverage State and federal funds. It
    is estimated that more than $12 million would be needed for
    construction of the dam, contract administration, and surveying
    and mapping of the lake cross sections and pool levels.
        This project is new construction. New construction is not a
    priority for the Agency at this time in order to focus
    resources on the backlog of reconstruction needs. The Agency
    priority continues to be on capital investment priorities which
    emphasize reconstruction of health and safety issues, water and
    sanitation projects, and recreation backlog, rather than new
    construction. New construction adds to out-year operation and
    maintenance (O&M) costs; it is unlikely that additional O&M
    funds can be provided from the national level in the out-years
    to support these new facilities and structures coming on-line.
    In the case of a dam, the maintenance and reconstruction costs
    in the future can be significant, along with the liability
    issues. Based on previous data for dams in the Region (and none
    are the size of this one), it is estimated that annual O&M
    costs would be about $75,000.
        The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
    received $250,000 in fiscal year 1996, $550,000 in fiscal year
    1997, and $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to accomplish design,
    technical assistance, and complete construction documentation
    on this project. The NRCS is experienced with the construction
    and reconstruction of dams. The Forest Service would partner
    with them to do the actual construction if this project is
    directed, earmarked, and additional funding is provided.
        In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1 million in the
    Forest Service budget for Franklin County Lake. These funds
    would have been used to: obtain detailed survey information for
    planning (topographic survey of the dam, basin, and developable
    area, and detailed soil surveys of developable area above pool
    level); search out and cultivate interest in Private/Public
    Venture prospects to build the recreational facilities; develop
    a conceptual development plan with input from private partners
    who might be interested; and advertise for formal partnership.
    Any available remaining funds would partially fund the Forest
    Service share of construction and design costs. This funding
    does not provide for dam construction, which is estimated at
    approximately $12 million. This project was line-item vetoed by
    the Administration and funds were not appropriated.

                            frustrations in the west

        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I had mentioned in my opening comments the
    frustration that is going on in Boise at this moment. Boise
    National Forest has proposed to ignite 5,400 acres of land out
    there in a prescribed fire, a prescribed burning. You and I
    have discussed that at length over time and both agree. The
    fire and the overall management of our forests for health, for
    the necessary cleansing that must go on is appropriate.
        But I am highly frustrated. The phone calls that flooded my
    office were done during a period of inversion. Boise filled up
    with smoke.
        A woman called in. She was desperate. She had a child whose
    lungs were spasming because of respiratory problems. All of
    that was going on.
        Now the inversion happened to lift yesterday. The phone
    calls are slowing down today. But Idahoans are extremely
    frustrated.
        When I have said that we now have a merely zero cut policy
    on our lands, we are now burning them. And, while I am out
    there trying to defend a reasonable fire policy, a 5,400 acre
    sized fire or proposed burn on the Boise National Forest is, in
    my research at least, the largest one ever proposed in the
    history of the Boise National Forest.

                                   hot shots

        What spirals around all of that is the fact that we have
    some very real difficulty with our historically and well known
    hot shot teams out there, known for firefighting. We have El
    Nino. The continued buildup of fuel on the forest floor is
    continuing, and we just fired one of the major ways at least to
    control fire, our hot shot crews.
        I have met with the regional forester. I understand the
    controversy around that one and I am certainly willing to give
    management the latitude to deal with it. But it kind of sounds
    like the baby got tossed out with the dirty water in this
    instance, and it gets to be of real frustration to the
    citizenry. It is one that I think we are going to have to have
    some answers on--the assurance that the fire center in Boise is
    capable of maintaining its abilities and certainly the hot shot
    crew is available, or some form like that. Also, how do we deal
    with the question of the burn? Have you involved yourself with
    Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality in the process of
    working out these kinds of proposed burns?
        Chief Dombeck. Let me start by addressing the hot shot
    issue. In fact, I spoke with our Director of Fire and Aviation
    just last night again about this issue, Mary Jo Lavin, and
    expressed my concern again that we maintain the capability to
    deal with situations. And in the case of the Boise Hot Shots,
    there were some serious problems that had to be dealt with, and
    I am hopeful they are being dealt with appropriately. There is
    still some continuing investigation going on and the
    possibility of the Department of Justice involved in some
    potentially criminal activities.
        But the capability nationwide in hot shots by disbanding
    that crew is reduced from 1,160 individuals to 1,140
    individuals. The requirement that I have on this action is that
    we not reduce the capability because it is lives and the things
    that you have described that are at stake out there.

                   idaho department of environmental quality

        The second issue, on the coordination with the Department
    of Environmental Quality: Our policy is that that occurred at
    the local level. I am not familiar with the situation that you
    described from the standpoint of whether there were errors in
    weather forecasting or whatever.
        One of the advantages of a controlled burn versus a
    wildfire is the fact that wind direction, weather conditions,
    and all of this can be taken into consideration to minimize the
    effects that typically occur with a fire. And we would rather
    have them in a situation where we can minimize those, or
    somehow react to what we know is coming, rather than deal with
    a disease over which we have no control.
        Senator Craig. Mike, I and my staff asked a lot of
    questions in the last few days and the answers we got were kind
    of like this [indicating] ``somebody else made the decision.''
        I think that we may want to examine how those decisions got
    made.
        I am not denying that decisions have to be made and that
    fire should be a tool, as I said earlier. But we have some very
    real problems there.
        I am also very frustrated in the regional haze game--I call
    it a game that is getting played by EPA--and the particular
    game that is getting played by the EPA. The actions of the U.S.
    Forest Service and this administration were terribly
    inconsistent with the politics of EPA in the last week out in
    Idaho.
        I am very frustrated at who is wagging the tail of the dog
    out there, or back here, when it comes to those kinds of
    issues.
        Now I don't expect you to respond to that, but that is my
    internal reaction. How can we make sense or how can our public
    make sense of all of these conflicting policies when that kind
    of thing happens?

                            regional budget declines

        I met with the regional forester in region 4 while I was
    out there, and you have put an excellent man in place there. I
    think he has tremendous talents. I look forward to working with
    him and I think our State does, too.
        We shared some joint frustrations. This question alludes to
    that.
        As you know, the Forest Service lands in Idaho represent
    regions 1 and 4. That is about 39 percent of the land base in
    the State of Idaho. Over the last 5 years, the budgets in those
    regions have declined substantially, or at least there is a
    graduating decline.
        Regions 1 and 4 received 17.4 percent of the total Forest
    Service budget in 1993, but in 1998, the region received 13.4
    percent.
        I guess I will have to ask you why did regions 1 and 4
    receive 4 percent less of the total Forest Service budget, as
    compared with 1993, when it appears that the demands in that
    region are constantly being ramped up. That would be my first
    question.
        If you cannot respond to it now in detail, I think it
    deserves a detailed response and I want to sit down with you
    and analyze why that trend is happening to see if we can't
    break out of that trend.
        Chief Dombeck. Yes; in fact, there is some history that I
    cannot articulate here from the standpoint of the change in the
    line item and the criteria that Randy knows more about than I
    do. I am not sure we want to get into that level of detail.

                              financial management

        But in general, I would like to say that this, in a sense,
    gets back to some of the business accounting data valuation
    things that I alluded to in my opening remarks when I talked
    about the financial management and the business management
    decisionmaking process. So I think what is woven into this goes
    beyond the resource issues. But it is also one of the things
    good business management systems I think can get for us, an
    added dimension to the decisionmaking process that will promote
    efficiency and effectiveness; that is, more efficient use of
    the dollars that we have resulting in more effectiveness in the
    employees that we have on the ground.
        I think we share the same objective. I am frustrated as an
    individual who is head of an organization that we cannot get
    more dollars to the ground to work on the land. I believe that
    looking at these systems over time will greatly enhance our
    capability over there, along with simplifying the processes.
        Senator Craig. That percentage of reduction, from 1993 to
    1998, factored out represents about $130 million in funding
    that has been displaced substantially. There have been a
    variety of initiatives out there that have been assumed that
    were not authorized and appropriated. So as you analyze that, I
    think it is reasonable that those ought to be compared.
        In other words, we put budgets forth to do certain things.
    The Congress authorized it; the money did not go there. It went
    elsewhere, to things that were, I guess, of greater value in
    some instances to this administration than to the Congress
    collectively. I think that frustrates us all as we try to deal
    with these issues.
        Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. You have been
    generous with your time.
        I think this is important here because it is kind of how do
    we get there.

                                roads moratorium

        Last year, when we fought the roads battle, Mike, as you
    know, it was interesting that the administration really did not
    come out and defend their own policy. It was their own party's
    people that largely were attacking their own policy. We just
    could not find you. Nobody was willing to fight the good fight.
        You have a road policy this year. You have a Senator on the
    other side of the aisle, Senator Bryan of Nevada. He has
    already said that he is going to introduce legislation to knock
    it out.
        I guess I am going to ask this question. Are you going to
    come up and defend the budget this year when it relates to
    roads? Are you going to be willing to work with us to try to
    save it?
        That did not happen last year. No; after that was all over,
    you and I had our discussions on how we ought to work to
    resolve this issue and see if we could not come to a bipartisan
    solution. We all know the rest of the story.

                            road maintenance backlog

        So here is the question. You testified that you have a $10
    billion road backlog for roads and maintenance. You also know
    that timber purchases used to pay for 40 to 45 percent of road
    maintenance. Now that is declining dramatically and for a lot
    of reasons, some of them by policy of this administration. This
    is maintenance that recreationists and other agencies use. We
    all know that. And all of our public uses it, too.
        I guess my frustration comes here. If the road policy today
    or the road conditions today are a part of self-infliction by
    an inability to get other things done that deny the revenues
    that often go to maintenance--and that appears to be the case
    in some instances--why should the Congress take about 30
    percent of recreation and wilderness budgets and put that money
    into road construction and maintenance?
        Do you follow my thinking? That is what it appears we are
    being asked to do here. We have whacked the other side of the
    dollar generating equation that has gone into maintenance and
    construction over time and now you are saying let's pull money
    out of other places where there are substantial needs and put
    it into roads for construction or maintenance.
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, if I could address that since I raised
    the issue, as I indicated, I do not think it was the intent of
    the agency for a time to neglect the road system. We simply did
    not have the resources to keep up. You are correct. Declines in
    appropriations and timber sales have limited our capacity to
    reinvest in the road structure.
        I am not sure we ever had the resources to keep up, but
    that has exacerbated the situation.
        We have limited capacity, though, to obtain funds from the
    recreation community and other sources to provide for those
    investments. What I was addressing in particular with regard to
    the $10.5 billion backlog is that roads, for all intents and
    purposes, are public highways. They are part of the public land
    highway system.
        There ought to be another source of funds to make that
    investment. That would then free up appropriations in our road
    account which all now go to maintenance to do some other
    things, to address some of the other concerns you raised. The
    Congress is obviously in conference considering a rather large
    highway package and that may be one place to look for some help
    on this issue.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Here is a simple question. Are you going to work with us to
    defend your road budget this year against attack?
        Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
        Senator Craig. Even if it comes from the other side of the
    aisle?
        Mr. Lyons. We will defend the President's budget.
        Senator Craig. If not, we are going to start taking money
    out of good programs to solve this road problem. Then you are
    going to have everybody else on top of us, recreationists and
    all other kinds of users of that resource, to address this
    problem.
        So you have to defend the policy you bring up here. You
    cannot walk away from it. You did last year.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, we will defend the President's policy
    and I want to say publicly that I am proud of Mike's efforts to
    be aggressive about dealing with road issues and to have a
    better informed debate about the road issue this time around.
        Senator Craig. I hope so.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I assume that Mr. Francis
    Pandolfi, who has been the supervisor of the major report--we
    didn't get that report in time for this hearing, as I
    understand it.
        Senator Gorton. That's correct.
        Senator Domenici. But I assume that it will be reviewed in
    due course by the subcommittee?
        Senator Gorton. I'm sorry. We did get a copy in the last
    few days and we will have it available for you and for study.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        I was thinking that it would be very relevant, Mr.
    Pandolfi, to talk to you today about it. I don't know what to
    ask you, so I'll wait until I have a chance to review it. Maybe
    the chairman can submit some written requests or the like.

                                land acquisition

        Let me talk a minute about a land acquisition prospect in
    the State of New Mexico that you all favor greatly--the
    acquisition of the Baca location in northern New Mexico.
        I note that we still do not have an appraisal of what it
    might be worth and that the Forest Service is not going to do
    one but, rather, will rely upon the property owners to do one
    pursuant to some guidelines that you have agreed to submit.
        Do you know the status of that, and why wouldn't we do one
    ourselves if you are so excited about acquiring this property?
        Chief Dombeck. I am not sure I can answer why we are not
    doing one. What I can say is that the new Regional Forester in
    that area is Ellie Townes who, of course, was the Director of
    Lands prior to that job and certainly one of the most
    knowledgeable people in the agency with an impeccable
    reputation on these issues. I rely on her expertise in this
    area.
        Randy or Jim, do you have any additional information on
    that specific question?
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I think I can tell you at least the
    status, and that is we have provided guidelines to the
    appraiser that will be employed by the family to do this
    appraisal. I think part of that is simply to insure that they
    pick up the cost of the appraisal.
        We fully intend that the appraisal be consistent with
    standard procedures and guidelines so that it is an appraisal
    that we can both live with and that we feel is totally
    accurate.
        We will give you an update on the situation in detail.
        Senator Domenici. I would like an update.
        Mr. Chairman, this is one of the very large land
    acquisition prospects that the President has requested out of
    your $299 million fund.
        [The information follows:]

                                   Appraisal

        The value of the Baca Location No. 1 is currently being
    determined by an appraiser hired by the owners of the property.
    We have met with the appraiser to discuss the appraisal
    standards used for Federal land acquisitions and our review/
    approval procedures for appraisal reports provided to the
    agency. Because of the size and unique resources associated
    with this property, we have contracted with an independent
    appraisal firm to provide us with information that will allow
    our appraisers to be knowledgeable of the market for this type
    of property. We are confident that we have the information and
    resources necessary to assure the agency can review any
    appraisal report provided to the agency. If the report is
    approved, it assures the report has been completed to Federal
    standards and represents market value of the property. If for
    any reason the report cannot be approved, we have the resources
    to establish a value in accordance with Federal standards.

                             backlogged maintenance

        Senator Gorton. $699 million.
        Senator Domenici. Yes, $699 million--that everybody thinks
    will solve all the problems from the backlogged maintenance to
    all the new acquisitions. What I was just saying in your
    absence was that an appraisal is taking place. We don't know
    whether this property is worth $75 million or $250 million. The
    property owner is doing the appraisal under guidelines from the
    Forest Service and I am just, right now, going to make the
    point that I am not ever going to agree to anything in this
    regard until we know exactly what it is going to cost us.
        Senator Gorton. You have discussed that with me before and
    I am certainly going to defer to you in that respect.
        Senator Domenici. There may be some other things that we
    need to do.
        I want just to go through four or five other things. I will
    not ask you to answer them but will tell you that they are
    important and that I am submitting something to you in writing.

                                 land exchange

        In the Cibola National Forest, which is over by Grants, NM,
    and the Mount Taylor area, there is a checkerboard land
    exchange of which that your staff is aware. There may be some
    desire to put those kind of things off for x number of months.
    Frankly, this one seems so rational and so logical for both
    sides, I have submitted some details as to why you might look
    at that for us.

                             taos drainage problem

        Then, up in the town of Taos, NM, there is a very big
    drainage problem causing a whole lot of damage. The town
    finally got an engineer to say from where all of this runoff
    comes. It turns out that 60 percent comes from the Forest
    Service and 40 percent from other topographical changes that
    have occurred.
        We have submitted a request that you seriously look at what
    your responsibility is with reference to the damage from that
    runoff. I am submitting something more in detail. If you would,
    please look at that situation for us.

                              new mexico research

        I have a question on forest research as it applies to some
    of the research taking place in Albuquerque, but it only has to
    do with why did you not increase funding there when you did
    elsewhere. I would like you to answer that, and I have given
    the details to you right here.

                       four corners development proposal

        You know that the Pacific Northwest is leading the way in
    trying to aid the transformation of forest industries in their
    communities where they have suffered enormous job loss because
    of the substantial diminution in timber cut.
        In the Southwest, several States are getting together--mine
    is one of the States, Colorado is one of the States--and are
    going to propose something for the four corners area, which
    touches all four of the States--that is Utah, Arizona, New
    Mexico, and Colorado.
        Are you willing to work with the State and local agencies
    who are working on that issue much as you did in the Pacific
    Northwest?
        Chief Dombeck. Yes; in fact, when I met with your staff
    yesterday afternoon, that was one of the issues we briefly
    discussed. I know it is a multiagency effort that the State
    Foresters are interested in, that the tribes are interested in.
    It fits right in with the objectives that we have from the
    standpoint of sustainable forest management, sustainable
    economies, and using improved technologies to get the job done.
        Mr. Lyons. I should also point out, Senator, that I have
    met with Jill Long Thompson, my colleague in the department who
    is Under Secretary for Rural Development. We are working
    together to coordinate efforts in the region to provide that
    kind of assistance.
        Senator Domenici. All right.

                           riparian proximity grazing

        My last question has to do with the most recent agreement
    or settlement of dispute that was resolved with reference to
    about 57 rancher allotments in the States of New Mexico and
    Arizona that have to do with use of riparian proximity land by
    an allottee for cattle grazing.
        I am not here to argue who is right in that regard at this
    point, however, I wonder if you might submit for the record
    what is the policy and the law with reference to these ranchers
    being denied that usage. Let's assume for this question that
    that is the way it ought to be.
        How difficult is it for them to acquire water and to build
    tanks and reservoirs that are away from the riparian right of
    way to take the place of this water?
        I understand this could be hearsay twice over. I understand
    from some ranchers that it is very difficult for them to get
    permission to build a water reservoir or a major tank so that
    they can move cattle away from the riparian areas.
        Now, obviously, my concern for them will not be joined by a
    number, maybe three or four of the environmental
    organizations--not all--who don't want any grazing at all. They
    would like to see the water go away and you would have no
    replacement anywhere. Thus the cattle will go away.
        The issue is becoming less and less important because
    ranching is going more and more into bankruptcy and is less and
    less able to graze. I just wonder if you could supply us with
    this information. What will a rancher be confronted with by way
    of acquiring some water away from the riparian areas? Maybe we
    can help alleviate the permitting problem if, indeed, it is too
    restrictive and too difficult.
        Chief Dombeck. We would be happy to provide that for you.
    Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Does this question make sense----
        Chief Dombeck. Yes.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. That if we are going to move
    them away, it seems like we ought not to destine them to no
    water if they could build tanks or the like somewhere. I would
    greatly appreciate your answer, and I know that we might work
    on something to alleviate the problem that is too rigid.
        [The information follows:]

                                 Riparian Areas

        In answer to your question regarding the most recent
    settlement of dispute, this did not involve moving cattle away
    from ``all'' riparian areas. However, it did involve excluding
    domestic livestock grazing from certain riparian areas which
    provide habitat for certain federally listed species under the
    Endangered Species Act. In no instance are we aware of a
    situation where this action has resulted in a rancher being
    unable to use upland areas because of the unavailability of
    water. To the contrary, many of the exclosures provide water
    gaps for livestock. In addition, the construction of stock
    tanks on National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico
    has long been recognized as a good management practice. The
    limiting factors have been funding, and in certain instances
    factors such as unsuitable geologic conditions which make it
    uneconomical or impractical to consider construction of stock
    tanks. We have and will continue to work with the livestock
    industry to provide desirable range improvements including
    water away from riparian areas.

                          litigation and multiple use

        Senator Domenici. Do you know anything more about it, about
    that issue?
        Chief Dombeck. I am aware of the issue, Senator. I was
    recently in Las Cruces with Secretary Glickman for a hearing on
    some of our agriculture programs and that issue came up. So we
    will have to look into it and give you the details. It
    obviously makes sense to try to provide some way of addressing
    the concerns.
        Senator Domenici. In that regard, I do want to say for the
    record that part of the problem that the Forest Service and the
    BLM is having with reference to management is the fact that
    they are buttressed on all sides of every issue by litigants
    who seem to have found a way to get into the court on issues
    that nobody ever thought existed.
        To the extent that you can, you have been trying to defend
    the multiple use prerogatives of the forest lands, which is
    your charter. It is being made difficult by some who are not
    the least bit reluctant to file law suits, and then everything
    is tied up.
        I understand that is part of a very difficult situation
    that you have. I would only urge that you be as fair as you can
    and that you consider everybody's rights and consider the
    charter of the forest lands when these decisions are made.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. We are toward the end of a single rollcall
    vote. In this connection, Senator Bennett has already gone to
    vote. We will begin again with his questions and will try to
    keep the interruption to as short a period as possible.
        [A brief recess was taken.]
        Senator Bennett [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
    order.
        Senator Gorton will be back with us shortly but did ask
    that I continue the hearing in his absence.
        Mr. Lyons, Mr. Dombeck, I want to welcome you both. You
    have heard a lot of thunder from some of my colleagues, and I
    will let that thunder stand on its own and not add to it.

                                 2002 olympics

        First, Mr. Lyons, I want to thank you for your tremendous
    assistance in working to resolve the difficult issues relating
    to the preparations for the 2002 Olympics. This is a once in a
    lifetime experience. It is tremendously involved. I went to the
    Olympics in Nagano and spent time talking with the Japanese
    officials there. I came back a little bit frightened at the
    difficulty connected with transportation issues, safety issues,
    security issues in a winter environment. I know they had
    problems in Atlanta, but at least the sun was shining the whole
    time and the streets were clear.
        In Japan, they were faced with uncertain weather. They had
    to cancel events because of the weather and then reschedule
    everything. As we prepare for the 2002 Olympics in Utah, we
    recognize that we must learn from the experiences of other
    Olympic games. We must be prepared.
        I know that you are taking some heat for your willingness
    to assist us. I am taking some heat from constituents who
    clearly have better ways to do things. But I don't think we
    have any choice but to proceed in the way that we have and I am
    personally very grateful to you for your support for that. I
    want that to be on the record.

                   appreciation for forest service personnel

        Mr. Dombeck, I want to thank you for the Forest Service
    personnel that you have stationed in the State of Utah, and I
    hope you leave them there. We have some very, very fine people.
    There are Bernie Weingart of the Wasatch-Cache, Burt Kuluza in
    the Ashley, and Hugh Thompson on the Dixie. Among other things,
    they always give me and my office a straight answer when we ask
    them tough questions. They do not dodge or hide behind
    bureaucratic language. Sometimes it is not the answer I want.
    Sometimes it may not be the answer you want. But we appreciate
    them.
        We miss Dale Bosworth, but we look forward to working with
    Jack Blackwell. We appreciate the support you give them.

                       roads moratorium impact on timber

        On the moratorium on the roads and the impact on board
    feet, again I will allow my other colleagues to lead the fight
    on that one and won't add to the conversation that has already
    gone on. But the initial indication was that the moratorium
    would impact between 200 million and 250 million board feet. We
    are now seeing an impact of 100 million board feet in our
    region alone. That is disturbing.
        I simply want to put that on the record and, again, look
    forward to discussing that with you as we move forward.

                          town of dutch john transfer

        Going down my laundry list, I want to express my
    appreciation to the Forest Service for your support of my
    legislation to transfer the town of Dutch John from public
    ownership to private ownership. I think it will save the Forest
    Service some money. I would like to save the Forest Service
    some money and I appreciate your willingness to testify in
    behalf of my legislation on that issue.

                                 red butte dam

        Here is a very small item, but with no one else waiting to
    question, we might as well talk about it. My staff has brought
    to my attention the issue of the Red Butte Dam above Fort
    Douglas in Salt Lake City. This is a problem between the Forest
    Service and the Army. The Army has decided that they will not
    keep up the dam anymore and the Forest Service, understandably,
    does not want to pay to bring the dam up to standard.
        We have met with the Forest Service. We understand the
    Forest Service side of the issue. We have not yet met with the
    Army. So, naturally, at this point the Army has nothing valid
    in their position and the Forest Service is right all the way
    down the line.
        Isn't that the way it usually happens when you only talk to
    one side? [Laughter.]
        But we intend to hear from them to get their understanding
    of their problem with this. Then I would be happy to act as
    honest broker, if that is what it takes, between the two
    agencies to try to resolve this.
        Do you have any knowledge of this one or am I catching you
    completely off-guard?
        Chief Dombeck. Most recently, we were in Utah within the
    last month to a month-and-a-half and got briefed on a variety
    of issues. One of the things that was mentioned was this Red
    Butte Dam. I was pleased that the Forest Service was able to
    step in and at least deal with the safety issue in the interim
    until we get the issue resolved and determine exactly where the
    Army is coming from.
        I believe Jim has had some recent correspondence, or at
    least some dialog, and I would just let him elaborate on that.
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, since your State office informed us of
    this problem, we have been dealing with it almost daily, at
    least weekly.
        In fact, just this morning I sent a letter to the Acting
    Secretary of the Army urging him to take a personal interest in
    this issue and to help us resolve the issue. I am sorry I did
    not bring a copy of the letter. But I will have it sent up to
    your office.
        I initially spoke with Mike Davis, who oversees the Army
    Corps of Engineers, who informed me that this was a real Army
    issue, not an issue for the Army Corps. He directed me to the
    Secretary for the Army.
        So we intend to get it resolved. I am pleased to see that
    the Army at least has agreed to put a dam tender on the dam
    this spring so that when flood season comes and high water
    comes, the dam will get the kind of attention that it requires
    and public safety will be a paramount concern.
        But long term, we do need to work this out. We think and I
    hope, with the overtures we have made to the Army again today,
    that we can reach resolution on this issue very quickly.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        We will. There is no guarantee when it comes to weather,
    but given the kind of winter we have had and the thaw pattern,
    there is a very real chance of floods this year. The last time
    we had a year that had the same temperature pattern and the
    snowpack that we have had this year, we ended up with sandbags
    down the main streets of Salt Lake City and a major river
    running through the city because the snowpack was held with low
    temperatures for a long period of time and suddenly it went
    into the 90's. Instead of a slow, progressive melting of the
    snowpack, we had it all happen within something like 48 hours.
        As I say, in the middle of May we had a major river running
    right through downtown, causing our Governor to comment: ``This
    is a hell of a way to run a desert.'' [Laughter.]
        I have no further questions. I again want to thank you all
    for the things you have done. I will have some questions that I
    will submit in writing.
        I see the chairman has returned and I am happy to turn the
    gavel back over to him.
        Senator Gorton [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
        I invited Senator Gregg to come back who looked forward to
    a long wait a couple of hours ago but who now can go right
    ahead.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    courtesy.
        I know that you have not even had a chance to ask questions
    yet. So it is extremely kind of you.

                         white mountain national forest

        First of all, let me say that New Hampshire has had a
    little different experience than those States of some of my
    fellow Senators. That, I suppose, is true in many areas of
    government. But our experience at the White Mountain National
    Forest is one that is very positive with the Forest Service.
    Donna Hepp has been an extremely positive community participant
    and has done an excellent job heading up the White Mountain
    Forest. We have had a few issues over fees, but we are in the
    process of doing a forest plan which has all of the
    stakeholders involved. We have always had a very cooperative
    attitude in our State between the forestry community, the
    timber people, and the recreational people and the
    environmentalists.
        We are able to all sit at the same table and try to work
    things out in most instances, and we are trying to do that
    right now.
        I guess my question goes to a more global issue, however,
    which is this--and I will leave this to whoever is the proper
    person to answer it.
        The demands on different forests vary dramatically,
    obviously. The primary purpose of the Forest Service, I
    understand, is to maintain the silviculture of the area. But
    with larger forests, obviously in the West, the primary costs,
    I presume, are related to utilization of the forest for
    forestry activities, such as cutting timber.

                       new england forest recreation use

        In New England, and especially at the White Mountains--
    which I think is the most visited national forest in the
    country--timber activity is very big and a very important part
    of it, but there are a lot of other uses, too. There are a lot
    of recreational uses. As a result, its utilization is
    extraordinarily high by people who are just wandering around
    it, enjoying it, skiing on it. There is snowmobiling, cross
    country skiing, climbing and people generally use it as a place
    to view scenery. There are a couple of major tourist
    attractions in the middle of it owned by the State, so a lot of
    people just move in and out of it.
        So the demands are different and the staffing is different
    as a result of that. We have to have a lot of people who just
    basically manage people, as versus a lot of people who manage
    trees. We need the people who manage trees, too.

                              allocation criteria

        When you are allocating your funds, my sense is that your
    allocation is done pretty much on an acreage basis without
    relationship to the fact that we end up managing a lot of
    people and, therefore, have a lot of demands that are a little
    different than a typical forest would expect, and especially
    the White Mountains, which are so heavily trafficked.
        I guess that is a long introduction to my question, which
    is this. To what extent is the fact that the White Mountain
    National Forest is utilized aggressively for things along with
    the silviculture activity, to what extent is the allocation of
    resources to the forest reflective of the huge, unique demands
    that a forest like the White Mountain Forest has?
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I think I will start and then will let
    Randy give you the details on how we allocate funds between
    regions and forests. But I think the White Mountain is an
    excellent example of a forest that clearly is a recreation
    forest.
        In fact, we would categorize it as an urban national forest
    because of its close proximity to urban areas.
        Senator Gregg. It is an urban forest by law.
        Mr. Lyons. That is right. Senator Gorton has a few, such as
    the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and the Gifford Pinchot, which are
    two good examples, where urban use on the I-5 corridor puts
    tremendous demands on the forests which are very different from
    the demands the forest faced in the years past.

                           national forest foundation

        In fact, in several weeks I will be going up to the White
    Mountain National Forest to announce a $50,000 gift to the
    White Mountain National Forest that was facilitated by the
    National Forest Foundation to help invest in trail improvement
    and create a new trail.
        Actually, the timber industry was a big part of providing
    the funds for that gift. So we are looking at new ways to fund
    programs to address recreation concerns and to address the
    increasing demands that are placed on these forests by urban
    residents and other users.
        Recently, we reevaluated our formula for allocating funds
    and tried to take into account changing needs. The allocations
    are not solely based on acreage. They are based on resource
    demands, are based on visitation and other factors.

                              allocation criteria

        Senator Gregg. What percentage is visitation of the forest?
    Do you know?
        Mr. Lyons. I will let Randy offer the details. But let me
    just make this one point, which is that we recognize that these
    changes are occurring. It creates a challenge not only for us
    in terms of how we allocate our funds but also for the
    organization, culturally, how we respond to those changes.
        As you said, our biggest challenge right now is managing
    people as much as it is managing natural resources.
        Randy can talk about the specific elements in the formula.
        Mr. Phillips. Senator, what might be helpful after I get
    through explaining this is to plan on a future meeting where we
    come up and give you a briefing of all the allocation criteria
    that we use for all the resources.
        We are about in the second year of using a new allocation
    process that was developed with the help of all the regional
    representatives. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it
    is better than what we used in the past, which is, to some
    degree, based on subjectivity.
        We use a combination of acres. We use a combination of the
    capacity of the recreation site. It varies between resource
    program areas based on what the program managers thought should
    be evaluated or should be used.
        I do not have the exact percentages. I would be happy to
    get you those. We look at miles of trail, trail maintenance
    needs, and so on. There is a fairly long list of things that
    the staff uses in allocating those funds out. In many cases,
    the regions use those same criteria or have adapted them a
    little bit to allocate those out to the forests.
        In land management planning, for the forest plans, we use
    acres to some degree. We also use whether or not a plan is
    coming up for revision. That would generate a little more
    funding to those forests that are actively revising their
    forest plans.
        Senator Gregg. I think that is probably the best way to
    proceed. Maybe we could get together with your office and go
    over the specifics of it.
        As you know, we are in the middle of the planning. We would
    like more resources for planning. That is important. We had
    some problems there starting out and, hopefully, we can resolve
    those relative to funds. But I am concerned that in a place
    like the White Mountains, which has a huge utilization because
    it is in the middle of such a concentrated area of attractions,
    and it itself is one of the main attractions, be reflected
    adequately in the allocation formula.
        Mr. Phillips. I will tell you that we did make some
    additional funds available to the White Mountains for that
    planning.
        Senator Gregg. I know that.

                                land acquisition

        Mr. Lyons. I also just want to point out that yesterday,
    when the President was discussing the use of the LWCF funds
    which was mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, one of the items on
    our priority list--in fact, one of our top priorities--was
    completion of the Appalachian Trail, which we are doing jointly
    with the National Park Service. Some of the allocations for the
    trail from the national forests are for segments on the White
    Mountain.
        Senator Gregg. I am not sure there is any private trail
    still in the White Mountain boundary. There is still private
    trail in New Hampshire. Most of it is owned by Dartmouth. But
    there is some private trail, but I don't think it is within
    that boundary.
        Mr. Lyons. One of the other priorities we set that I should
    mention as well is the acquisition of Lake Tarleton.
        Senator Gregg. Yes; very much so. The chairman has been
    extraordinarily helpful with Lake Tarleton, as he was with
    Bretton Woods. These are critical pieces to the national
    forest.
        We appreciate the administration's support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gorton. The chairman may say that he views with
    great favor the completion of the Appalachian Trail. We have a
    number of priorities in the West and in my own State, but the
    Appalachian Trail is a truly major national asset. I hope that
    we can do a great deal with the money we have for land and
    water in that connection.

                             long-term roads policy

        Chief, is it not the case that in connection with the new
    roads policy you have a comprehensive transportation planning
    review that is likely to prevent any harvest at all in roadless
    areas well into the year 2001?
        Chief Dombeck. No; I do not believe that is the case.
        Regarding the temporary suspension of road building, I have
    specifically put an 18-month sunset in the proposal. It is one
    that I have a strong commitment to, largely because of the
    concern that many people have mentioned to me, that we do
    temporary things in our interim guidelines and somehow those
    kinds of things never go away.
        I am committed to focus on that.
        Also, I want to point out that work on a long-term policy
    is progressing well. As soon as the long-term policy is done,
    if it is before the 18-month period, then the long-term policy
    will replace the temporary suspension. Some would like this
    policy to be a policy that locks up roadless areas. That is not
    the intent. The intent is to focus on the issue of roads alone.
    It does not change land allocation.
        I understand that the temporary suspension does preclude
    some activities. But also I have been a little bit surprised at
    the number of projects that are able to go forward. For
    example, some proposed sales had helicopter logging options,
    alternatives that they were able to utilize. Also, some
    reconfigurations were occurring. They have been able to
    reconfigure some sales and things like that where perhaps only
    a corner of a sale was in a roadless area that might be covered
    by the proposal.
        But I also want to point out that at this point it is a
    proposal. I want to finalize that proposal of the temporary
    suspension as quickly as possible so that people know exactly
    what the rules are. Then we can get on with the finalizing of
    the long-term policy.
        Senator Gorton. That is at least an encouraging answer. I
    hope that you will work diligently to see to it that those
    assurances can be met and that we don't have something that
    literally goes on forever.
        Chief Dombeck. In fact, I have scheduled the Second
    National Leadership Team meeting, and the Regional Foresters
    and Station Directors will be gathering next week.
        Senator Gorton. And this philosophy will be expressed to
    them in no uncertain terms?
        Chief Dombeck. Yes. Yes.
        We will be gathering next week to take a look at the
    analysis, the comments, and other progress to date.

                           accountable decisionmaking

        Senator Gorton. Mr. Pandolfi, is it your view from your
    business background that the agency's accountability and
    decisionmaking process is the mess that the GAO portrays?
        Mr. Pandolfi. Senator, I think before I comment on that I
    should say that, as was indicated earlier, having an MBA and
    working as a CEO in the private sector, as I have discovered in
    the last few months, is no guarantee of success in government.
    [Laughter.]
        I wanted to express that to you.
        However, under the rules of the committee today, the rules
    of performance for today's hearing, I also score poorly because
    my school had 100 rooms. It was in a brick building and it had
    indoor plumbing.
        Senator Gorton. You and I are more similar, then, in our
    background. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Pandolfi. Having said that, I want to answer your
    question. The analysis of the OIG and the GAO reports with
    regard to the Forest Service is largely accurate. I think it is
    terribly unfortunate and unnecessary that conditions to cause
    such a situation ever developed. But I must say that those
    problems are certainly partly due to what has happened in the
    Forest Service. They are also due to external forces as well as
    what Senator Domenici mentioned with regard to the issue of
    litigation.
        But if the Forest Service were a private sector company, it
    would be rated No. 450 on the Fortune 500 list. I must tell you
    that I cannot imagine a company of that stature in the private
    sector that has ever been in a situation such as that in which
    the Forest Service finds itself today.
        Senator Gorton. It would not be 450 for very long.
        Mr. Pandolfi. No; it would not. Well, it might remain
    there, but it would certainly have new managers.

                              business management

        In the Forest Service, we are overrun with data and we have
    very little information. For example, we have 75 million
    transactions, financial transactions, that occur every single
    month at 800 locations around the Nation where we enter data
    into our system. Yet we have no reliable financial statements.
        I think it is just for such a predicament that the phrase
    was invented that ``you can't see the forest for the trees.''
    It is perfect. It is absolutely perfect in this case.
        The truth is that we do not really know the dimensions of
    our problems. I do not mean to imply by that comment that they
    are any bigger than anybody has said that they are because, on
    the counter side, we do not know the size of our opportunities,
    either. And there are great opportunities in an agency that
    manages 192 million acres, with 35,000 employees and a $3.3
    billion budget.
        So all I can say is, and that was a long answer, that the
    answer to your question is yes, it is pretty much of a mess.

                                 control board

        Senator Gorton. What is your response to Congressman Dick's
    suggestion of a temporary control board?
        Mr. Pandolfi. I do not have any idea of whether a control
    board--I do not honestly know what a control board would do.
    But if I were going to try to decide how to manage the Forest
    Service, I think what is appropriate is to look at what the
    agency needs and then to try to figure out what sort of
    mechanism might be appropriate. Perhaps it is the very one that
    you have seated before you this morning in terms of this
    particular management team and just the way we are.
        Clearly, the standard form of Federal Government is not
    well suited to making things happen in a crisis, at least not a
    crisis like this--perhaps a war, but that is a different story.
    But not this.
        For example, there are three areas where we really need to
    solve problems before we can ever fix the situation here. When
    I say that the Federal Government is not well suited, this is
    specifically what I mean.
        How do we get the flexibility to put the right people in
    the right jobs in the Forest Service?

                             personnel flexibility

        Senator Gorton. That was my next question. Does the Forest
    Service have the ability to get the right people in the right
    jobs?
        Mr. Pandolfi. Well, it is difficult and that is for sure. I
    mean, I have been here for 15 months with Mike Dombeck and I am
    still Special Assistant to the Chief because there are lots of
    reasons why it is difficult to give me any other title. I mean,
    I have written my essays to become part of the Senior Executive
    Service. I do not know what grade I got, but I believe I
    passed.
        There are massive limitations on hiring, firing, and
    incentivizing people. I do not mean to just dwell on the
    negative of firing, either. There are just massive limitations.
    As a result, we have very little flexibility.

                                 decisionmaking

        Second, it is extremely different--extremely different--to
    make tough decisions quickly and get the pain over with.
        I do not deny that the Government, and I expected that, the
    Government is far different from the private sector in terms of
    how the decisions are made. But the debate goes on and on and
    on, and it is very difficult, because there are so many
    constituencies for us to satisfy, for us to make a decision.

                                pulling punches

        I think with regard to having multiple constituencies, the
    third thing I would say is that it seems so necessary all the
    time to pull our punches and not say how we really feel about
    something because there is going to be some constituency or
    other who is going to be insulted by it. Then they are going to
    write us a letter with 75 or 80 questions in it that is going
    to take 3 weeks of staff time to fill out. And so we are
    stopped again.
        So I would say the issue of flexibility, moving quickly,
    and having to pull punches are things that are very, very
    difficult to overcome.
        I heard Senator Craig say something that I thought was
    encouraging. He said--I think he said--that the Congress should
    try to structure a budget to solve the problem. I do think that
    is doable. And with the proper protection or the ability to act
    quickly, if we could get the ability to act quickly, if we
    could get the confidence of this august body to support us and
    then leave us alone for a while--a totally, I realize,
    impractical suggestion, perhaps--we could show significant
    progress in a short time.
        Senator Gorton. Well, could you and the people for whom you
    work write proposed conditions for a budget, leaving aside the
    amount of money that we may have, that would lend encouragement
    to this process that could help speed it up?
        Mr. Pandolfi. I think so, Senator, and I think that we
    could make some suggestions to you at a later time as to ways
    to do that.
        Senator Gorton. Well, let's not make that too much later a
    time.
        Chief Dombeck. I would just like to reaffirm and support
    Francis and say we would love to. I think it is very important
    that we get beyond some of the debate and work together on
    these issues. We welcome that suggestion.
        Senator Gorton. We have philosophical debates about what
    you ought to be doing and you are not going to persuade us on
    those, necessarily, nor are you. But to be able to use the
    money that you have within the laws that you have in a way that
    is more efficient and more effective is a cause that ought to
    unite us. It is a cause that we ought to get your kind of
    suggestions about.
        I, for one, who is going to have the primary responsibility
    for writing this budget, know that if I have intelligent
    administrative suggestions that can be adopted as a part of the
    budget, I am certainly going to do it.
        Mr. Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I think, if we can set aside the
    philosophical debates over the resource issues, the resource
    agenda issues, and focus in on those management and business
    practice concerns, we can reach amazing agreement on what is
    needed. We certainly would like to work to provide some
    guidance as to how we might get there.
        Senator Gorton. OK. You talked about how difficult it is to
    get decisions made and implemented. We don't have a whole, long
    time before we have to come up with something.
        Mr. Lyons. I understand.
        Senator Gorton. We will need those suggestions.

                            coopers & lybrand report

        Mr. Pandolfi, how about Coopers & Lybrand? Has that done
    any good?
        Mr. Pandolfi. Yes, Senator.
        I think it is very helpful. The Coopers and Lybrand
    report--let me clarify what it was intended for because I think
    some people may have greater expectations of it than are
    warranted: We requested the report in the Forest Service and we
    did it last August. We requested it last August. It has just
    been completed. Its purpose was to help us determine how to
    simplify our operations.
        As the Chief said earlier, and as I indicated when I spoke
    of the number of financial transactions that occur, we have
    raised complexity to an art form in the agency and it has to be
    reduced or we will not get further.
        I think the report will help us to improve both
    accountability and efficiency. But there will be no
    accountability without good information.
        If you want, I would be happy to go into more detail about
    what the report proposes or we can do it at a later time,
    whatever you prefer.
        Senator Gorton. Well, I think we can do that at a later
    time. I just simply want to know whether or not we are going to
    get any good out of it on the ground.
        Mr. Pandolfi. Yes.
        Senator Gorton. Will it result in internal changes for the
    better or in the kind of suggestions we have just talked about
    to come to this committee for the budget?
        Mr. Pandolfi. There were 31 specific recommendations in the
    report and we will begin to implement some of those
    recommendations as early as next week.

                                 overhead costs

        Senator Gorton. Now a part of all of this is the fact that,
    while income is going down in the Forest Service from those of
    its activities that are productive of revenue, overhead
    continues to go up. I would like to ask the general question
    both of the chief and of you: Why is it that overhead costs
    keep going up while overall fund expenditures are decreased?
        Chief Dombeck. One of the things that agencies have a very
    difficult time doing is taking things off their plate. When new
    legislation is passed, we do more things and there is great
    difficulty in saying, ``OK, we are going to stop doing this
    because there is a constituency that demands this.''
        So we spend a lot of time on those kinds of issues. One of
    the things that I believe better business systems will allow us
    to do is to prioritize what is most important.
        I understand that there is a lot more to this than just
    calculating the return on investment of a project because there
    are other values involved in this kind of thing. But it will
    simplify what we do greatly and, I believe, free up staff time,
    reduce the complexities. As I mentioned in my opening statement
    and as Francis concurred with it, we, in a sense, are drowning
    in complexity.
        Mr. Lyons. There is another reason, Senator, and that is we
    solve problems by process. Rather than making decisions and
    moving forward, we engage in new processes, new studies, new
    requirements. All of us here are guilty of this. That adds to
    cost and does not get us to any reasonable outcome any sooner.
    In fact, it complicates things even more.
        So there are lots of ways to streamline and reduce overhead
    and probably get to the same end in a more efficient way. These
    are the kinds of things we need to explore with new business
    practices.

                                chief's reviews

        Chief Dombeck. We have done the Chief's Reviews in three
    regions, one research station, and two Washington Office Deputy
    Areas.
        I do not know if you were here when I mentioned doing the
    Chief's Reviews, Senator Craig--I think you probably were--but
    the objective is not the typical review that most people
    expect, that you are going to come out and look at our books or
    you are going to look at our decisionmaking process, and you
    are going to tell us what we did right or what we did wrong.
        The objective of the review is really to see what is on the
    minds of the employees because there is tremendous talent out
    there. It is also then to begin to look ahead of the headlights
    and ask ourselves the question what could we have done 10 years
    ago to avoid this protracted problem.
        One of the things we discovered--in fact, it was in a
    meeting with your staff, Clyde--was we find that we run into a
    problem and we build a process around it. Then there is another
    problem looming right there, right in front of you today, and
    we built a process around it to solve it.
        The organizational energy, right to the level of the Chief,
    goes to dealing with the immediate-urgent. If you are in the
    right quadrant, that is No. 1.
        We are spending very, very little time in quadrant two.
    That is something I am trying to do to further empower the
    Associate Deputy Chief level, the staff director level, to make
    sure that they are engaged much more aggressively to allow the
    Deputy Chief level, the Regional Foresters, to work with
    constituencies, with Congress, to focus on problems before they
    are right on a plate or before we are in court.
        Senator Gorton. One of the greatest shortcomings any
    organization can have--and it seems to be endemic to
    Government--is to have very good and very talented people who
    are not able to use those talents in the way that they ought
    to. It not only frustrates the organization, it frustrates the
    individuals, and you are likely to lose them.

                                 overhead costs

        Do you have any comment on these questions, on the overhead
    questions, Mr. Pandolfi?
        Mr. Pandolfi. Yes, Senator. I would like to just speak for
    a moment on that but take it from a different angle.
        I do not think there is any way to know today what level of
    overhead is actually appropriate or inappropriate for the
    Forest Service. The reason I wanted to say that is because I
    believe the single most important thing that this agency could
    do in the short term, the intermediate term, whatever amount of
    time it is going to take, is to develop good information
    systems. We do not have good information systems. We cannot
    answer your questions well and accurately all the time. We can
    in some cases, but in others we cannot.

                               financial friction

        I want to put it in perspective. I want to put the value of
    having a good information system in perspective with respect to
    the overhead question. It is very simple to do. Simple
    financial friction in an information-free business results in
    untold inefficiencies. A mere 5-percent inefficiency factor in
    a $2.2 billion--and I think we are a little higher than that,
    $2.5 billion, actually, but I did my calculations on $2.2
    billion, so I will stick with that--a mere 5-percent amount of
    financial friction in a $2.2 billion organization results in
    waste that could be as much as $100 million a year.

                              personnel reductions

        Now, we have reduced the number of people in human
    resources, fiscal, budget, and information management from 1993
    to 1998 by 1,243 people. So here we are. Maybe if we had a
    couple of those people back--I know, I understand the problem
    of hiring people, for example, in the private sector and not
    selling the product. It is not generally looked upon with a lot
    of favor. But we have gone too far in reducing some of these
    administrative overhead positions and we do not necessarily
    have people properly trained, as the Chief said at the
    beginning of his remarks, to do the work.
        I will tell you, Senator, for a few million dollars in
    overhead, if we could reduce that financial friction, the
    return on investment and the payback period would be just
    startling. And most any private sector individual would be
    delighted to make an investment in this organization.
        So I do not know the answer, whether it is too much or too
    little. But the fact is, if we could just get good information
    systems, we would be so much better off.
        Now we are working on that, but it is tough.

              interior columbia basin ecosystem management project

        Senator Gorton. OK. Now I do want to go on to a subject in
    which we have an obvious philosophical difference, Mr. Lyons,
    and that is the Interior Columbia basin ecosystem study.
        I don't know of any subject of this sort in the last 8 or
    10 years which has created more hostility on the part of my
    constituents. I have an advisory committee in every county in
    the State of Washington. I met with half a dozen of them in the
    last 2 weeks in eastern Washington. Among all of the rural
    people, it was the No. 1 item for discussion. And these are
    fairly broadly based groups, from business, local government,
    teachers, and the like.
        Yesterday I had in my office a State senator whom I greatly
    admire on that subject. Universally they feel that the money is
    being wasted, that neither local governments nor ranchers,
    citizens, are being considered, are having their concerns
    listened to. They feel it is one planning process piled on top
    of another.
        I must say that if I were to follow the desires of my
    constituents, what they want me to do is to just end it. They
    want it to stop. They see nothing of value to them coming from
    it.
        I am intensely frustrated. I have tended to buy your views
    that not to go ahead is worse than going ahead. But it sure is
    the very devil of a choice, even if that is true.

                             apprehension of icbemp

        I guess I have to ask you this. When is it going to come to
    an end? What are its results going to be? Why do you seem to
    have such an inability to listen to the concerns of the people
    whose lives are going to be affected by it? And how can you
    deal with the overwhelming apprehensions I get everywhere that
    what you really want to do is run everyone's life and
    everyone's private property as well as to manage the federally
    owned property in the area?
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, could I add to that? I have
    been home, too.
        I have been to town meetings, gatherings, county
    commissioners meetings, talked with school people--everything--
    and I get the same kind of response.
        My questions are identical. Also, if you want to know where
    $40 million of your money went, that is where it went, and you
    have nothing to show for it yet except some studies and a high
    level of frustration.

                              county commissioners

        What has happened also that has created the frustration
    that the Senators and the chairman is speaking to is the folks
    who could have been your political liaison you have decoupled.
    The county commissioners are walking away now because they feel
    that after months, if not years, of involvement with you in
    this, you didn't listen in the end. They feel that somebody
    else out of the region won and they lost in their effort to
    participate. You decoupled the very team, the county
    commissioners involved, that could have come home to sell this
    idea to the constituency.
        They are now the enemy.
        Senator Gorton. I am told that 60 percent of the county
    governments now want it terminated.
        Senator Craig. That's right.
        Senator Gorton. It is likely when those who are collecting
    those petitions have them all in, it will be up to 80 percent.
        OK, give me your comments.
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I agree with you that it would be great
    to get this over, to complete the environmental impact studies
    underway, and to have a new basis upon which to manage the
    public lands in that region. It is a sizable portion of the
    public lands in the Nation and obviously has a significant
    impact on the communities there as well as the Nation's
    resources as a whole.

                         congressional icbemp directive

        I would agree with you that this has gone on long enough.
    To reiterate a comment I made earlier, though, we are all
    contributing to this. For example, last year, this committee
    asked us to do another study which extended the period of time
    that was necessary for us to complete this by another 6 months.
    We completed that study and have since issued it. It is a
    directive to look more closely at how rural communities were
    going to be affected and the economic impacts.
        So that, as well as other things we have done, have
    contributed to additional delays.

                               reaction to icbemp

        I am concerned about the belief in the counties that they
    have been decoupled, to use Senator Craig's words, from the
    process. That certainly was never the intent. But I think, as
    this has gone on and as other things have come into play, there
    is a growing sense that this is a Federal Government-imposed
    solution on local resource concerns.
        Two things are going on. One is clearly there is fear of
    some of the changes that are coming about in the region and
    these all come to a head when you look at the pressures that
    are brought to bear on Federal lands. Also, change is not
    welcome by anyone and we would all be better off if we did not
    have to deal with that.
        The reason--and this is the argument I have articulated
    before--we need to complete this is so that we have a good,
    solid base of information, good science, to guide professional
    judgment so that, when we are challenged on management
    decisions, those challenges can be fought back and we can
    sustain our course.
        But the other concern clearly is, as this has gone on, as
    other decisions have been made, people have felt
    disenfranchised and not a part of the process.
        Our managers continue to make every effort to incorporate
    counties in the decisionmaking process, to involve them in
    helping determine what the final alternative will be, an issue
    that is not yet decided.
        All we can do is attempt continually to engage the
    communities in that decisionmaking process, help them
    understand the value of this process--and hopefully the value
    of the product that is going to be generated by it--and reach
    some conclusion. Right now I think the uncertainty, associated
    with the process that seems to go on and on, is killing the
    process and clearly destroying any faith the communities have
    in those agencies to get something done.
        So I agree with you. We need to get it done. Please do not
    ask us for any more studies. Let us finish the process and let
    us move forward. Then we will see.

                   environmental impact statement for icbemp

        Senator Gorton. Will you have an EIS by early next year?
        Mr. Lyons. Maybe Mike can address the specific timetable.
    We have had to roll it back a little bit because of the
    additional research work that we had to do.
        Chief Dombeck. Where we are now, I believe, is the comment
    period. That closes May 6. Then we are talking about spring
    1999 to have the record of decision signed.
        Senator Gorton. Spring.
        Will a final record of decision prevent further endangered
    species listings?
        Chief Dombeck. We certainly hope so. The intent is to try
    to move ahead of the power curve on something that we have been
    playing catch-up on for a long time.

                       private property impact of icbemp

        Senator Gorton. What do you expect the impact of the plan
    to be on private property?
        Chief Dombeck. We have no jurisdiction on private property
    nor are we seeking any. We hope in many of the situations that
    the issues that we can deal with regard to the Endangered
    Species Act and things like that on Federal lands alleviate
    some of the stress in other areas.
        One of the concepts that has been evolving for some time
    through the various processes is the working together on a
    watershed scale, on an ecosystem scale--call it what you will--
    so that the management activities become more compatible. This
    is because good land management is good land management. It
    does not matter who is the steward.
        Senator Gorton. I want to go back to Secretary Lyons'
    statement about participation.

                         public participation in icbemp

        It is one thing to solicit comment. It is another to create
    a feeling in the people from whom that comment is solicited
    that their comments mean anything and will have any impact, any
    impression, on a final decision.
        That, it seems to me, is where there has been a failing
    without, at this point, attempting to assign blame but trying
    to get to the future.
        One of the most important questions I have is this--and I
    don't even want you to answer it here in an unequivocal
    fashion, but I want the answer to it and I want a way we can do
    this that I think would solve many of your problems. It relates
    to the last question that I asked about private property.
        I want to know whether or not we can come up with some
    language that will be acceptable to you, and not get one of
    these big veto threat kinds of things, with respect to the
    impact of the plan on private property. If we can assure our
    constituents out there that your plan is not going to adversely
    impact their own use of their own land, I think that we will
    have solved if not 100 percent of the kinds of objections that
    we have, then a very significant share of them.
        Mr. Lyons. I will work with you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Craig, on that issue because I believe we should be able to
    address that.
        Senator Gorton. OK.
        Now I am way over my own time. Senator Craig may have some
    more questions and I am going to let him close the hearing.

                            plum creek land exchange

        I have just one purely parochial question about the Plum
    Creek land exchange. It has been very much in the news at home
    recently.
        Personally, I think you have done a wonderful job on it. I
    think it is a great bargain for the Federal Government to get
    more land than it is giving up and to have it blocked up on
    both sides. But we already do have some of the environmental
    organizations threatening lawsuits over it and we have Plum
    Creek saying the end of the year is it and if we cannot get
    this accomplished soon, we are out of here.
        I don't know whether or not that is entirely true. But I
    would query: In this bill, should we legislate the land
    exchange that you have agreed to?
        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I do not think we want to enter into
    the prospect of legislating an action that bypasses due process
    and the rights of individuals to challenge it.
        Senator Gorton. But this process has been due for a whole
    long time.
        Mr. Lyons. I understand that, Senator. But the only thing
    you are left with then is to say ``notwithstanding any other
    provision of law,'' that infamous statement that all of us look
    for in legislation and that sends off skyrockets.
        I think this has been an excellent effort on the part of
    Plum Creek and I appreciate Rick Holley and all his staff's
    efforts to work very professionally and efficiently with Forest
    Service staff to put this together. I would like to expedite
    this process. But I do not want to do it in a way that is going
    to create more legal problems.
        But I will work with you to find ways to get this done as
    quickly as possible.
        Senator Gorton. All right. That is fine. In a sense, it is
    like the earlier question.
        I believe it is time to have it come to an end. I think the
    deadline that Plum Creek has set is a reasonable one. Figure
    out a way with us to make it happen.
        Mr. Lyons. We will work with you on that.
        Chief Dombeck. Senator Gorton, I had breakfast at Salish
    last Wednesday with some of the industry representatives and
    the conservation community, as well as Jim Ellis, who speaks
    very highly of you. We covered a variety of issues, including
    this one. I offered to help facilitate, and, of course, we have
    a wonderful Forest Supervisor there in Denny Bschor to help
    facilitate in any way so that we can move this forward.
        Senator Gorton. This is one area in which I don't have any
    criticism of you all and what you are doing. I want to make it
    happen, in fact, so that we get it done.
        That is what we are here to do.
        Senator Craig, you are back. That means you have more
    interest. I have a whole series of other subjects that I wanted
    to cover as well, but we are just simply going to have to do
    those in writing.
        I will turn the hearing over to you and you can ask as many
    questions as you would like and then adjourn the hearing.
        Senator Craig [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
    be brief. Everyone at the table has been courteous with their
    time and I have just a couple of subjects, both very brief. I
    thank you for your indulgence.

                              thompson creek mine

        Chief, I am sending you a letter concerning a delay in
    completing a supplemental environmental impact statement on the
    Thompson Creek mine in Idaho. It has been ongoing now almost, I
    don't know how many years, with the promise again that it will
    soon be done.
        I am very concerned that there have been agreements entered
    into between environmental interests and the Department of
    Justice that have delayed the implementation of the
    technologies that would benefit the environment.
        The problem is some folks just flat don't want it mined.
    But these people have a right to mine it, and they are willing
    to use absolutely state-of-the-art technologies to get it done.
    And, in fact, it will improve the environment or lower the
    environmental risk.
        So I sent you a letter and would ask for as timely a
    response as possible on that. I think it is critical. We are
    all frustrated out there. But when the game gets played for
    years though it should have taken months, the level of
    frustration is exaggerated and for the right reasons.
        Secretary Lyons suggested that much of what we are pursuing
    is an extension, much of what you are pursuing is an extension
    of what Jack Thomas had for ideas, and I would mention the
    chief prior to Jack Thomas. I guess I am pursuing this because
    I am frustrated over what I am trying to do and what you and
    certain the administration in part resist at times.

                            conservation philosophy

        Would you say your philosophy of conservation is similar to
    Jack Thomas' or your general view of where you are with the
    Forest Service is similar?
        Chief Dombeck. I believe it is.
        Senator Craig. The reason I say that is, while Jim has sat
    there for the last several years and said problems exist, there
    has been no willingness to work with us on solutions. We always
    meet, but boy, when I put out an idea, down goes the hammer.
    The environmentalists' lights go on and I know where the
    information is fed from. It is very frustrating--very
    frustrating.
        This willingness to work together, at some point I lose my
    voice over it because there is nothing forthcoming. You guys
    are now embroiled in crisis. You have experts in here trying to
    manage, taking an agency that has been politicized and trying
    to fix it. It is difficult. I do not dispute that. You are in a
    very difficult situation. We all are.
        I have constituencies all over my back on both sides of
    this issue. We ought to have some resolution to it.
        Let me read to you a quote from a March 25 hearing held out
    in Coeur d'Alene that Jack Thomas was a witness at and gave, I
    thought, some very valuable testimony. I think he was speaking
    with a bit more candidness after he had left the office of the
    Chief.
        I am not even going to ask you to respond to it unless you
    wish to. But I think it is important for the record.
        Somehow, after people in your position leave, they gather
    great wisdom and they can talk about marvelous things that
    ought to be done that they were either not able to do or not
    allowed to do while they were chief. And yes, you have been
    warned by Jim to be careful. I am not witch hunting here today
    at all. I am very frustrated that we are living over an agency
    that is very dysfunctional at this time with very talented
    people sitting out there on the ground, spinning their tires,
    and not being able to get things done for the Forest Service,
    for the forests, for the environment, or for the citizens they
    are asked to serve.

                              former chief's quote

        These are Jack Thomas' words. ``In my opinion, the position
    that there are no problems with the legislation''--he is
    talking about my legislation and also other legislation and
    laws--``that govern management of the public lands and that
    whatever problems there are can be solved through better
    administration is incorrect.
        ``There are problems,'' he says, serious problems. The land
    management agencies need clear guidance and a clear mission.
    The NFMA and other legislation assumes, I believe, that a well
    qualified and relatively autonomous agency would carry out
    consistent programs and make adjustments in regulations issued
    pursuant to law frequently in keeping with the principles of
    adaptive management. Those assumptions no longer hold.
        ``For example, the planning regulations issued pursuant to
    NFMA have been through two revisions and have been under
    development for nearly 7 to 8 years. The first time they were
    ready for release, they were delayed by the Bush administration
    until after the 1992 election.'' I expect that was a political
    decision.
        ``The regulations were then revised and were ready for
    release a year before the 1996 Presidential elections. These
    regulations have not yet been released.'' That was March of
    last year. ``And when they are, they will likely be
    significantly altered from present form to mollify any group or
    another. In short, the assumption concerning how such
    regulations are promulgated no longer holds, and getting
    anything done in terms of producing more workable regulations
    based on experience is slow, very, very slow, at best.''
        I thought that was a pretty profound statement because I
    think it is not only a statement reflective of the experience
    of a chief who was in the trenches like you are now, but I
    think it also speaks to the fact that you will spend the next
    year and a half or so, or 2, trying to regulate your way out of
    a problem that we are all in.
        I wish you luck. Once again, I extend my willingness to
    help.
        I have no crystal ball. My guess is you can't get it done
    because I think you are structurally flawed. And I don't think
    this administration will allow you to make those changes
    because they are politically unpalatable with some of the
    interests involved. And that is too bad because, if we could
    deal with it in a bipartisan way, it could be resolved.
        You saw the company front here today and very few from the
    other side. That will not produce good policy. It will only
    produce conflict. And in the end, the forests and the Forest
    Service will be the loser. That is my concern.
        If you wish to speak to that, you may. If not, I
    understand.
        So thank you all very, very much for coming.
        Are there further comments? Yes, Jim.

                                working together

        Mr. Lyons. Senator, I just want to make this point and this
    pledge. I think if you and I and the members of this committee
    can agree to try to work to make Mike a successful Chief--and I
    would concur that Jack Thomas was an extraordinary leader for
    his time and I was very pleased to have him despite some of the
    protestations and concerns that were raised early on by members
    of this committee, including yourself, about his skills and his
    capacity to be Chief--if we agree to work together, it would
    help Mike become a successful Chief; allow him to make; the
    decisions he needs to make, make the personnel changes he needs
    to make; and allow the organization to come forward and support
    him. Then I think the goals we share will be realized.
        So I make that commitment to you. The administration would
    like to see Mike Dombeck be the most successful Chief in the
    history of the Forest Service and I hope you share that goal as
    well.
        Senator Craig. Jim, of course I do.
        Let me close by saying there were no conflicts ever between
    Jack Thomas and myself. We had some disagreements. My only
    problem was the way he came to be and that is a problem that
    exists today.
        This administration chose to make the chief a political
    appointment. You are the one that should be charged with the
    politics. But the chief should have a buffer to be an
    administrator of policy and a critic of politics when
    necessary. I believe this administration has denied both of
    their chiefs that opportunity and that is too bad because the
    history of the Forest Service would argue that that is
    necessary. It is necessary in any good management.
        Politicians, you and I, come and go. But good policy ought
    to hang on for a long time, until the politicians decide to
    change the policy. That is not the character of the situation
    we are involved in today.
        The thing that is important, though, is that yes, there was
    early criticism of me by Jack Thomas. It was translated to be a
    criticism of him. It was a criticism of the way he came to be.
        He and I, as you know, developed an excellent, although
    sometimes tenuous, working relationship. But it was a good one.

                         additional committee questions

        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much. They will be some
    additional questions which will be submitted for your response
    in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                         Additional Committee Questions

                            landownership management

        Question 1. Please provide for the record the status of the
    FS evaluation of the Wyoming-Cloverdale Power Transmission
    line, proposed by American Electric Power Company.
        Answer. In 1991 American Electric Power (AEP) proposed the
    construction of 115 miles of 765kv transmission line across
    private and federal lands in Virginia and West Virginia. One
    hundred and three miles of the proposed transmission line were
    proposed to cross private lands and approximately 12 miles to
    cross lands under federal jurisdiction.
        The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) initiated
    hearings on the AEP proposal and, in December of 1995, directed
    AEP to explore other routing options to mitigate a number of
    sensitive locations crossed by their proposal. In West Virginia
    no acceptable application was ever submitted for consideration.
        In June of 1996 the George Washington and Jefferson
    National Forests published a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (DEIS) for the federal land component of the AEP
    proposal. Based on the DEIS, the FS identified ``No Action'' as
    the agency preferred alternative. Under the No Action
    Alternative AEP would not be authorized to cross federally
    administered lands with their proposed line.
        On September 30, 1997, AEP filed new applications (new
    route) for the 765kv transmission line with the VSCC and the
    West Virginia Public Service Commission. AEP has not changed or
    withdrawn the application they submitted to the FS in 1991. The
    corridor identified in AEP's 1997 applications to the States
    does not coincide with the federal land corridor proposed by
    AEP in the 1991 application to the FS, however, the new
    corridor does coincide with one of the federal land
    alternatives considered by the federal agencies in their DEIS.
        The two State Commissions have the responsibility and
    authority to make a number of key decisions regarding the AEP
    proposal. The Commissions will decide whether the power is
    needed, whether the proposed transmission line is the best
    method to meet the anticipated need, whether or where the
    corridor will be located on private lands, and whether the
    purported benefits which result from the transmission line
    offset the adverse environmental and social effects.
        The federal agencies are awaiting the conclusion of the
    State certification processes before completing their analysis
    and making their decisions for the federal land components of
    the AEP proposal.
        Question 2. When are final decisions expected from the Sate
    of West Virginia and Virginia on proposed routes?
        Answer. AEP filed new applications with the West Virginia
    Public Service Commission and the VSCC on September 30, 1997.
    In this case, the West Virginia Commission is operating under a
    400-day timeline. Accordingly, one would expect a decision from
    West Virginia in November of 1998. The Virginia Commission does
    not operate under a prescribed timeline so it is not possible
    to accurately predict the length of their evaluation process.
    Virginia has scheduled the last of its hearings for the AEP
    case in July of 1998.
        Question 3. Within what time-frame will the Agency be able
    to issue a final Record of Decision once State action is taken
    on proposed routes?
        Answer. It is exceedingly difficult to accurately predict a
    timeline for the completion of an analysis when the scope of
    the analysis is subject to change.
        The FS is required to evaluate the proposal that is
    presented to them. Should the Commission approve a route across
    private lands, and a federal land crossing is necessitated by
    the States' decisions, the federal agencies would then involve
    those persons who may be newly affected by the federal
    decisions along that corridor. This new input would be used by
    the federal agency to identify new analysis related tasks or to
    develop new alternatives that would need to be considered by
    the federal agencies before a decision could be made on AEP's
    requested use of federal lands.
        Assuming that services of an environmental consulting firm
    are available to the FS, an analysis of this nature and
    complexity could be completed within 2-years of the date the
    next phase of the analysis is initiated.
        Question 4. Should the role of conducting environmental
    assessment for power lines be transferred to the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Department of Energy (DOE)
    from the Forest Service (FS)?
        Answer. No. FERC and DOE are regulatory agencies whereas
    the FS is the land management agency.
        Question 5. Please explain the process which resulted in
    American Electric Power (AEP) contributing to the cost of
    environmental assessment and analysis. Specifically, how much
    has the company paid the FS for environmental assessment work?
        Answer. In 1991 AEP (then, American Power Company)
    approached the FS with a proposal to cross approximately 12
    miles of the National Forest with a 765kv transmission line.
    The FS recognized that the analysis of such a complex federal
    land use proposal could not be accomplished without seriously
    compromising its ability to conduct and complete its planned
    program of work. In an effort to respond to AEP's assertions
    regarding the immediate need to begin the analysis of its
    proposal, a couple of options were developed. AEP was advised
    that the use of an environmental consulting firm would likely
    expedite the processing and evaluation of its application.
    Additionally, AEP was offered the option of entering into a
    collection agreement with the Agency. Through this agreement
    AEP would fund the activities of FS resource specialists when
    they were engaged in analysis work related to the 765kv
    transmission line proposal. Through this agreement the FS was
    able to devote personnel, including a project coordinator, to
    the processing of the transmission line proposal without having
    to await funding through the normal 2-year budget appropriation
    cycle.
        To date AEP has reimbursed the FS for approximately
    $750,000 in salary and analysis related expenses. AEP did opt
    to hire a consulting firm to assist the FS in analysis of its
    transmission line proposal. The total costs for those services
    now approximates $5.36 million.
        Question 6. How does this amount compare to original
    estimates?
        Answer. The original cost estimate of the consulting firm
    that successfully competed for the contract was $689,865.
    However, this estimate was submitted before the federal
    agencies defined the scope of the analysis. This is a highly
    controversial private and federal land use proposal. As the
    public involvement process prescribed by the National
    Environmental Policy Act was pursued, more people became
    involved and there were more issues, more resources and more
    miles of alternatives to consider. Additionally, the federal
    agency's analysis grew from a federal land focus, as originally
    envisioned, to include the private lands as well. Hence, the
    consulting firms competing for the contract submitted cost
    estimates for a project whose final scope was unknown. AEP's
    proposal involved 103 miles of private lands and approximately
    12 miles of federal land.
        Question 7. What specific products have been generated from
    the company's payments?
        Answer. In conformance to the requirements of the National
    Environmental Policy Act, the FS published a DEIS which
    considers 14 alternatives in detail; twelve of the alternatives
    cross the NF, one avoids the NF, and a ``No Action
    Alternative''. The FS study considered the resources located on
    both federal and private lands along the 115 miles of the
    proposed route in the States of Virginia and West Virginia.
        The information contained in the Draft EIS provides AEP,
    the public, agencies and the Commissions with important
    resource and environmental effects information regarding the
    federal lands managed by the FS, National Park Service and the
    US Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, the Virginia Commission
    requested the type of information found in the DEIS when they
    initiated their evaluation of the AEP proposal in 1992. The
    West Virginia Commission advised AEP that they could not
    process their application until they had an opportunity to
    review the DEIS.
        Since the President's Forest Plan was adopted in April
    1994, small, run of the river hydroelectric projects proposed
    to be located on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land have
    been paralyzed by the failure of the U.S. Forest Service to
    make a determination of consistency with the plan. Developers
    have spent millions of dollars, mostly on environmental
    studies, to meet the Service requirements, and have permit or
    license applications pending before FERC. Some projects have
    been declared consistent with prior plans and obtained Clean
    Water Act Section 401 approvals from the State of Washington.
    Yet the Forest Service does not offer clear guidance on
    compliance with Option 9, nor has it made any determinations on
    individual projects. Designed for forest management, it is
    clear that Option 9 is being used to stop small hydro
    development on federal multipurpose lands, leaving developers
    who relied on the Forest Service to administer the plan fairly
    and on a timely basis with significant stranded investment. The
    Senate Appropriations Committee in its July 18, 1995 report on
    Forest Service funding stated that it expected the Forest
    Service to conduct an expeditious review of small hydro
    projects waiting for approval by the Forest Service. It appears
    not one of these hydro determinations has been completed.
        Question 8. What is preventing the Forest Service from
    performing its public responsibilities by acting on small hydro
    projects on the Mount Baker--Snoqualmie National Forest
    (MBSNF)?
        Question 9. By what exact date will the Forest Service make
    a final determination on small hydro project consistency with
    the President's Forest Plan?
        Answer 8 and 9. As background, small hydro projects on the
    Mount Baker--Snoqualime National Forest with license
    applications pending with the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) include: the Martin Creek project; 5 projects
    within the North Fork Nooksack River basin; and 4 projects
    within the Skagit River basin. Under the Federal Power Act
    (FPA) FERC has the statutory responsibility for determining a
    project's consistency but it traditionally relies on the
    recommendations of the Forest Service with respect to
    individual forest plans. Those recommendations made by the
    Forest Service are not made final until the completion of the
    environmental analysis.
        In November 1994, in response to FERC's notice that the
    project application had been accepted for filing, the Forest
    Service made an interim recommendation that the Martin Creek's
    Project was inconsistent with the President's Forest Plan.
    Subsequently, the FERC requested that the applicant provide
    additional information to and consult with the Forest Service.
    On May 10, 1996, the Forest Service provided further
    interpretation of Forest Plan direction related to
    hydroelectric development and on August 5, 1966, completed the
    re-evaluation of the Martin Creek project. This re-evaluation
    provided specific information relative to resource impacts and
    mitigation considerations, but concluded that due to the
    severity of the resource impacts and the difficulty of
    developing effective mitigation measures would probably prevent
    the Forest Service from issuing a recommendation of
    consistency. No further action from the Forest Service has been
    requested by the applicant or the FERC on this specific
    project, and it is our understanding that the project is not
    yet considered by the FERC to be ready for environmental
    analysis.
        In February 1995, in response to the FERC's Draft EIS for
    the North Fork Nooksack River basin projects, the Forest
    Service provided interim recommendations and identified
    specific resource impacts and Forest Plan requirements not met
    by four of the five proposed projects. In September 1997 the
    Final EIS was issued by the FERC. On October 21, 1997, the
    Forest Service issued a recommendation to FERC of Forest Plan
    inconsistency for the same 4 projects, and concurred with the
    FEIS recommendation for license denial based on adverse
    resource impacts outweighing developmental benefits. On
    December 19, 1997, the Forest Service made a final
    recommendation of Forest Plan consistency for the remaining
    Nooksack River project and provided conditions necessary for
    the adequate protection and utilization of forest resources.
    (Note: the appeal period for this Decision Notice ended March
    12, 1998, and the MBSNF is unaware of any appeals filed.)
        In 1995 the Forest Service made recommendations to the FERC
    of Forest Plan inconsistency for the 4 Skagit River projects
    citing resource impacts and Forest Plan requirements not met.
    Final recommendations will be made in response to the FERC
    Final EIS, which is anticipated for release sometime this year.
        No additional proposals or project modifications have been
    presented to the MBSNF requiring further consistency
    recommendations.
        Question 10. Does the Forest Service recommend that small
    hydro projects be removed from the President's Forest Plan in
    light of the fact that (1) Option 9 was designed for large-
    scale forest management, not small hydro; (2) the Forest
    Service is not acting on hydro matters; (3) the FERC has
    jurisdiction to declare consistency with National Forest use;
    and (4) Option 9 and the Federal Power Act cover much of the
    same subject matter?
        Answer. The President's Forest Plan was designed in
    response to many issues related to the management of habitats
    for late-successional and old-growth related species. It
    specifically addresses concerns about locally important late-
    successional habitats and species and provides direction to
    protect such species. Another important component of the Plan
    is the aquatic conservation strategy that was developed to
    restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and
    aquatic ecosystems. The Forest Service also developed, in
    cooperation with other federal agencies, riparian reserve
    standards and guidelines and has issued direction, relative to
    the Plan, that seeks to restore and conserve these valuable
    resources. Impacts on Salmon would be considered as well.
        The Forest Service has developed a National Hydropower
    Initiative which seeks to facilitate the relicensing of the
    many projects, located on lands administered by the National
    Forests, which will come up for relicensing in the next ten
    years. The agency has committed significant increases in both
    personnel and finances to respond to this workload. The Forest
    Service is committed to providing timely and responsible input
    to this complex relicensing effort.
        Although the FPA clearly established that the FERC has
    statutory responsibility for determining if a project is
    consistent with a comprehensive management plan (e.g., Forest
    Plan), the FERC has traditionally relied on the Forest Service
    to provide to FERC their recommendations of consistency
    relative to individual forest plans. The local National Forest
    possess the resource expertise at the regional level to
    determine the effects of a specific hydropower project on these
    resources and bring the project into compliance with the
    respective Forest Plan. The FPA establishes the responsibility
    of the Secretary of Agriculture to determine conditions
    ``necessary for the adequate protection and utilization'' of
    the National Forests. The Forest Service provides its
    recommendation of consistency when it transmits those mandatory
    4(e) license conditions to FERC.
        Question 11. If the Forest Service does not recommend that
    small hydro projects be removed from Option 9, what changes in
    the Plan should be made to expedite approval of such projects
    in a manner that does not penalize hydro developers?
        Answer. There is no need to amend the President's Forest
    Plan to expedite the evaluation of hydroelectric projects.
    Projects pending decision in 1994 (both non-federal and Forest
    Service initiated projects) initially faced some delay in
    project evaluation and final approval while the federal
    agencies affected by the development of the President's Forest
    Plan gained a better understanding of, and ability to apply,
    the direction of the Plan. As the agencies gained experience in
    the interpretation and application of the Plan, the time
    necessary to resolve complex resource issues has decreased.
        Question 12. Does the Agency intend to ease the burdens on
    projects whose license applications were pending on the date
    the Record of Decision was put in place and how would you
    accomplish this?
        Answer. Pending projects that lacked completed analysis and
    final decisions are subject to the requirements of the
    President's Forest Plan. At the time the Plan was adopted in
    April 1994, there were no small hydroelectric projects with
    pending applications on the MBSNF that had completed the FERC
    environmental analysis. The Forest Service has, and will
    continue to actively consult with project applicants and the
    FERC to identify specific Forest Plan consistency requirements
    and conditions necessary for the utilization and protection of
    forest resources.

                            forest service overhead

        Earlier GAO was asked to conduct an investigation into
    reports that the amount of expenditures for overhead and other
    indirect costs at the Forest Service has increased dramatically
    in recent years. The GAO has provided us initial information
    concerning agency trust funds. Based on Forest Service
    definitions and financial data, there has been a dramatic
    increase in virtually every region. While GAO is continuing the
    study, these initial findings clearly require explanation. It
    is difficult to believe that these numbers do not represent a
    large decline in agency efficiency. It could also explain why
    the once profitable timber sale program is no longer bringing a
    positive return. For example, GAO has found that overhead in
    permanent trust funds was 29 percent in fiscal year 1997, which
    is 80 percent higher than it was in fiscal year 1993.
        Question 13. In view of the agency's apparent inability to
    accomplish on-the-ground results, how much of the problem is
    attributable to funding what appears to be bloated overhead?
        Answer. Incomplete analysis of the FS financial records
    could lead one to the conclusion that ``overhead and other
    indirect costs'' are bloated in the trust funds; however, we do
    not believe this to be the case. First, we need to be clear on
    our terminology. The GAO report referred to does not report on
    overhead costs. The GAO report analyzes what the Forest Service
    has defined as indirect costs. While some of these can be
    considered overhead (rent, utilities) not all of them are
    usually thought of as overhead (computer support, line
    supervision). Secondly, it is inappropriate to compare fiscal
    year 1993 to fiscal year 1997 because a change of the FS coding
    structure for program support and common services for program
    managers occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
    1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
    activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
    1993 business. Readers of the GAO report will note this
    definition change reported in the ``limitations with data''
    section of the report. This change in definition, or
    classification of costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of
    the ``apparent'' increase in indirect costs from fiscal year
    1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
    total with indirect costs as a result of this definition or
    classification change are excluded, the costs for this category
    has actually decreased by 16 percent since fiscal year 1993.
        The terms ``overhead'' and ``indirect'' have been used
    interchangeably, and sometimes, incorrectly, as synonyms for
    general administration (a subset of indirect/overhead costs).
    This further complicates reporting of these costs. We currently
    do have agency-wide definitions for ``indirect'' costs; hence,
    coding and the resulting cost information is only available for
    portions of what some might define as ``overhead'' (e.g. common
    services such as rent, utility, communications are clearly
    defined and these costs are available.) Admittedly, much
    confusion was created with the change in definition and
    classification of activity costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
    year 1995. Consequently we are analyzing and reviewing our
    entire cost accounting code definitions and structure with the
    intent to clarify and have revisions in place in time for use
    in fiscal year 2000.
        Question 14. What plans does the agency have to reduce
    overhead expenditures in the future?
        Answer. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not
    just overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
    efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
    administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
    some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
    to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
    administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
    1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
    an ever-increasing workload, continue.
        Question 15. Why is Region 2 of the Forest Service the only
    unit showing a decline in overhead expenses since fiscal year
    1993? What are they doing that other units are not?
        Answer. Actually Region 2 has not shown a decline in
    overhead expenses in permanent and trust funds since fiscal
    year 1993. They have actually shown a slight increase. However,
    their increase has been much smaller than the other Regions. On
    the other hand, R2's overhead expenses (on a percentage basis)
    charged to appropriated funds is the third largest in the
    nation. The primary reason for this is because R2's permanent
    and trust fund programs are quite small, thus to a large degree
    the cost of ``program management'' and support is being borne
    by appropriated funds.
        However, more analysis would be needed to determine if
    Region 2 in reality does indeed have lower overhead, or if
    Region 2 appears to have lower overhead due to their
    understanding of the changes made in fiscal year 1994 and
    fiscal year 1995.
        Question 16. How will the need to implement major new
    systems such as FFIS and INFRA affect current staffing levels
    which are considered overhead?
        Answer. For the past 5 to 6 years, since the inception of
    INFRA, INFRA has relied on an ad-hoc workforce to develop,
    implement, and support the application. Members of the INFRA
    team are located in several states across the nation. We are
    currently evaluating alternatives to implement a permanent
    organization, in a central location. This will provide for
    greater career opportunities as well as provide for enhanced
    application implementation and support.
        It is unclear whether FFIS alone will affect staffing
    levels. The challenge of converting a commercial--off the shelf
    accounting package to meet all the specialized accounting needs
    of the Forest Service has taken a lot of attention. Our
    financial health initiative also attempts to address the
    weaknesses of our recent financial statement audits. While
    these efforts have commanded our attention, we will not know
    the long-term needs until we can get over our implementation
    hurdles and begin to make FFIS and Financial health routine
    business.
        Question 17. Is the Forest Service aware that even though
    total fund expenditures fell over the past five years, indirect
    expenditures increased significantly? Has the Forest Service
    been monitoring the increase in indirect expenditures? If so,
    what has the Forest Service done to reduce the increases or at
    least minimize them?
        Answer. A change of the FS coding structure for program
    support and common services for program managers (which we
    understand GAO and others refer to as ``overhead or indirect
    costs'') occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
    1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
    activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
    1993 business. This change in definition, or classification of
    costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of the ``apparent''
    increase in ``overhead or indirect costs'' from fiscal year
    1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
    total with ``overhead and other indirect costs'' as a result of
    this definition or classification change are excluded, the
    costs for this category has actually decreased by 16 percent
    since fiscal year 1993. Admittedly, much confusion was created
    with the change in definition and classification of activity
    costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. Consequently we
    are analyzing and reviewing our entire cost accounting code
    definitions and structure with the intent to clarify and have
    revisions in place in time for use in fiscal year 2000. Due to
    the reductions in Budget and Accounting staff over the last
    five years we have not had the resources to monitor ``indirect
    costs'. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not just
    overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
    efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
    administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
    some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
    to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
    administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
    1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
    an ever-increasing workload, continue.
        Question 18. Why have indirect expenditures risen while
    overall fund expenditures have decreased? Can the Forest
    Service identify the types or kinds of indirect expenditures
    that are responsible for the growth? Are certain indirect costs
    escalating faster than others? If so, what are those costs?
    What has the Forest Service done to slow this growth?
        Answer. A change of the FS coding structure for program
    support and common services for program managers (which we
    understand GAO and others refer to as ``overhead or indirect
    costs'') occurred in fiscal year 1994 and again in fiscal year
    1995. Many costs, in fiscal year 1994 and later, in these
    activities had no comparable work activity codes in fiscal year
    1993 business. This change in definition, or classification of
    costs, accounts for more than 100 percent of the ``apparent''
    increase in ``overhead or indirect costs'' from fiscal year
    1993 to fiscal year 1997. In fact, if the costs included in the
    total with ``overhead and other indirect costs'' as a result of
    this definition or classification change are excluded, the
    costs for this category has actually decreased by 16 percent
    since fiscal year 1993. Admittedly, much confusion was created
    with the change in definition and classification of activity
    costs in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. Consequently we
    are analyzing and reviewing our entire cost accounting code
    definitions and structure with the intent to clarify and have
    revisions in place in time for use in fiscal year 1999. Due to
    the reductions in Budget and Accounting staff over the last
    five years we have not had the resources to monitor ``indirect
    costs''. We are actively looking at reducing all costs, not
    just overhead codes. All work should be performed in the most
    efficient manner. We have combined a number of units, both
    administrative overhead units and entire offices, eliminated
    some offices and moved some to cheaper quarters over the years
    to lower fixed overhead costs. In addition, we have reduced
    administrative staff by more than 25 percent since fiscal year
    1993. Efforts to increase efficiency, while still accomplishing
    an ever-increasing workload, continue.
        Question 19. Can we expect the growth in indirect
    expenditures to continue? What plans does the agency have to
    reduce indirect expenditures in the future?
        Answer. As explained in answer to question No. 13 and No.
    17, we do not believe that ``indirect expenses'' in reality,
    have increased. We believe the increases are due to changes in
    definition in regard to expenses allowed to be charged out to
    this cost category. We can expect consistent definitions and
    coding of activities in the future. This coding change may
    cause indirect expenses to appear higher or lower, but it will
    not change reality. Our efforts to minimize all expenses are
    ongoing.
        Question 20. How do you explain the wide variations in
    indirect expenditure rates? Are some funds more efficiently
    managed than others?
        Answer. The indirect expenditure rates are a result of
    services provided to be individual resources. To the extent
    that any of the programs require indirect costs (rent for their
    employees, computers for their projects, unemployment costs for
    crews, line supervision for their crews) the benefitting fund
    pays the cost as part of the program. The variations in the
    indirect rates are a reflection of the complexities. Salvage
    Sale Funds, K-V, and Salvage Sale are all similar. Coop-work-
    other is less by the nature of the program. Coop-work-other is
    for cooperative work with others outside of the Forest Service
    and requires less indirect support because of its activities.
        Question 21. How do you account for wide variations in
    costs from region to region? Is it possible that some regions
    are much more efficient than others or is there some other
    reasons for such wide variations? If some regions are able to
    manage funds at far less in indirect costs, are there lessons
    to be learned by other regions? Does the Forest Service have in
    place a mechanism for sharing this knowledge? If so, then why
    are there such vast differences?
        Answer. Variations by region are to be expected.
    Geographical and ecosystem differences across the country will
    always result in variations in costs across the regions. Costs
    to support recreation in urban fringe areas differ from
    wilderness areas. Both are necessary and proper. The Forest
    Service has a program of management reviews and technology
    transfer mechanisms to keep program managers apprised of
    efficiencies across the agency. However, more analysis is
    needed to determine if fluctuations among regions are due to
    different coding conventions or in more efficient use of funds.
        Question 22. Has the Forest Service ever analyzed its
    ``overhead'', ``indirect'', or ``general administration'' costs
    with a goal towards reducing the amount of these costs instead
    of reallocating them to other categories? If so, how successful
    was the Forest Service in obtaining overall cost reductions?
    Has the Forest Service followed up to assume that its
    recommendations are still in place?
        Answer. As stated previously, we focus on reducing all
    costs, not just specific types of costs. We have recently
    consolidated some organizations and are moving one regional
    headquarters to realize overall costs reductions. In fiscal
    year 1997, the Washington Office consolidated the Land
    Management Planning and Ecosystem staffs, and reduced two
    staffs in the Research organization. Also in fiscal year 1997,
    two Research Stations were consolidated. In fiscal year 1998
    three National Forests and 22 Ranger Districts were
    consolidated. We have gained approval to move the Pacific
    Southwest Region's Regional Office from San Francisco to Mare
    Island to achieve lower rent costs.
        Question 23. Has the Forest Service compared its overhead,
    indirect, or general administration costs to other federal
    agencies, state agencies, or the private sector? If so, what
    were the results?
        Answer. No analysis of this nature has been done by the
    Forest Service.
        Question 24. Has the Forest Service used analysis of other
    federal agencies, state agencies, or the private sector to
    assist them in analyzing their own indirect costs?
        Answer. No analysis of this nature has been done by the
    Forest Service.
        Question 25. Does the Forest Service know whether indirect
    expenditures as a percent of total appropriated funds have been
    increasing? If so, how do indirect expenditures for the five
    funds compare to those of appropriated funds? If the growth in
    indirect expenditures for appropriated funds is inconsistent
    with those for the five Forest Service funds, what can be done
    to slow the growth?
        Answer. Indirect expenditure rates in the NFS
    appropriations are increasing slowly, similar to the years with
    valid data in the five funds in the GAO report. The rates are
    lower than the five funds because NFS appropriations are not
    assessed for GA. However, see No. 13 and No. 17 for a
    discussion about how coding changes over the years have
    affected the composition of indirect costs.
        Question 26. Do all funds incur the same kinds of costs or
    are some of the funds exempt from particular indirect costs?
        Answer. No. All funds finance indirect activities to the
    extent that they require them. Indirect collections can be
    waived in a certain category of coop-work agreements, although
    the indirect costs in those cases are paid for by the
    benefitting BLI in appropriated funds. Indirect expenditures
    are also sometimes forgone if the amount is insignificant.
        Question 27. Are indirect expenditures for the Cooperative
    Work-Other Fund subject to more oversight than other funds? If
    so why? Do some ``cooperators'' require that Forest Service
    overhead costs be limited or even zero? Are this Fund's costs
    artificially held down as a result of the oversight? If their
    expenditures are held down, do the other funds pick up extra
    shares of the indirect costs?
        Answer. No. See answer No. 26.
        Question 28. How do you decide which fund will pick up
    particular costs, especially those that might be shared by all
    the funds? For example, how do you decide what portion of the
    Line Management costs will be allocated to each fund? How do
    you decide how each fund will share in rent costs or the costs
    of new computer systems? Is there a systematic basis for all
    these allocations that everyone follows?
        Answer. All funds provide support to the extent they
    benefit from that support. This charge-as-worked philosophy is
    central to the management of our finances. Line management is
    by definition a GA activity, so other than the occasional
    Deputy line position that has resource emphasis, line is
    charged to a combination of appropriated GA (NFGA) and
    assessments against the permanent and trust funds at parity
    with NFGA.
        When permanent appropriations and trust funds are assessed
    for general administrative costs, those funds are joined with
    the general administration (GA) line item into a pool. Funds in
    this pool of GA are used interchangeably for any expense
    legitimately paid from GA. For non-GA costs, each fund pays its
    fair share according to usage or the best estimate of usage.
    For example, if employees working on salvage sales use 10
    percent of the floor space in a building, then the salvage sale
    fund will pay 10 percent of the rent.
        Question 29. How does the Forest Service decide when to
    reduce costs and when to reallocate them? If the Congress were
    to limit ``overhead'', ``indirect'', or ``general
    administration'' costs to a certain percent of total
    expenditure or total direct costs, would we see a major effort
    to reduce costs or an attempt to reallocate the costs without
    any real reductions in the costs? If there were actual cost
    reductions, where are they likely to occur?
        Answer. The Forest Service is always working to reduce
    costs, since funding is well behind inflation and since we
    adhere to the business ethic of always trying to improve
    efficiency. We do not arbitrarily reallocate costs, we do try
    to ensure that costs are charged correctly and consistently.
        If Congress were to limit overhead to a fixed percent of
    permanent appropriations and trust funds, appropriated funds
    may have to bear of disproportionate share of the burden.
    Essentially, the charged-as-worked benefitting function
    approach would have to be altered. Indirect costs are simply
    the attempt to allocate workload to the EBLI requiring the
    support.
        Cutting indirect/overhead takes time; costs such as rent
    are fixed in the short-run, and relocating often requires
    Congressional approval. Much of our costs are in salary,
    especially general administrative costs. We find that in many
    cases more personnel are needed, at least in the near term, to
    improve our financial systems and accountability and to meet
    the increasing needs for information by parties external to the
    Agency.
        Real costs reductions can only occur with:
      --Improved business practices, which may cost more in the short run
            to achieve long run savings;
      --Centralization of services, which could make overhead appear
            higher, even though total costs may decrease
      --Elimination of work; and
     --Combination, or closure of some units.
        Question 30. How do GPRA goals address the issue of
    reducing overhead and indirect expenses?
        Answer. Although no single goal or objective is focused on
    the issue of overhead and indirect expenses, the need to set
    relative priorities within an assumed flat budget environment
    is recognized throughout the annual Performance Plan. The
    single greatest opportunity, apart from reducing or eliminating
    programs, is increased operational efficiency through use of
    technologies such as improved financial systems, corporate data
    bases (both resource and financial), Geographic Information
    Systems (GIS), and Global Positioning System (GPS). All GPRA
    objectives and management initiatives recognize the importance
    of these potential opportunities.
        Question 31. How will the agency plans to reorganize and
    address the serious financial accountability problems, affect
    overhead?
        Answer. The Agency currently estimates that is will costs
    approximately $23 million over the next 3-years to complete a
    series of actions to strengthen management and accountability
    in the Forest Service. The funds will primarily be used to hire
    a limited number of management personnel to address the major
    management needs of the Agency. The Forest Service would return
    to current staffing levels through attrition so this would not
    be a permanent increase in overhead costs. We also expect that
    as the quality of financial information improves, efficiencies
    will be gained through better analysis of resources
    alternatives. We also expect to gain efficiencies in overhead
    operations as we simplify our budget and accounting systems.
        Question 32. How can the Committee be supportive of efforts
    to address these serious problems through reorganization while
    addressing the problem of increasing overhead costs?
        Answer. The Committees can be supportive by working in
    partnership with the Forest Service as we look at alternatives
    to simplify our current accounting and budget structures. We
    would like to work with the Committees in analyzing alternative
    structures to assure that the Forest Service can meet the
    information needs of Congress with better quality and more
    reliable data. The Forest Service and the USDA has realized
    that reductions in budget analysis, accountants, personnel
    specialists, and contracting officers has contributed to our
    serious accountability problems. We believe in the long-term we
    can reduce not only our overhead costs, but the overall costs
    of doing business by accurate data to help us make financial
    and resource decisions. We are in complete agreement in seeking
    to maximize the efficiencies of our operations and look forward
    to working with the Committee to pursue this goal.
        Question 33. The Forest Service has a Committee of
    Scientists making recommendations on a revision of the planning
    regulations. How does that work link to what the Columbia Basin
    study is developing to amend forest plans?
        Answer. The Forest Service has regulations which guide the
    process to be used while revising Forest Land and Resource
    Management Plans. The Committee of Scientists are projecting
    completion of their work in June, 1998 at which time they will
    recommend planning regulation changes to the Secretary of
    Agriculture.
        Columbia River Basin forest plan revisions will follow the
    new regulations if they are completed by the time the Columbia
    River Basin Record of Decision is made. Otherwise, revisions
    will respond to the current regulations.

                            wildland fire management

        In fiscal year 1997 the agency employed 261 employees in
    the smokejumper program. The smokejumper program has been in
    existence for many years and is proud symbol of Forest Service
    history.
        Question 34. With increased roading of the National Forests
    and overall improved access how cost effective is this program?
        Answer. Even with the improved access with the increase in
    roads over the years, the program is still an important method
    for quick, safe initial attack on fires. There are still many
    unroaded areas, including vast areas of Wilderness where smoke-
    jumpers continue to be the primary firefighting resource. The
    cost effectiveness varies throughout the west. The National
    Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) is used to analyze the
    most cost effective mix of resources for all national forests.
    Smoke-jumpers are used, either alone, or in combination with
    other resources, in accordance with the NFMAS planning.
        Question 35. What studies have been conducted to assess the
    cost effectiveness of this program as opposed to alternative
    methods of fire suppression? Please provide the subcommittee
    with copies of these studies.
        Answer. In addition to the NFMAS planning for all units in
    the National Forest System, an interagency study to determine
    the best mix of aerially delivered firefighters is underway.
    The model will analyze various mixes of smoke-jumpers,
    helitack, and repel crews and should be completed by the end of
    calendar year 1998. By early 1999, we should be able to test
    the effectiveness of smoke-jumpers in general as well as
    determine the most efficient locations and staffing levels.
        Question 36. How does the average cost per smoke-jumpers
    employee compare to that of other employees retained for the
    purpose of fire suppression?
        Answer. The costs for three different types of firefighter
    appear below. The costs are based on a per FTE basis. The costs
    include all equipment and administrative support for the
    firefighter. For smoke-jumpers, the cost of the aircraft
    supporting each base is included.

    Firefighters

            Firefighter type                                    Cost per FTE

    Smoke-jumpers.................................................   $66,364
    Hotshot crew member...........................................    37,000
    Engine crew member............................................    31,000

        Question 37. What consideration has been given to merging
    the smoke-jumpers program completely with that of the Bureau of
    Land Management under one agency's jurisdiction?
        Answer. To date, no efforts have been undertaken to study
    this question, however, the study mentioned in question 35 will
    assist in determining locations and numbers needed in the
    future.
        As population increases there is an increasing impact to
    the fire program due to management of the forest/urban
    interface.
        Question 38. How is the urban interface affecting the
    positioning of fire suppression forces and the management
    posture regarding fire suppression?
        Answer. With the increased risk to life and property in the
    urban interface area, there is an increasing need to prioritize
    fire suppression resource to the protection of life and
    property in the interface. The Forest Service does not have
    jurisdiction for structure protection on private land, or on
    State, Tribal, or local jurisdictions and does not take the
    primary responsibility in those areas. We do have a
    responsibility to prevent damage to these areas from wildland
    fires spreading from NFS protection lands. As a result,
    suppression resources may be assigned to suppress fires, or
    flanks of large fires, which threaten the interface instead of
    assigning those resources to protection natural resources on
    NFS lands.
        The positioning of preparedness forces in anticipation of
    initial attack needs is based on a planning process which takes
    into account the location and availability of cooperator
    resources. In many areas, cooperative agreements with States or
    local entities provides for a very efficient mix of Forest
    Service, State and local resources.
        Question 39. How is the urban interface affecting the type
    of equipment being used in suppression activities?
        Answer. Since the Forest Service cannot assume
    responsibility for the suppression of structures, the types of
    equipment within the agency is based on the need a
    effectiveness for wildland fire suppression. In recent years,
    foams and retardants that were developed for agencies with
    structure protection responsibilities have proved to be very
    effective in wildland fire suppression. Many engines and
    helicopter now have foam capabilities, but the purpose is for
    wildland fire suppression.
        Many municipal and volunteer fire departments are now in
    interface areas with wildland fire responsibility as well as
    their traditional structure protection duties. These
    departments are now equipped with wildland fire equipment and
    have received training and experience from the Forest Service
    through the Cooperative Fire Protection Program and the Rural
    Community Fire Protection Program.
        Question 40. How is the urban interface affecting the type
    of air tankers used for suppression?
        Answer. The urban interface does not require different
    aircraft than the current air tanker fleet for safe, efficient,
    and effective operations.
        Question 41. What consideration is being given to acquiring
    new air tankers for fire suppression such as the CL-415 super
    scooper aircraft?
        Answer. The USDA Forest Service does not own air tankers
    for suppression but contracts for aerial fire suppression
    services from the private sector. This is true for both air
    tankers and helicopters.
        Question 42. What effectiveness studies have been conducted
    by the Forest Service on the CL-415 aircraft? Please provide
    the subcommittee with copies of these studies.
        Answer. The USDA Forest Service was a part of an
    interagency study effort that culminated in the November, 1996,
    publication National Study of Large Air tankers to Support
    Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression, Final Report, Phase
    2. This study was to look at those aircraft with a potential of
    carrying 1,000 gallons or more of retardant, and develop
    economic models to describe the composition and distribution of
    an idealized fleet. The idealized national fleet described in
    the report is based on 3,000 to approximately 5,000 gallon
    capacity air tankers capable of delivering long term fire
    retardant chemicals. The CL-215/415 was considered and might
    have localized usefulness but does not meet the requirement of
    3,000 to 5,000 gallons retardant capacity for a place in the
    future nationally mobile fleet.

                     forest service geometronics activities

        The Forest Service (FS) maintains a Geometronics Service
    Center which provides a number of services to the organization
    including mapping. In fiscal year 1997 the center employed 112
    FTE's and expended $9.3 million.
        Question 43. What consideration has been given to
    consolidating these activities with other federal agencies such
    as the U.S. Geological Survey?
        Answer. Mapping activities carried out by the FS and other
    civilian agencies of the federal government have been studied
    and evaluated on many occasions over the past 25 years. The
    consolidation of all or part of these activities has been
    considered and debated; however, rather than consolidation,
    agencies have found it most efficient and best service to
    customers to coordinate closely and minimize duplication.
    Federal agencies involved in geospatial activities utilize
    interagency agreements to avoid duplication in mapping and
    related data production activities to share program
    information, coordinate production and data exchange
    activities. This includes the shared responsibility for
    maintaining the nation's topographic quadrangles maps; the
    National Digital Orthophoto Program, National Aerial
    Photography Program, Digital Elevation Models, Public Land
    Survey System and related ownership information and other
    digital and hard copy geospatial products. The agreements
    support the missions of various government agencies and also
    support state and local governments and the private sector.
        Question 44. Could all Geometronics activities be assumed
    by USGS and/or other agencies?
        Answer. All Geometronics activities could not effectively
    be assumed by USGS and/or other agencies. The Forest Service
    established the Geometronics Service Center because the USGS
    was unable to meet our needs for base geographic information in
    a timely manner. Since that time products and services required
    by forest managers have grown to include the production and
    dissemination of base geographic information in both hardcopy
    and digital formats; development and distribution of derivative
    and special maps, digital data, brochures, and support for
    transferring geospatial technologies and product applications.
    There would be no cost savings if this work were shifted to
    USGS but there would be a loss of service to forest managers.
        The importance of Geometronics activities cannot be
    underestimated. Each resource staff provides funding to support
    the Geometronics activities to meet their requirements for
    current, accurate, and timely geospatial information. FS
    Geometronics activities provide essential geospatial
    information for over 191 million acres of National Forest
    System lands directly to the resource managers, scientists, and
    the public. To adequately respond to critical land management
    issues such as fire, forest health, watershed management,
    ecosystem restoration, and recreation, the FS needs quick,
    efficient access to current information.

                         forest service law enforcement

        Question 45. What is the current status of Forest Service
    law enforcement involvement in illegal immigration activities
    on the Cleveland National Forest?
        Answer. Forest Service law enforcement involvement with
    illegal immigration activities only occurs as it relates to the
    protection of National Forest System resources. If, during the
    course of normal activities personnel discover illegal
    immigration activities, actions necessary to protect the
    resources and notify the appropriate agency are taken.
        Question 46. Has the Forest Service fully implemented the
    Committee's fiscal year 1998 direction regarding these
    activities?
        Answer. As of December 20, 1997, Forest Service law
    enforcement had eliminated the use of detailed individuals to
    the Cleveland National Forest. In addition, the number of law
    enforcement personnel assigned to the Cleveland National Forest
    was no higher than it was prior to Border Patrol's Operation
    Gatekeeper.
        The investigation of timber theft continues to be an
    important emphasis for the program.
        Question 47. If the agency increases its reliance on scaled
    sales, what affects will this have on the overall law
    enforcement program?
        Answer. The opportunity for timber theft is present in both
    tree measurement and scaled sales; timber theft did not end
    when the Agency changed to exclusively tree measurement sales.
    This action merely focused the opportunity for theft primarily
    on the sale site. Thus, law enforcement personnel concentrated
    their investigative efforts on pre-sale, sale, or post sale
    activity. With the decreasing number of law enforcement
    personnel, this narrowing of opportunity was necessary. With
    the advent of scaled sales, the opportunity for theft
    increases. The entire scaling process is vulnerable to theft by
    any one of a number of individuals involved throughout the
    process. It will be difficult to ensure proper monitoring of
    activities by law enforcement personnel due to this increase
    and the continued decrease of field officers. Investigation of
    timber theft or related violations during the scaling process
    will also be hindered by the decline in numbers of special
    agents to conduct these highly complex scaling investigations.
        Question 48. What special program emphasis is the Agency
    placing on the investigation of timber theft?
        Answer. The Forest Service continues to look for
    opportunities for the development of methods to track and trace
    federal timber using both overt and covert techniques. Some of
    these opportunities involve the assistance of other Federal
    agencies and the addition of ``Unannounced Timber
    Accountability Audits'' which are designed to strengthen our
    internal controls of preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and
    abuse in timber program accountability. Both LE&I and forest
    management personnel have worked together to accomplish the
    following objectives related to timber theft:
      --Development of timber theft training modules for prevention/
            detection, basic investigation, advanced investigation and
            management.
      --Instituted reporting timeframes and documentation requirements when
            undesignated timber has been cut/removed.
      --Law enforcement personnel are now a required part of any activity
            review or log accountability audit team.
      --Improved overall coordination efforts between timber personnel and
            law enforcement to enhance prevention efforts and establish
            protocols for reporting and information exchange.
      --We have ensured a strong prevention and detection program through
            use of our law enforcement officers by incorporating timber
            sale and log yard visits into their regular enforcement
            activities.
      --Issued direction on procedures to ensure debarment and suspension
            referrals are completed.
        Question 49. What is the status of the Agency's long
    promised comprehensive timber theft prevention and training
    program?
        Answer. The training program is currently being reviewed by
    timber and law enforcement personnel in all Regions and the
    Washington Office. Replies are due within the next few weeks
    and then the program will be finalized.
        Question 50. Have all aspects of the program been presented
    at both timber and law enforcement meetings?
        Answer. Although the program has not been finalized, two
    modules have been presented to line officers and law
    enforcement personnel. The program is structured so modules are
    presented to the applicable audience. Not all areas of the
    program will be used with each group.
        Question 51. What experts are being used to present these
    training sessions?
        Answer. A Forester, currently assigned to LE&I has
    presented the two modules thus far. Future plans are to have
    forest management and law enforcement provide instructors for
    their respective sections of the modules. In most cases, the
    material will be taught by a team made up of both disciplines.
        As part of a recent timber theft conviction in Washington
    State, damage to resources was assessed at $850,000.
        Question 52. What resources are available to the Timber and
    Law Enforcement programs to assure a consistent nationwide
    assessment of damages in timber theft cases?
        Answer. For clarification, the damage assessment of
    $850,000 is what the Forest Service determined to be the dollar
    value of the resource damage. Sentencing has not occurred in
    this case, so it is unknown what the judgement against the
    defendant will be. The most consistent and professional
    approach the Forest Service can take, is to have damage
    assessments performed by the local ecologist, biologist, timber
    specialist, etc., since they possess the technical and
    scientific expertise for the affected land base and associated
    economic/sociological characteristics. Forest Management and
    Law Enforcement must establish the procedure(s) to be used for
    resource damage assessment and disseminate it to investigators
    and the above mentioned resource experts in the field.

                             forestland management

        The Administration proposes a timber sell level of 3.4
    billion board feet in fiscal year 1999. This figure represents
    a steady decline since 1990 when the volume offered was over 11
    billion board feet.
        Question 53. If the funds were provided how much additional
    volume could the Forest Service prepare?
        Answer. The agency has the potential to prepare
    approximately 400 million board feet of timber for sale in
    fiscal year 1999. It is not certain that all of the volume
    could be offered for sale by the end of fiscal year 1999,
    because of the late start on preparing this volume.
        Question 54. To achieve this level, how much additional
    funding would be required?
        Answer. It would require additional funding of $38 million
    in Timber Sales Management and $10 million in Road Construction
    for engineering support of road design to prepare the
    additional 400 million board feet of timber.
        Question 55. Of this additional volume how much might be
    affected by the proposed roadless area moratorium?
        Answer. The Chief proposed a draft interim rule suspending
    the reconstruction or construction of roads in roadless areas
    for 18 months, which was published in the Federal Register on
    January 28, 1998. To date this rule has not been finalized and
    is not in affect. If the proposed interim rule were finalized
    and implemented as published in the January 28, 1998 Federal
    Register prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1999, then it
    would not be prudent for the agency to propose additional sales
    in areas likely to be suspended. Therefore, the additional
    volume should not be affected by the proposed suspension.
        Question 56. What impact has the dramatic change in Forest
    Service personnel had in recent years on the agency's ability
    to produce the modest amount of timber it has promised but in
    some cases failed to deliver?
        Answer. The dramatic change in Forest Service personnel in
    recent years has decreased the both the number and experience
    level of field personnel. Both of these factors have slowed the
    completion of field work.
        Question 57. The Senate version of the fiscal year 1998
    supplemental contains approximately $4.828 million for the
    Routt blowdown within the national forest system appropriation.
    What portion of these funds is directly attributable to removal
    of timber or to access this salvage volume?
        Answer. None of the funds provided in the fiscal year 1998
    Supplemental appropriation are for the removal of the blowdown
    timber. Timber removal will be charged to the Salvage Sale
    Fund. The fiscal year 1998 Supplemental did provide funding in
    the National Forest System appropriation for road maintenance
    to open roads made impassable by the storm. This maintenance
    will benefit all road uses, which includes timber, but is not
    directly attributable to access the salvage.
        Question 58. What volume of timber is estimated to be on
    the ground and accessible for harvest as a result of the
    blowdown, and what is the agency timetable for removal of this
    volume?
        Answer. The volume on the ground and available for harvest
    (outside Mount Zirkel Wilderness) is estimated to be 53 million
    board feet. It is estimated that 43 million board feet will be
    harvested in fiscal year 1998 and an additional 10 million
    board feet in fiscal year 1999.
        Question 59. Is the removal of this volume affected by the
    roadless area moratorium?
        Answer. The Chief proposed a draft interim rule suspending
    the reconstruction or construction of roads in roadless areas
    for 18 months, which was published in the Federal Register on
    January 28, 1998. To date this rule has not been finalized and
    is not in affect. According to the draft interim rule road
    projects in roadless areas on the Routt NF would be exempt from
    the suspension. This results from the Routt NF having a signed
    Record of Decision revising the land and resource management
    plan on which the administrative appeals process under 36 CFR
    Part 217 is underway. It is felt that issues related to road
    construction in roadless areas will be addressed in the appeal
    decision, when appropriate. Therefore, if the interim rule were
    finalized and implemented as published in the January 28, 1998,
    Federal Register, then the blowdown volume on the Routt would
    be exempt from the rule.
        Question 60. Are agency salvage sale resources sufficient
    to access this volume?
        Answer. Yes, there are sufficient salvage sale fund
    resources to access this volume.
        Question 61. Does the Forest Service actively intend to
    harvest available downed timber? If so, in what year?
        Answer. Yes, the Forest Service plans to actively harvest
    the available downed timber. It is estimated that 80 percent
    will offered for sale in fiscal year 1998 and the remaining 20
    percent in fiscal year 1999.
        Question 62. What road construction/reconstruction must
    occur to access this volume?
        Answer. Nineteen miles of reconstruction is needed to
    provide safe access into the sale area. The work includes
    drainage improvements; adding turnouts; spot surfacing and
    widening; resurfacing; regraveling; minor realignment; and
    clearing. This work will allow safe access throughout the area
    with the increased logging traffic and will allow multiple
    sales to be offered simultaneously. It is estimated that five
    miles of new road construction is needed to provide adequate
    access.
        The timber sale contract has been under consideration for
    revision for more than 10-years.
        Question 63. What is the status of the planned contract
    revision?
        Answer. It is currently being prepared for advertisement in
    the Federal Register as a proposed rule. This proposal in now
    in the Department for clearance.
        Question 64. What consideration has been given to proposing
    innovative new methods of timber sale contracting which would
    include provisions for providing logs timber [sic] for services
    to accomplish watershed restoration projects.
        Answer. Identification and evaluation of new ways of
    accomplishing national forest vegetative management goals,
    including those relating to watershed restoration, was launched
    in the summer of 1996. The decision to begin this
    ``reinvention'' process was prompted by a growing recognition
    of three things: (1) the need to treat national forest
    vegetation in some areas to achieve ecosystem protection and
    restoration goals; (2) the fact that our traditional tools for
    implementing desired vegetative treatments--i.e., timber sale
    and service contracts--have serious drawbacks, especially when
    it comes to treating low-valued material; and (3) the
    likelihood that future appropriations for performing needed
    ecosystem protection and restoration work will require improved
    program efficiency and effectiveness.
        To help provide public input, a national scoping session
    was held in Washington, DC, during October 1996. Based on the
    input that was received, five objectives were established.
    These are: (1) to explore new ways of accomplishing needed
    vegetative treatments more effectively and efficiently; (2) to
    explore new ways of accomplishing needed vegetative treatments
    with minimal need for increased appropriations; (3) to
    demonstrate the role of vegetative management in proper
    resource stewardship; (4) to demonstrate the role that
    ecosystem protection and restoration activities can play in
    helping to sustain rural communities; and (5) to demonstrate
    the advantages of collaborative stewardship.
        In the summer of 1997, Bob Joslin, Deputy Chief for the
    National Forest System, asked the Regional Foresters to
    identify projects for ``pilot-testing'' possible new ways of
    doing business. A total of 52 nominations were received. In
    November of 1997, an interdisciplinary team reviewed the
    proposals and recommended 23 projects, including at least one
    from each region, for implementation. Projects were selected on
    the basis of the following criteria: (1) ability to add to our
    existing knowledge; (2) the potential to provide information of
    broad applicability; (3) evidence of widespread public interest
    and support; and (4) ability to implement one or more of the
    Chief's resource priorities--i.e., improving forest and
    rangeland ecosystem health, improving water quality and
    quantity, promoting responsible recreation use, riparian
    restoration, and promoting partnerships.
        The proposed pilots evaluate a wide variety of new
    processes and procedures within a range of different settings,
    including some urban interface areas. While some of the
    projects can be carried-out within our existing legislative
    authorities, consistent with the spirit of reinvention, others
    would require temporary supplemental authorities to be
    implemented as planned. One of these authorities, as this
    question suggests, would be the ability to trade goods for
    services.
        The Forest Service has conducted extensive studies on
    effective utilization of small diameter material throughout the
    western states.
        Question 65. What active projects have resulted from this
    research? What specific sites have actually utilized small
    diameter material in response to this research?
        Answer. There have been a variety of studies conducted on
    improving utilization of small diameter material. The research
    has focused primarily on new or alternative products, tools and
    strategies for harvesting small trees, and economics of product
    and management options. This research is in various stages of
    completion from analysis to technology transfer to on-the-
    ground testing. Early results have been incorporated into a
    model to help resource managers make decisions about how to
    improve financial decisions when designing contracts for forest
    operations. This model, Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem
    Management Activities (FEEMA) is in the technology transfer
    stage with scientists working with resource managers to
    demonstrate how to use it. This model will help managers foster
    cost-effective ecosystem-based activities regardless of whether
    the management objective is improving forest conditions,
    improving wildlife habitat or is a designated timber sale.
        Several research projects have been conducted over the last
    two years in cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Research
    Station, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory, and other federal
    and non-profit partners on the Applegate Adaptive Management
    Area. To date, three independent wood products manufacturers
    are using or planning to invest in technologies to utilize the
    small diameter material.
        The Limber Jim Fuels Reduction Management Experiment on the
    La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National
    Forest in Oregon investigated harvesting methods of small-
    diameter material, and was completed in 1998. The primary
    purpose of the fuel reduction efforts was to reduce small-
    diameter forest fuels to create a shaded fuel break, which
    would permit more effective forest fire fighting. Additionally,
    three methods of removal of these materials were compared for
    economic efficiency, stand damage, and wildlife impacts.
    Technology transfer efforts are ongoing to encourage
    utilization of this research. This project was conducted by the
    Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute of the Pacific
    Northwest Research Station and the La Grande Ranger District of
    the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in cooperation with several
    partner organizations.
        In northern Idaho and Montana, research by our USDA Forest
    Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisc., showed that mechanical
    grading lumber from small diameter lodgepole pine and grand fir
    substantially improved grade yield of structural products.
    Several mills in these areas are now considering implementing
    this technology to more efficiently handle small diameter logs.
        In Arizona and Colorado studies have been conducted on the
    structural use of 4-to 6-inch of ``round-wood'' for
    applications such as rustic round trusses, space frame pole
    structures, picnic shelters, bridges, and for other structural
    buildings. Research efforts are focusing on overcoming the
    technical barriers, such as grading systems to meet building
    codes and better understanding the variation of round material
    versus sawn lumber.
        In the Southwest the Forest Products Laboratory has
    initiated a project with glue-laminated manufacturers regarding
    the use small diameter ponderosa pine as decking for timber
    bridges. A manufacturer is producing a demonstration product
    for evaluation and testing.
        Last year's Interior Appropriations bill included language
    that amended the Forest Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
    (FRCSRA). The amendment requires the Forest Service to issue
    regulations governing our log export laws no later than June 1,
    1998.
        Question 66. Can you tell us the status of these
    regulations and if you are going to meet the June 1 deadline?
        Answer. The revisions of the Export Regulations required by
    the 1998 Appropriations Act are being reviewed by the Office of
    the General Council. We plan on publishing the proposed
    revision of the rule in July.
        The method by which the agency accounts for timber sale
    accomplishment differs from region to region.
        Question 67. What is the agency position on potential
    direction from the Committee that it account for timber sale
    accomplishments by volume sold as opposed to volume offered?
        Answer. The Forest Service can track sold volume and/or
    offered volume. By tracking sold volume for accountability,
    emphasis is placed upon developing environmentally sound
    economical sale packages.
        Congress directed the agency to conduct a nationwide study
    comparing tree measurement and scaled sale methods for selling
    timber.
        Question 68. What specific actions have taken place on the
    recommendations from this report?
        Answer. The study, directed by Congress, comparing tree
    measurement and scaling has been submitted to Congress. Many of
    the suggestions were already part of the standard regional
    practices. The report indicated that there are advantages to
    each method of measurement depending on the situation. The
    Washington Office has asked the Regions to evaluate the report
    and make recommendations on how the suggestions might be
    implemented. The replies are due next month.

                               systems management

        The agency has committed to having fully functioning and
    manageable data relative to real property maintenance in the
    ``infrastructure'' data base by the end of fiscal year 1999.
    The Subcommittee expects the agency to comply with this
    commitment.
        Question 69. Are regional and forest unit managers fully
    cognizant of the agency commitment to this deferred maintenance
    system?
        Answer. The Chief has delivered his agenda to the Congress,
    the Department, and the Forest Service employees. Along with
    the Chief's message, the Chief Operations Officer and all
    Deputy Area directors have been stressing the importance of
    being able to easily gather credible information that can be
    shared with others in a timely manner. A significant commitment
    is to address deferred maintenance for facilities and roads and
    this message is being strongly delivered to the field units.
    Currently, Forest Service specialists are meeting to accurately
    describe what deferred maintenance is. Given agreement on basic
    data requirements and definitions, ``infrastructure'' will then
    capture the information required.
        Question 70. Is the agency on schedule in terms of systems
    modifications and definitions that must occur in order to fully
    handle the deferred maintenance information in
    ``infrastructure''.
        Answer. Yes. The agency is working diligently on
    definitions, clarifications, and agreement with the different
    program areas in the Forest Service and the Forest Service is
    seeking standardization with other land based agencies to
    ensure a common understanding of the definitions. The Agency is
    on a short and intense course of action to gain agreement on
    deferred maintenance definitions. The first version of the
    ``infrastructure'' system that will handle deferred maintenance
    information using the new definitions is scheduled to be
    fielded in fiscal year 1999.
        Question 71. Once operational, will system be able to
    generate complete national reports which identifies the amount
    of backlog for all forest service facilities, including roads,
    bridges, trails, buildings and recreational facilities?
        Answer. Once fielded in January, 1999, the system will be
    able to store maintenance needs for these facilities. There
    will be some lag before the data is collected through condition
    surveys, and entered into the system. Some data is now on hand
    from recent inspections that can be entered into the system
    immediately. It will most likely be several years before a
    complete cycle of condition surveys and data entry will occur.
    Before data entry and condition surveys are completed, the
    currently available data can be used to make better estimates
    for the total deferred maintenance backlog for each facility
    type. The system will be able to sum deferred maintenance by
    facility type and provide information for national reports.
        The Bureau of Land Management is implementing an Automated
    Land and Minerals Reporting System (ALMRS) which will provide
    resource information on a national basis from any location
    within BLM.
        Question 72. Does the agency have plans to implement a
    similar system with comparative accessibility?
        Answer. Yes. The Forest Service will implement the
    automated lands project (ALP). This will enable both agencies
    to access each others data in a seamless manner.
        Question 73. What effort is the agency making to assure
    that resource management information systems are fully
    compatible with BLM?
        Answer. There is a joint Forest Service/BLM team designing
    the required data elements to assure interagency compatibility
    in accordance with Federal Geodetic Data Committee standards.

                         forest service administration

        USDA has acquired the Foundation Financial Information
    system (FFIS) for use Department-wide. The agency recently
    announced plans to delay implementation of the system for an
    additional year.
        Question 74. A February 1998 report by GAO states that FFIS
    is not year 2000 compliant. Will this cause problems with
    implementation?
        Answer. No. A year 2000 compliant version of FFIS will be
    installed at the National Finance Center, New Orleans,
    Louisiana, during June/July, 1998.
        Question 75. How will implementation of FFIS affect the
    agency organization? Will additional FTE's be required to
    manage the system effectively?
        Answer. FFIS implementation has significantly impacted
    units currently piloting the new system. In addition, more
    staffing has been assigned to the Agency FFIS project team.
    There has been moderate impact on the remainder of the Agency
    as individuals are trained in the use of FFIS and as units
    prepare for data conversion from the current Central Accounting
    System (CAS) to FFIS. Additional FTE's will be required in
    other Agency units as they begin to implement FFIS. The need
    for these additional FTE's is currently being assessed and
    prioritized with the intent to have needed positions advertised
    and filled within the next 60-75 days.
        Question 76. Based on test results, GAO states that the
    system had significant problems in terms of using FFIS
    information for budgetary and accounting report generation.
    Will this problem be rectified before the system goes ``on-
    line?''
        Answer. Yes. FFIS is currently operating on-line within FS
    Regions 6, 10 and the Pacific Northwest Research Station. The
    Agency is rapidly addressing reporting issues so that Regions
    6, 10, and the Pacific Northwest Research Station may determine
    their funds status for fiscal year 1998. An alternative
    approach is currently being reviewed for the production of
    necessary reports which will involve the use of an FFIS
    reporting module.
        Question 77. In light of the plan to delay implementation,
    is the agency considering different accounting systems that
    could provide better reliability?
        Answer. Based on experience gained in preparation for
    implementing FFIS, the Agency does not believe it would be
    feasible to implement another new accounting system before the
    Agency-wide implementation of FFIS. FFIS is anticipated to be
    implemented Agency-wide on October 1, 1999. The remaining FS
    units, i.e., other than Regions 6, 10 and the Pacific Northwest
    Research Station, will continue to use the Central Accounting
    System (CAS) currently located at the USDA National Finance
    Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Maintenance of accurate
    financial information will continue to be emphasized Agency-
    wide . This emphasis will also facilitate conversion to FFIS.
        Significant changes may occur in agency budget structure
    due to implementation of GPRA and as a result of recently
    announced plans to reorganize.
        Question 78. Will FFIS be able to accommodate these changes
    while the system is being implemented.
        Answer. Yes. FFIS can accommodate a wide variety of options
    involving budget and cost reporting structures which will
    provide support for the Agency to fully implement the
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

                              deferred maintenance

        During the House hearing on agency deferred maintenance,
    the Forest Service committed to examining the efficiency and
    regulatory compliance of its housing program.
        Question 79. What steps is the agency taking to address
    what is clearly poor utilization of employee housing?
        Answer. The Forest Service has taken the following steps to
    address employee housing:
      --Notifying tenants, except those in barracks, that we are reviewing
            all quarters to determine if the quarters are necessary to meet
            Forest Service needs;
      --Utilizing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11
            criteria for decisions regarding new construction and reduction
            of existing quarters;
      --Converting quarters to other uses when there is a need;
      --Reporting to our Lands Staff, for exchange, all quarters on
            administrative sites that have been vacant for over a year as
            well as those quarters that are not occupied by Forest Service
            employees;
      --Surveying all the remaining quarters and identify for disposal
            those that are not required for service or protection or where
            there is available housing (OMB Circular A-11);
      --Documenting the survey and reasons for keeping each unit; and
      --Ensuring that the reduction of quarters is consistent with any
            existing or proposed organizational changes.
        Question 80. When will the agency take aggressive steps to
    eliminate unused housing?
        Answer. We have taken aggressive steps as indicated in our
    response to question 79. We will continue to monitor the survey
    and disposal progress.
        Question 81. The agency's records indicate that quarters
    collections totaled $6.9 million in fiscal year 1997. How does
    this compare to the present estimated cost of bringing housing
    to current standards for condition and maintenance?
        Answer. Industry operation and maintenance costs range from
    2 percent to 4 percent of current replacement value. Our annual
    quarters rental collections (less than 1 percent of current
    replacement value of all improvements) are expended on
    immediate maintenance needs and do not reduce the backlog.
        Question 82. Has the agency considered renting unused
    employee housing to private parties as residences when such
    housing will not be utilized for agency purposes? If not, why
    not?
        Answer. We have permitted the use of a small number of our
    housing units and will continue to do so where the housing is
    vacant now but is needed for future programs.
        There are several reasons why we do not want to ``rent''
    unused housing to private parties:
      --We do not want to, nor do we believe we should, compete with the
            private sector;
      --We wish to a avoid the liability and risk that comes with having
            private citizens living at Government compounds and work
            centers;
      --We do not have the people or time to manage a private housing
            program;
      --We wish to avoid the disruption to Forest Service operations that
            would come from having private citizens living at Forest
            Service sites; and
      --We do not believe that, in general, the ``rents'' collected would
            be adequate to maintain the structures, to make necessary
            upgrades, to provide a reasonable return on investment, and to
            pay the costs of managing the program.
        Question 83. A March 17, 1998, USDA OIG report states that
    the management of maintenance could be significantly enhanced
    the GPRA strategic plan specifically provided emphasis. Does
    the agency intend to implement this finding?
        Answer. The Forest Service GPRA Strategic Plan contains an
    objective under the ``Provide Multiple Benefits'' goal that is
    focused on maintaining an effective infrastructure. This Plan
    was submitted to the Congress and OMB on September 30, 1997.
    That revision will include language to focus on the improvement
    of infrastructure maintenance. The fiscal year 2000 Performance
    plan is being revised to include performance indicators that
    target a reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog. The
    current and fiscal year 1999 performance plans contain
    performance indicators relating to the improvement of road,
    trail, and building maintenance.
        Question 84. Has the agency developed standardized
    definitions for deferred maintenance which will be used in the
    ``infrastructure'' data base?
        Answer. We are now developing standard definitions for use
    in the various program areas. The Forest Service definitions
    are based upon the definitions put forth by the Federal
    Accounting Standards Advisory Board in their Statement No. 6 of
    June 1996. The various program areas (recreation, roads, dams,
    etc.) will incorporate the definitions into specific direction
    to the field, and develop guidance for implementation. The Work
    Items module of the ``infrastructure'' data base is being
    modified to accept data based upon the standard definitions.
    The modified INFRA system is scheduled for release to the field
    in January of 1999.
        Question 85. How do these definitions compare to those used
    by the Department of the Interior?
        Answer. The Forest Service is coordinating with the
    Department of Interior striving to make our definitions
    consistent.
        The Forest Service does not perform all of its maintenance
    activities from the Infrastructure Management line item.
        Question 86. What is the agency's position regarding
    consolidating all recreation maintenance activities into this
    line item?
        Answer. The Forest Service supports changes to its budget
    structure that provide more flexibility and accountability to
    managers on the ground to address resource management needs.
    The backlog of maintenance work for trails, roads, and fire,
    recreation, administrative, and other facilities is at several
    hundred million dollars. Consolidating all recreation
    maintenance activities--recreation facilities and trails
    maintenance--into the Infrastructure Management budget line
    item could serve to more effectively highlight and increase
    understanding of the budgetary issues associated with
    infrastructure maintenance. However, consolidating these
    activities in a manner that provides less budgetary flexibility
    to managers, such as the creation of unnecessary expanded
    budget line items, would be counterproductive. Instead, a more
    comprehensive, both to provide additional visibility to budget
    issues, along with flexibility and more accountability for
    local forest managers may be more efficient. The Administration
    is analyzing options and looks forward to working with the
    Committee on these questions.

                          road construction moratorium

        The Forest Service implemented a roads policy with one
    component being a proposed moratorium on road construction in
    roadless areas. Forest Service estimates are that this
    moratorium will reduce the fiscal year 1999 timber sales
    program by 100 million board feet. I fear the Administration
    may be under-estimating the long term impacts of the
    moratorium.
        Question 87. The committee assumes work has ceased on
    development work on projects in roadless areas pending
    completion of the 18 month ``time out'' period. Assuming your
    line officers are doing exactly that, isn't it true that
    several years could elapse before these sales are brought back
    on line?
        Answer. The assumption that work has already ceased is not
    correct. The final rule has not been published nor implemented.
    In addition, the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System
    issued the following direction on April 2, 1998 to clarify the
    concern you have.
        As you are aware, the Forest Service published a Proposed
    Interim Rule in the Federal Register on January 28, 1998. The
    interim rule will not be final until public comments are
    evaluated, and a final rule is published in the Federal
    Register. This is at least a month or more from now.
        We are aware that some line officers have canceled projects
    in response to the draft proposal. I want to emphasize that the
    Federal Register announcement makes it clear that this rule
    will not be effective until the date of publication of the
    final interim rule. The chief wrote to the Forest Supervisor's
    recommending the following:
        ``There are many good reasons to cancel, modify, or
    lengthen the planning process for projects proposed in roadless
    areas. You should continue to use your best judgement about
    what projects should go forward and what projects should be
    cancelled. However, I remind you that you should not use the
    draft interim rule, nor the anticipation of a final rule, as a
    reason to cancel or delay continued analysis or decisionmaking
    for projects.''
        It is anticipated that once the interim rule is finalized
    any project subject to the suspension will need to be analyzed
    in light of new transportation analysis process before it can
    be implemented. This will cause some delay.

                   trail reconstruction/construction program

        The fiscal year 1999 budget request reflects a reduction in
    trail reconstruction/construction of $14.3 million. The
    justification further states that $15 million of the program
    will be funded from the Road and Trail fund.
        Question 88. How will the agency increase its attention to
    reducing backlog if it reduces requests in appropriated funds
    in favor of offsets against other funds?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we propose funding the Trail
    Reconstruction and Construction program from both Appropriated
    (CNTR) funds at $13.2 million, and from the 10 percent Road and
    Trail Fund (10 percent R&T) for $15 million, for a total of
    $28.2 million, a total increase of $1 million from fiscal year
    1998 of $27.3 million in Appropriated CNTR funds. The 10
    percent R&T will be used for the same activities as the CNTR
    funds, and on the national forests in the States that generate
    the receipts. The Appropriated dollars will be used to backfill
    to bring the total on each forest up to the program level. To
    determine the feasibility of this approach, we ran a test
    allocation based on the fiscal year 1997 receipts by forest. If
    the fiscal year 1997 receipt levels remain the same or increase
    in fiscal year 1999, by State, it appears to be possible to
    provide the for the trail reconstruction and construction
    program levels between the two funds. This program level of a
    combined $28.2 would include addressing some of the backlog
    trail miles.

                         forest service accountability

        Senator Gorton noted in his hearing remarks, that the
    General Accounting Office gave a very strong indictment of the
    agency's commitment to improving decision making and
    efficiency, and tracking its finances.
        Question 89. Does the Forest Service plan to fix the
    serious problems noted by GAO? If so, what are the specifics?
        Answer. The GAO report discussed significant resource and
    financial management deficiencies within the Forest Service
    (FS), including: inadequate attention to improving the Agency's
    decision-making process; an inability to improve accountability
    for performance; a lack of agreement within the Agency on how
    to portray long term strategic goals; an inability to address
    issues that transcend administrative boundaries and
    jurisdictions; an inability to operate under the differences in
    environmental statutory requirements; slow progress in taking
    aggressive actions to correct deficiencies; and a lack of
    integration among national processes, data structures, systems
    and information. These are major challenges. While the Agency
    acknowledges that there is much work yet to be done, a good
    start in implementing long-needed changes has been completed.
        A Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda (Agenda) has
    recently been announced to help with these changes. The Agenda
    focuses special attention on four key emphasis areas: watershed
    health and restoration, sustainable forest ecosystem
    management, forest roads, and recreation, and is a clear
    expression of direction--direction that is supported strongly
    by the American people and that will be implemented in strict
    accordance with the law. One of the issues facing the Agency is
    the tradition of trying to do everything and failing to set a
    clear set of priorities. This has led to some questionable
    decision-making and failure to implement some projects,
    particularly those that are complex and contentious. The Agenda
    will give a more focused direction and priorities to FS
    employees over the next few years.
        The Agenda is being implemented through the Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) process. GPRA is an
    extremely useful tool for linking the Agency mission to
    appropriate strategies and results. Priorities set by this
    Agenda will be reflected in appropriate GPRA goals, objectives
    and performance measures. Further, specific GPRA performance
    measures are being linked to individual standards for FS line
    officers.
        Significant improvements are being made in the area of
    financial management and accountability. The Agency continues
    to take aggressive action to ensure that the FS becomes one of
    the most efficient agencies in the Federal Government. While
    much work is yet to be done, the Agency has made a good start
    in implementing long-needed changes.
        In conjunction with the USDA Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer (OCFO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and
    the USDA National Finance Center (NFC), the FS is working
    towards implementing a new general ledger system called the
    Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). Consistent with
    this joint effort, a pilot project to implement FFIS in several
    FS regions is currently under way. While progress is being
    made, implementation issues are being managed continuously. As
    FFIS is implemented, FS financial management requirements will
    be modified as appropriate and opportunities will be identified
    where Congress, in its authorizing and appropriations
    processes, can help the Agency achieve a strong and accountable
    financial management system.
        Additionally, the Coopers and Lybrand accounting firm was
    commissioned to review the Agency's financial management
    situation. Their report, released in March, makes
    recommendations on streamlining and clarifying financial
    management systems. These recommendations are being carefully
    reviewed and appropriate action taken to strengthen financial
    management in the Forest Service.

                             columbia basin studies

        This Subcommittee has major reservations about the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Study. When the Forest Service first
    undertook this effort with the Bureau of Land Management,
    Congress was assured that planning over large areas such as the
    Columbia Basin would promptly result in making final land
    management decisions. Now, due largely to the Endangered
    Species Act requirements for consultation with other regulatory
    agencies; namely the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, it appears the Columbia Basin study
    is little more than a bureaucratic process that will be
    followed by an additional cumbersome local forest planning
    process. This seems terribly inefficient. Once again it appears
    the Forest Service is affected by analysis paralysis.
        Question 90. What effort can be made by the Administration
    to rein in these regulatory agencies, so the analysis will only
    occur at one level or the other?
        Answer. An Executive Steering Committee was developed by
    the Director of the BLM and Chief of the Forest Service to
    manage the project. The committee is composed of the BLM State
    Directors from Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Montana;
    Regional Directors of the National Marine Fisheries Service, US
    Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency;
    Forest Service Station Directors from the Pacific Northwest
    Research Station and the Intermountain Forest and Range
    Experiment Station and the Forest Service Regional Foresters
    from the Pacific Northwest, Northern and Intermountain Regions.
    This Committee is working hard with a broad array of
    governments including 100 counties and 22 tribes, partners; and
    interested groups and individuals to carry out a very complex
    task because of the issues and size of the area involved. They
    are striving to find a way to balance the statutory
    responsibilities of five federal agencies with the needs of
    State and local government and demands of industries and
    conservationists, and the desire of an even broader array of
    individuals and groups.
        Question 91. In order to move this process forward, does
    the Forest Service plan to reduce substantially or eliminate
    requirements for local unit planning following issuance of the
    final EIS?
        Answer. The project decisions will lay out the conditions
    for future management to assure sustainable populations of
    species across the planning area. It will provide the framework
    for future management. It will create consistency regarding
    broad scale issues being integrated into forest and resource
    management plans, creating a better expectation for goods and
    services to be provided from our public lands. Although we
    won't know for certain until a decision is made, we anticipate
    that the ICBEMP ROD will identify broad scale desired future
    conditions for vegetation, road management conditions, aquatic/
    terrestrial strategies, and some management prescriptions. If
    this were to happen, the need to address these types of broad
    scale concerns at the project level would be eliminated.
        Question 92. What impact will the plan have on local land
    managers ability to make important management decisions in a
    prompt and efficient manner?
        Answer. One of the purposes of the Project is to provide a
    broad scale framework for local land managers to make local
    decisions promptly and efficiently. With this framework,
    managers will be able to focus on local issues and not expend
    time and energy on issues that they can not resolve at their
    level. For example, the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD)
    will contain direction concerning conservation and restoration
    of aquatic systems. When followed, it will provide assurances
    to local managers that their actions are contributing to the
    restoration of aquatic species and not a continuing decline.
        This project has become too grand in concept, especially if
    local planning efforts must continue. If Congress continues to
    authorize this project, this Subcommittee expects the Forest
    Service and the Department of Interior to make it more
    streamlined and focused.
        Question 93. What are the decisions that absolutely must be
    made at the Basin level, and what other aspects of the study
    can be eliminated?
        Answer. The project will be revisiting this question in
    developing the Final EIS and ROD. There may be decisions that
    can be deferred and are more appropriately made at other
    levels. Our intent would be to identify these issues and as
    part of the decision for this Project, describe how and when
    they would be addressed.
        At a minimum, the Project must replace interim direction,
    specifically PACFISH and INFISH. There are two court decisions
    (Prairie Wood Products et. al. v. Glickman et. al. and Friends
    of the Wild Swan et. al. v. U.S. Forest Service et. al.) that
    expect the Project to replace the interim strategies with a
    long-term strategy.
        In previous testimony the Forest Service stated that
    through this process it would prevent future endangered species
    listings; but it appears that species listings is moving right
    along, including Steelhead, Bulltrout, the Lynx and others. The
    agency doesn't seem to be succeeding.
        Question 94. Will a final record of decision prevent
    further endangered species listings?
        Answer. It is certainly our intention to build into the
    Final EIS and ROD the necessary analysis and direction to avoid
    the need to list additional species where all or a major
    portion of the species population resides on federal lands.
    Furthermore, it is our intention to provide the necessary
    direction to ensure that no listing of additional species occur
    as a result of management actions on Forest Service and BLM
    lands. This intent is clearly written into the goals for the
    Project. The information and analysis prepaid for the Project
    will allow State and local officials throughout the Basin in
    their decisions over a multi-state region.
        Question 95. What will it take in the record of decision to
    accomplish this goal?
        Answer. By implementing the Final EIS and ROD, it is our
    intent to avoid further listings on federal lands.
        Question 96. What is the impact of the plan on private
    property?
        Answer. Decisions made in the Final EIS and Record of
    Decisions will not apply to private or other non-federal lands.
    Decisions made by the Project will only apply to the 72 million
    acres of Forest Service-or BLM-administered land within the
    project area. How those lands are managed could affect other
    lands; just as current management of federal lands affects
    other lands, and private management affects federally
    administered lands.
        It is our intent that the aggressive restoration strategies
    of the preferred alternative positively affect other lands
    through, for example, a reduction in the occurrence of
    uncharacteristic wildfire and more systematic and aggressive
    treatment of noxious weeds.
        The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal
    land managers look at both how they might affect surrounding
    lands as well as how management on those lands might affect
    federal lands. Chapter 4 of the draft statement outlines what
    those possible cumulative effects might be.
        The Columbia Basin Study has been extremely expensive, with
    the BLM and Forest Service spending over $15 million on the
    study alone and estimating the need for $125 million to
    implement the plan.
        Question 97. To what degree is success of the plan
    dependent on these agencies receiving the funding increases
    requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
        Answer. The funding increase requested in the President's
    1999 budget is the amount of the funding needed to begin
    implementation of the plan in the last quarter of fiscal year
    1999. That funding increase is based on the preferred
    alternative (Alternative 4) in the draft statement. Between the
    draft and the final statement, we expect there will be changes
    made to Alternative 4 and that implementation funding may need
    to be recalculated.
        If full funding does not occur, we will still be able to
    implement the plan with the funding the agencies do receive.
    However, the rate of implementation will be decreased
    appropriately. Receiving less than full funding will make it
    harder to achieve the Desired Range of Future Conditions called
    for in the plan. There will be a higher risk of more severe
    wildfires, reduced activity levels, and fewer restoration
    associated jobs. Reduced funding would also affect the
    predictability of goods and services from federal lands within
    the project area
        Question 98. Does the plan have any tangible benefit if the
    agency is held at or below fiscal year 1998 levels?
        Answer. Yes. There are at least three tangible benefits.
    First, land managers will know at the broad scale where they
    can invest the funding they get and make a difference, from
    both a biological and social/economic standpoint. In other
    words, they will have information that allows them to
    prioritize how money is spent in order to get the greatest
    return on their investment, or said another way, the biggest
    bang from their buck.
        Second, this landscape strategy will better position the
    land management agencies, both Federal and State, to compete
    for watershed and fish/wildlife habitat restoration dollars
    from other funding sources. Having a strategy that shows how
    project level work can contribute to restoration of fish and
    wildlife or improvement of water quality throughout the Basin
    could be an effective tool for developing partnerships and
    obtaining additional restoration funding. Also, local officials
    and non-profit organizations can target key lands for land
    improvement or protection to support land and community
    development efforts.
        Lastly, the current interim direction will be replaced with
    a long-term strategy meeting the expectations of the courts.
        See answer to question No. 93.
        Question 99. What would be the consequences of not
    finishing this study and not issuing a record of decisions?
        Answer. Management of BLM or Forest Service administered
    lands would be vulnerable to legal injunctions. Interim
    strategies (such as PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens)
    would be vulnerable to lawsuits since recent court rulings (see
    answer for S-093) expect the Project to replace the interim
    strategies with a long-term strategy. Without a long-term
    strategy, endangered species consultations on land management
    plans for Snake River sockeye and spring/summer and fall
    chinook salmon would be moot, and the agency would be exposed
    to the same vulnerability to wide-ranging injunctions.
    Resolution of these injunctions would likely be difficult
    because of the lack of a consistent strategy for species
    protection across the range.
        The release of the Project's scientific reports creates a
    situation where the BLM and National Forests must show they
    have taken the new information into account in their decisions
    on individual projects (like timber sales) or on updates to
    their land use plans. For the latter, there will need to be a
    consistent interpretation of the information, or the agencies
    will be exposed to legal challenges based on eventual
    inconsistencies of using the science. The risk of inconsistent
    interpretation of the science can be avoided by completing the
    EISs and issuing a Record of Decision.
        Question 100. What value will the science conducted to this
    point in developing the DEIS have if the project is terminated?
        Answer. The science conducted thus far adds to our overall
    understanding of the biological systems we manage and the
    social and economic systems that depend on them. The science
    portion of the Project has developed three major pieces of
    work: A Framework for Ecosystem Management, the Integrated
    Assessment, and An Assessment of Ecosystem Components. These
    documents bring together the most current information on
    biological, social and economic conditions within the interior
    Columbia Basin, and in particular information important to
    federal land management. The primary focus of the science
    effort has been at the Basin scale so federal land managers
    could develop strategies to address basin-wide problems.
        The Framework and the Science Assessment describe the
    biological and social/economic risks and opportunities that
    exist within the Basin. Managing the risks and opportunities is
    the point of BLM and Forest Service management. In this sense
    then the agencies have the opportunity to be more efficient and
    effective in their management. The science will be valuable for
    future decisions at multiple scales.
        If the Project's Final EIS and ROD are not the decision
    mechanism to address the broadest scale of risk and
    opportunities, it leaves a void at this scale. This result
    would leave as unsettled the issue of a strategy to manage
    risks to listed fish species, old-growth dependent species, and
    forest and rangeland health within the Basin.
        Question 101. What factors contributed to the wide breadth
    that this study is covering? Why is it addressing every issue
    under the sun including those which would be addressed by local
    forest plans?
        Answer. The Project is focusing on a number of issues, such
    as the viability of wide ranging wildlife and fish species and
    forest and rangeland health, that transcend forest and BLM
    district boundaries. We will not address those issues most
    appropriately dealt with at the local level.
        Question 102. Couldn't some of these issues be addressed in
    different ways than through this massive analysis and thousands
    of pages of material which is too complex for most people to
    comprehend?
        Answer. If it were not for some overarching issues like
    forest health or managing anadromous fish populations, we might
    be able to plan at a different level. However, as Judge Dwyer
    pointed out in his ruling on the Northwest Forest Plan ``given
    the current conditions of the forests, there is no way the
    agencies could comply with the environmental laws without
    planning on a ecosystem basis.'' Given this interpretation, we
    believe such issues as forest health and anadromous fish
    populations could not be effectively or efficiently addressed
    by plan or project level decisions.
        We will learn from this experience so that future landscape
    and ecosystem plans will be more expeditious and cheaper to
    complete. Also, the Project needed to establish a foundation or
    resource conditions, which, apart from some timber health
    measures, have not been systematically pursued in most forests.
    This data will become part of the on-going survey data
    collected by the federal agencies. This database will allow
    future ecosystem plans (and forest plans in general) a giant
    headstart.

                              county stabilization

        On April 2, the Department of Agriculture forwarded to the
    President draft legislation to establish a stabilized level of
    payments to States for distribution to counties in which
    National Forest are located. The Administration states that the
    purpose of this legislation is to provide counties with a
    predictable level of payments in lieu of the dramatic
    reductions most counties have sustained over the past several
    years.
        Question 103. Is this proposal an Administration effort to
    use the stabilization plan as a politically palatable way to
    further reduce the planned timber cut from National Forests?
        Answer. Implementation of the payments to States
    stabilization proposal should have no effect on the timber sale
    program. Decisions regarding the timber program will continue
    to be made independently of the payments to States funding as
    they have in the past.
        This proposal does not have the support of local county
    governments, which see it as a form of welfare that can't even
    begin to compensate counties for the loss of an industry which
    provided jobs in addition to reasonable levels of county
    payments from federal receipts.
        Question 104. How does the agency respond to this
    criticism?
        Answer. With revenue collections declining, States and
    counties are receiving fewer and fewer dollars from the Federal
    government. Payments to States funding has declined 35 percent
    (from $361 million down to $233 million) since 1989. The
    payments to States proposal will provide stabilized payment
    levels independent of local employment issues. This
    stabilization will provide local communities improved knowledge
    of future payments, permitting better planning and enhanced
    rural development efforts. Furthermore, this proposal will
    provide a permanent replacement for the special payment
    guarantee, which expires in 2003, for counties affected by the
    northern spotted owl decisions.

                            forest service research

        This Subcommittee was generous to the Forest Service
    Research program in fiscal year 1998. In fact the program
    received an increase of $8 million over the President's
    request. In fiscal year 1999 the President's request calls for
    an increase of $10 million.
        Question 105. Is the Forest Service using these significant
    increases to conduct research in areas that will actually
    result in on-the-ground management that increases multiple use?
        Answer. The primary strength of Forest Service Research &
    Development is developing land management options for solving
    complex forest and rangeland problems associated with multiple
    use. A majority of our research program has as the ultimate
    objective, options for on-the-ground multiple use management of
    the diversity of natural resources on forest and rangelands in
    the Nation.
        The $8 million increase provided by the Subcommittee in
    fiscal year 1998 is allocated for, and addresses the following
    multiple uses:
      --$1.6 million across all Research Stations and their programs to
            partially cover fixed cost increases. $3.0 million to enhance
            and conduct the on-the-ground Forest Inventory and Analysis
            (FIA) program. This funding was allocated as follows: Southern
            Research Station ($2,000,000); Northeastern Station ($155,000);
            North Central Station ($550,000); Rocky Mountain Station
            ($175,000) and Pacific Northwest Station ($120,000). The focus
            of these funds is to expand the development of our annual
            inventory system, which if completely funded and developed
            should result in an FIA cycle averaging 5-years and to continue
            to integrate our Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) system plots
            with FIA as well as expanding the suite of data collected and
            analyzed to provide a more complete understanding of ecological
            conditions and trends in forest health. This inventory is the
            primary source of information used by states, industry and the
            Forest Service to assess current conditions and trends in the
            nation's forest resources. While FIA focuses primarily on
            inventorying the Nation's timber resources, it does inventory
            other vegetative and habitat cover. The integrated FIA and FHM
            system will further concentrate multiple use resources as well
            as forest health.
      --$1.0 million to Rocky Mountain Research Station: $700,000 to
            address the need for effective and economically efficient ways
            to reduce fuels and improve forest health within the
            southwestern wildland/urban interface; and $300,000 to carry
            out research studies to find applicable forest and rangeland
            management treatments needed to restore forest health and ways
            to monitor the effectiveness of these treatments. This research
            supports the Forest Service Region 3 southwest wildland
            ecosystem restoration project in AZ and NM.
      --$500,000 to the North Central Research Station to enter into a
            collaborative partnership with Purdue University, the Indiana
            Department of Natural Resources, and private industry to
            establish a Fine Hardwoods Tree Improvement and Regeneration
            Center. The focus of the Center's research will be on finding
            management techniques to curb the decline of fine quality
            hardwood forests and improve forest health in the central
            hardwoods region of the U.S.
      --$450,000 to the Pacific Southwest Station to support the Institute
            of Pacific Islands Forestry in Hawaii. These funds will support
            studies aimed at: restoring and protecting Hawaii's native
            forests to provide economic and environmental benefits;
            controlling exotic plants that threaten Hawaii's native
            forests; and providing effective management techniques to
            manage and protect Hawaii's coastal wetland forests which
            provide wood, clean water and aquatic resources for people.
      --$1,500,000 to the Pacific Northwest Station to initiate long term
            integrated studies to evaluate methods to improve management
            compatibilities among multiple uses on Federal Lands. Through
            new and existing studies they are focusing on key management
            and economic issues that provide opportunities for producing
            wood as-well-as create, restore, and maintain wildlife habitat,
            biodiversity, watershed and aesthetic values.
        The $10 million increase requested in the fiscal year 1999
    President's budget also addresses needs of on-the-ground
    management for multiple use.
        $6.0 million across Stations for further expansion of the
    annual inventory to move toward 5-year cycle of the Forest
    Inventory and Analysis program and integrate and expand the
    Forest Health Monitoring program on public and private lands of
    the U.S.
        $1.0 million to address information needs for implementing
    the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
    (ICBEMP). Research will evaluate on-the-ground management
    activities to better apply prescribed fire, modify grazing
    systems, control noxious weeds, apply silvicultural treatments,
    and find effective indicators that the Basin ecosystems remain
    sustainable under the demands of various multiple uses.
        $3.0 million to develop economically feasible and efficient
    technology to help industry and the people of the U.S.
    understand, adapt to, and mitigate the potential impacts of
    climate change, i.e., how people can help reduce greenhouse
    gasses and carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels;
    and how people can help store carbon by using more durable and
    longer lasting forest products in their homes and businesses.
        Last year this Subcommittee provided an additional $1.5
    million to the Pacific Northwest Research Station without
    specific earmarks; only emphasizing the need to increase
    emphasis on commodity outputs.
        Question 106. How has that money been used for this
    purpose?
        Answer. Following the guidance of Senate language for the
    fiscal year 1998 Appropriation, the $1.5 million has been used
    to initiate long term integrated studies to evaluate ``improved
    methods of increasing commodity production in an
    environmentally acceptable manner.'' This is being accomplished
    in collaboration with institutions such as the University of
    Washington's Center for Streamside Studies and the Washington
    State Department of Natural Resources through the Station's
    Initiative: ``Compatibilities between wood production and other
    forest values and uses on Federal Lands.'' Through new and
    existing studies we are focusing on the key issues that provide
    opportunities as well as remove barriers to producing wood
    while creating or restoring wildlife habitat, biodiversity,
    watershed and aesthetic values.
        Additional funds were provided to study methods for
    utilization of small diameter timber on the Colville National
    Forest and to initiate a comprehensive small diameter
    utilization study in Southeast Alaska.
        Question 107. What is the status of these projects?
        Answer. Significant research work is already underway in
    Southeast Alaska, Western Washington, and Western Oregon to
    address several key concerns of federal, state, and private
    land managers. Work has been initiated to evaluate impacts of
    alternative silvicultural treatments on wood quality in young
    growth stands, particularly for upland riparian forests, a
    topic of high priority for private industry in the Douglas-fir
    region as well as the coastal western hemlock type. Modeling
    capabilities are being accelerated to better link management
    alternatives with desired outcomes at multiple scales. In
    particular, forest vegetation simulation models are linked with
    visualization and digital elevation modeling to address
    commodity production while maintaining wildlife and anadromous
    fish habitat. The necessary cooperative agreements with
    regional universities are also being drawn up and expect to be
    in place by beginning of fiscal year 1999.
        Question 108. When can we expect to see on-the-ground
    management results from these funds?
        Answer. A complete Problem Analysis will be finished by the
    end of this fiscal year (FY 1998). Where as most of fiscal year
    1998 and fiscal year 1999 will see completion of several
    ``synthesis'' types of products as a follow-up to the Problem
    Analysis as well as initiation of work by the universities, the
    bulk of the information will be summarized after 3 to 5 years.
    However, we will complete some near term products (e.g., on
    wood quality) that will be made available to land managers
    early next year.
        Question 109. How is the Chief personally involved in
    setting priorities for the Research program that will
    ultimately lead to increased multiple use management on the
    ground?
        Answer. The Chief sets his priorities for the Forest
    Service organization. He has clearly set there priorities out
    through the FS NRA and the Agency's Result Act (GPRA) strategic
    plan and annual performance plan. He conveys these priorities
    through continuous written and verbal dialogue with his Deputy
    Chiefs and other top leadership team members. The Deputy Chief
    for R&D has two major responsibilities relative to setting
    priorities. One responsibility is to maintain constant dialogue
    with the Chief and carry his messages and priorities to the
    Research leadership, who are responsible for implementing these
    priorities at the field level. A second responsibility for the
    Deputy Chief is to convey to the Chief what Research leadership
    views as science priorities. Scientists and Forest Service R&D
    are responsible for staying at the cutting edge of science and
    looking strategically ahead at what issues and problems may
    occur in the future.
        Beginning in fiscal year 1995, Research scientists provided
    extensive support to revision of the Tongass Land Management
    Plan in Alaska. Research support to the Alaska Region continues
    today as post-plan activities are conducted. Based on findings
    by GAO, the Forest Service was unable to document if Research
    funds were used to support this effort; which would have been
    improper. Despite agency direction in 1997 to strictly document
    such jointly funded projects, GAO found that the agency's 1998
    final budget allocation failed to comply with this requirement.
        Question 110. Does the Forest service recommend that small
    hydro projects be removed from the President's Forest Plan in
    light of the fact that (1) Option 9 was designed for large-
    scale forest management, not small hydro; (2) the Forest
    Service is not acting on hydro matters; (3) the FERC has
    jurisdiction to declare consistency with National Forest use;
    and (4) Option 9 and the Federal Power Act cover much of the
    same subject matter?
        Answer. Since the completion of an audit by OIG in May,
    1995, the Forest Service has worked diligently to respond to
    the findings from the report. A complete copy of the audit
    findings was provided to all Stations in July 1995. One of our
    first accomplishments was based on Finding No. 3 ``Controls
    Needed to Ensure Federal Procurement Regulations are Followed
    for External Research Organizations,'' and Recommendation 3b of
    the OIG Report, which directed research stations to document
    the source of funds for cooperative agreements. The majority of
    the issues identified has been accomplished by updating and
    providing further guidance to project managers through the
    Forest Service Manual and Handbooks, Interim Directives and
    Management Reviews. In addition, Forest Service Research
    provide guidance to the Stations in the Explanatory Notes and
    Program Budget Advice. These systems in place serve as the
    basis for internal management and control of Forest Service
    Research programs and the primary source of administration
    direction to all Agency employees.
        Question 111. If the Forest Service does not recommend that
    small hydro projects be removed from Option 9, what changes in
    the Plan should be made to expedite approval of such projects
    in a manner that does not penalize hydro developers?
        Answer. All Research Stations have been directed to have in
    place a procedure to document the source of funds for
    cooperative agreements, as well as a process to review them for
    proper authority. For example, we have established a procedure
    and template form for documenting research and collaborative
    agreements, which includes detailed instructions and examples.
        Forest Service Research will continue to work on providing
    the appropriate information and training to project managers to
    further their understanding of appropriation law and the
    authority that accompanies it.
        In addition, as stated above, the Forest Service Manuals,
    Interim Directives, Explanatory Notes, and the Program Budget
    Advice provides guidance and directions for the entire Research
    program.
        Congress provided funds in the fiscal year 1998
    appropriations process to study methods to utilize materials
    removed during hazard reduction operations. This is
    particularly important as urban population expands deeper into
    forest lands.
        Question 112. What is the status of these efforts?
        Answer. The Joint Interagency Fire Science Program was
    initiated in fiscal year 1998 to provide research, development,
    and application support for expanded fuels management
    activities on federal lands. Activities will include:
    assessment of fuel hazard problems; ecological, environmental,
    and socioeconomic effects of fuel management treatments;
    strategies for treatment scheduling; and monitoring of
    treatment effects. The Forest Service contribution to this
    program is $4 million in fiscal year 1998 and proposed at $4
    million in fiscal year 1999. This funding is part of the
    Wildland Fire Management Fire Operations budget.
        Question 113. How will the Forest Service apply these
    efforts to actual on-the-ground activities?
        Answer. The activities listed for the Fire Science Program
    are intended to provide managers information, data, models, and
    process for implementing the fuel management program. Of
    particular importance is the prioritizing of projects and the
    effects of treatment activities which will be used by local
    mangers to determine a planned fuel management program and for
    the allocation of budget and targets based on the assessment
    and national priorities.

                              minerals and geology

        In 1982, Congress authorized the Mount St. Helens National
    Volume Monument. The exchange of surface and minerals with
    private landowners was to be completed within a year after the
    act was signed. However, approximately, 10,000 acres of private
    minerals remain stranded in the monument area. Legislation has
    been introduced that would complete this minerals exchange.
    However, the Subcommittee prefers that this issue be worked out
    between the agencies involved (Forest Service and BLM) and the
    affected companies (Weyerhaeuser and Burlington Northern).
        Question 114. What is the status of this issue?
        Answer. Since 1982 we have been negotiating with
    Weyerhaeuser and Burlington Resources (formally Burlington
    Northern). We reached agreement on land and mineral exchanges
    resulting in the acquisition of 27,106 acres of surface and
    19,234 acres of subsurface interests within the Monument. The
    most recent agreement was in 1991, when we acquired 18,051
    acres of mineral and geothermal interests through exchange.
        As evidenced by the previous accomplishments, we believe
    that we can continue to operate as provided in the Act under
    ``voluntary exchange transaction'' as a means to acquire the
    remaining 10,750 acres of mineral and geothermal interests.
        We recently completed a new appraisal to estimate the
    current market value of the remaining 10,750 acres.
        We initiated negotiations on April 1, 1998, with both
    companies in an attempt to reach agreement on the current
    market value of the remaining non-federal subsurface interests.
    Two follow-up negotiation meetings are scheduled during May
    1998.
        If accomplished, our objective will be to develop a final
    exchange transaction as a means of acquiring these property
    interests.

                              financial management

        As part of the fiscal year 1998 Senate Appropriation Act
    report language, the agency was directed to provide a status of
    the Brush Disposal fund. In past years this analysis would
    include the cost of Brush Disposal work to be performed so that
    available cash on hand and to be collected could be compared to
    the cost of performing the work. Maintaining information on the
    cost of work to be performed has been discontinued.
        Question 115. Why is this figure no longer reported?
        Answer. Current direction to the Regions concerning
    management and accountability of Brush Disposal funds has been
    inadequate. In fiscal year 1998 the Forest Service has drafted
    Handbook procedures to manage and account for Brush Disposal
    funds similar to the procedures used for KV and Salvage Sale
    Funds. This draft policy and procedures will be fully
    implemented by October 1, 1998. As such, in fiscal year 1999
    the Forest Service will be able to analyze the Brush Disposal
    funds for each proclaimed National Forest to determine
    available cash on hand and to be collected and compare these
    costs to the actual costs of performing the work.
        Question 116a. How does the agency know the full status of
    its fund if it does not maintain this information?
        Answer. The Forest Service has recognized its deficiencies
    in the management and accountability of Brush Disposal Funds.
    The new policy and procedures that will be issued in fiscal
    year 1998 will improve the agency's management of these funds.
        Question 116b. Is there a similar deficit of information
    regarding KV funds?
        Answer. No. KV funds can be analyzed for each proclaimed
    National Forest to determine available cash on hand and to be
    collected and compare these costs to the actual costs of
    performing the work.

                           state and private forestry

        Question 117. How will assumption of the Rural Community
    Fire Protection program enhance services provided by the Forest
    Service in overall Cooperative Fire Protection program?
        Answer. Assumption of the RCFP program will increase
    efficiency of overall program management by eliminating the
    transfer of funds between two federal agencies. This should
    decrease the administrative workload and allow maximum
    allocation of dollars to the project level. By having
    responsibility of the program budget and development, the
    Forest Service will be more effective and efficient in planning
    cooperative fire protection activities with States and rural
    volunteer fire departments and determine assistance needs and
    priorities. By accomplishing the program objectives of
    assisting local fire departments to train, equip and organize,
    the Forest Service will benefit through the increased
    firefighting capability of its cooperators in the wildland
    urban interface.
        Question 118. To what extent are State and Private programs
    involved in Agroforestry issues such as development of
    specialty products such as mushrooms, ginseng, etc?
        Answer. The National Agroforestry Center (NAC) which is co-
    sponsored by State and Private Forestry, has developed and
    distributed brochures on agroforestry and its relation to
    agriculture on a very wide variety of topics. The NAC is
    participating in the Enterprise Development Through
    Agroforestry conference, October 4-7 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    The primary purpose of this conference is to promote
    agroforestry for the production of crops, including mushrooms,
    ginseng and others. The NAC activities and programs are
    technical transfer of materials to natural resource
    professionals that deliver forest stewardship, urban forestry
    and economic assistance programs to the general public.
        Recently an ``Action Strategy'' was developed for the State
    and Private Forestry program.
        Question 119. How will this program change emphasis from
    existing programs?
        Answer. The emphasis on existing programs will not be
    reduced. Several issues will have emphasis, such as sustainable
    natural resources and communities, watershed issues, and
    conditions; urban forest resources, forest information for
    landowners and managers, and tribal government relations.
        Question 120. How will this ``action strategy'' affect
    future budget requests?
        Answer. The ``action strategy'' draws from a number of
    sources including the President's Clean Water Initiative, as
    well, as the findings and recommendations of the November 1997
    National Research Council Report ``Forested Landscapes in
    Perspective: Prospects for Sustainable Management of America's
    Non-federal Forests.'' This study was commissioned by the
    Forest Service to assess the status of the nation's non-federal
    forests and the role of the Federal Government in contributing
    to sustainable management on non-federal lands. In the coming
    year, we will develop specific and detailed costs to implement
    the Action Strategy for inclusion in future budget requests.

                               alaska subsistence

        Question 121. What is the current situation in Alaska
    regarding fish and wildlife management, and how does this
    potentially affect future Forest Service programs?
        Answer. In December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court found
    the State's subsistence law unconstitutional in its decision in
    McDowell v. State of Alaska. The court held that the rural
    preference for subsistence uses violated the Alaska
    Constitution. This decision placed the State out of compliance
    with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    (ANILCA) Title VIII. As a result, since 1990 The Department of
    the Interior and The Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)
    have had management responsibility for subsistence hunting,
    fishing, and trapping on Federal public lands in Alaska. Up
    until now the focus of the program has been mainly on upland
    animals with very little fishery involvement. The costs
    associated with these federal subsistence management
    responsibilities have had budget impacts on Forest Service
    wildlife habitat management activities.
        Question 122. What will it cost to implement the extended
    federal fisheries jurisdiction regulations in fiscal year 1999
    and how much of this is included in the President's request?
        Answer. The USDI and USDA have identified fiscal year 1999
    funding needs of $9.5 million to initiate the additional
    subsistence management effort in Alaska, including program
    administration, resource monitoring and law enforcement. Of
    this amount, $3,000,000 would be for the Forest Service. These
    estimates recognize the current Congressional moratorium will
    expire on December 1, 1998, and that fiscal year 1999 would
    fund start-up costs and operational costs for the remainder of
    fiscal year 1999. There are currently no funds identified in
    the President's 1999 budget to extend federal fisheries on
    national forest system lands in Alaska; however, offset
    recommendations are being developed.
        Question 123. What does it cost the Forest Service to
    manage the current subsistence priority requirements of ANILCA?
        Answer. Managing current subsistence hunting fishing and
    trapping on National Forest System lands in Alaska is estimated
    to cost between $3,500,000 and $4,500,000 annually exclusive of
    expanded jurisdiction for fisheries in navigable waters.
        Question 124. What factors account for the cost to
    implement subsistence fisheries requirements of ANILCA on
    Forest Service lands?
        Answer. Expanding Federal subsistence priority and
    conservation requirements of ANILCA Sections 801 and 802 to
    fisheries in navigable waters will require the Forest Service
    to initiate significant new actions including developing and
    modifying fisheries harvest management plans, making annual
    projections of returning fish runs available for harvest in
    hundreds of streams and lakes, projecting annual subsistence
    harvests in those waters, issuing federal permits and
    monitoring subsistence harvest, implementing numerous closures
    in order to protect the conservation requirements of spawning
    fish, law enforcement, legal support services, and operating
    the annual administrative and public involvement processes for
    modifying and establishing annual subsistence fishing
    regulations. These are new and unprecedented requirements of
    the Federal government, requiring new expertise and
    administrative procedures.
        Question 125. Should one federal agency be responsible for
    management of subsistence requirements? What are the pros and
    cons of such single agency management?
        Answer. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park
    Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Office of the Solicitor, the Forest Service and Office of
    General Counsel for USDA are the federal agencies responsible
    for working together effectively to manage subsistence hunting
    and fishing on Federal public lands in Alaska. The U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service is the lead agency. Rural residents, including
    Alaska Natives, look to the local federal land management
    agency for help and leadership in providing subsistence
    resources and opportunities and willingness to collaborate
    locally. It was determined in 1990 that all of these federal
    agencies should have a role in managing these resources and
    activities on the lands for which they have responsibility
    because (1) wildlife and fish and their harvest are essential
    to rural residents (2) subsistence is closely tied to other
    federal land management activities and (3) federal laws convey
    land management responsibilities to federal agencies,
    Infrastructure required to manage wildlife and fish on the
    various federal public lands reside with the federal agency
    managing those lands. Requiring one federal agency to obtain
    the additional personnel and equipment to duplicate some
    already available with the individual federal land management
    agencies would be unnecessarily costly. This would also
    diminish the community relationships each agency desires and
    needs to carry out an effective resource program.

                                      gpra

        The agency is receiving extensive criticism regarding its
    budget structure. It seems clear that agency concurs that much
    of the criticism is valid.
        Question 126. How will GPRA influence revision of the
    budget structure?
        Answer. The way the agency portrays its mission, goals and
    objectives in its GPRA Strategic and annual Performance Plans
    will play an important role in future proposals to adjust our
    budget structure. Our current budget structure is complex and
    functionally oriented, containing over 60 accounts from which
    we are authorized to spend funds. Our current GPRA structure of
    strategic goals and objectives is simpler but quite different
    from our budget structure. However, as an agency, we have not
    yet determined if the current GPRA structure is the best way to
    portray our mission and what we're about. Several proposals to
    modify this structure are being evaluated as we develop the
    fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan and take the first steps
    towards revising our strategic plan. We expect the GPRA
    structure to evolve as we continue to clarify our mission,
    roles and responsibilities; gain new information; and meet the
    performance-based and financial requirements of the GPRA and
    the Chief Financial Officers Act. Any proposal to modify our
    budget structure will reflect an evaluation of these and other
    issues in consultation with the Congress.
        Question 127. How does implementation of the Chief
    Financial Officers Act affect probable revisions of the
    existing strategic plan?
        Answer. The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act requires
    federal agencies to develop integrated accounting and financial
    management systems to provide complete, reliable, consistent
    and timely financial information, and to use financial
    information for measuring performance. The Government
    Management Reform Act (GMRA) requires that the Forest Service
    submit audited financial statements to OMB each year. These
    statements must meet the accounting principles and standards
    issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
    (FASAB) and OMB. To meet these standards, the Forest Service
    must identify an information and reporting structure that best
    reflects and meets its financial information needs. This
    structure should reflect the way the agency portrays itself
    through its mission, goals, objectives and performance
    indicators which would necessitate an alignment with the
    information produced under the requirements of GPRA. While the
    structure of the agency's GPRA plans will continue to evolve
    for a variety of reasons (see answer No. 126 above), one of the
    factors that may affect the structure and will help to assess
    the effects of any future structural changes, will be the
    agency's need to collect and report accurate financial
    information.
        The GAO testimony provided to the House of Representatives
    states there is no clear link between the Forest Service's
    ecosystem-based goals and objectives and its budget line items,
    funding allocation criteria, and performance measures.
        Question 128. What are the next steps in refinement of the
    agency GPRA program and specifically efforts to integrate and
    modify the budget structure to accurately represent the work
    the agency accomplishes?
        Answer. The Forest Service GPRA Strategic and Performance
    Plans include goals and objectives covering all agency programs
    and funding sources. A cross-walk between the agency's budget
    structure and GPRA goals and objectives has been developed to
    facilitate the linkage between planned levels of performance
    and associated funding needs. The complexity of this cross-walk
    highlights the significant differences between our GPRA and
    budget structures and the need for some adjustments in one or
    both. The agency is currently developing the fiscal year 2000
    annual Performance Plan and is formulating plans for revising
    its strategic plan by September 30, 2000. Both of these efforts
    are focused on how to describe, quantify and prioritize the
    agency's goals through the objectives and strategies for
    achieving them. These efforts should result in a clearer focus
    on how the agency wishes to portray its mission and business
    and form the basis for a proposal to modify our budget
    structure, as well as align our resource and financial
    information structures. The first iteration of the agency's
    fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan will accompany the agency's
    budget proposal to the Department of Agriculture in July, 1998.
    The agency will incorporate as many of the changes included in
    this Plan as possible into the final fiscal year 1999
    Performance Plan that will be updated after we receive our
    budget from the Congress this Fall.
                                    ------

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question 129. We have received mixed signals from the
    Administration on the Franklin County Lake. Will you please
    tell me what is the position of the Forest Service on this
    project?
        Answer. This project, the Recreational Lake and Complex at
    Porter Creek, Franklin County, Mississippi, Homochitto National
    Forest, Homochitto Ranger District, was initiated by the
    community leaders in Franklin County, MS. They have tried for
    30 years to secure federal funding to build a 1,100 acre lake
    to provide recreation and water supply for the area. The
    community leaders requested that the USDA Forest Service assist
    them in improving the rural development and economic diversity
    of the area.
        This project could create private sector business
    opportunities, assist existing local businesses, improve water
    quality by remeding raw sewage flow into Porter Creek, and
    prevent addition head-cutting of streams in the watershed. They
    are now attempting to leverage state and federal funds. It is
    estimated that over $12 million will be needed for construction
    of the dam, contract administration, and surveying and mapping
    of the lake cross sections and pool levels.
        This project is new construction. New construction is not a
    priority for the Agency at this time, as we attempt to focus
    resources on the backlog of reconstruction needs. The Agency
    priority continues to be on capital investment priorities which
    emphasize reconstruction of health and safety issues, water and
    sanitation projects, and recreation backlog, rather than new
    construction. New construction adds to outyear operation and
    maintenance costs and it is unlikely that additional O&M funds
    can be provided from the national level in the outyears to
    support these new facilities and structures coming on-line. In
    the case of a dam, the maintenance and reconstruction costs in
    the future can be significant, along with the liability issues.
    Based on previous data for dams in the Region (and none are the
    size of this one), it is estimated that annual O&M costs will
    be about $75,000. In general, the project appears to be more of
    a locally oriented responsibility, rather than a priority
    Federal goal.
        The National Resources Conservation Service received
    $250,000 in fiscal year 1996, $550,000 in fiscal year 1997, and
    $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to accomplish design, technical
    assistance, and complete construction documentation on this
    project. This Agency is experienced with the construction and
    reconstruction of dams. The Forest Service will partner with
    them to do the actual construction if this project is directed,
    earmarked, and additional funding is provided.
        In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1 million in the
    Forest Service budget for Franklin County Lake. These funds
    would have been used to obtain detailed survey information for
    planning (topographic survey of dam, basin and developable area
    and detailed soil surveys of developable area above pool
    level), search out and cultivate interest in Private/Public
    Venture prospects to build the recreational facilities, develop
    conceptual development plan with input from private partners
    that might be interested, advertise for formal partnership and
    with any available remaining funds, and partially fund Forest
    Service share of construction and design costs. This funding
    does not provide for dam construction, which is estimated at
    approximately $12 million. This line item was vetoed by the
    Administration and were not provided.
        Chief Dombeck, it has been brought to my attention that
    there needs to be an increase in the transfer of technology to
    assure that small businesses are not only made aware of Forest
    Service research conducted but that the research results are
    transformed into practical management guidelines. Specifically,
    the National Hardwood Lumber Association, representing a number
    of my constituents, has identified this concern and has offered
    to assist in the dissemination of information.
        Question 130. Is there a way that a formal cooperative
    effort could be developed between groups such as the National
    Hardwood Lumber Association and the U.S. Forest Service to
    provide a pipeline for this information to reach the user and
    not remain shelved at the agency?
        Answer. Forest Service Research and Development has many
    publications in the area of forest management. Notification of
    the availability of these publications is disseminated by our
    Research Stations on a regular basis, through newsletters,
    publication lists, e-mail, and on computer Web Pages.
    Availability of many of the latest FS R&D publications is also
    listed in the monthly Society of American Foresters, Journal of
    Forestry under the Forestry Reports--New Releases. We also
    transfer information to organizations such as the National
    Hardwood Lumber Association by actively participating in their
    technical meetings and workshops, thus reaching many small
    businesses and their managers directly. In addition, a Forest
    Service staff member serves on the NHLA Standing Committee on
    Hardwood Research Advisory Committee. We welcome more formal
    cooperation and are willing to work with the Hardwood Lumber
    Association to increase their awareness of the availability of
    our information and publications.
        There is a growing concern in Mississippi over bottomland
    hardwood forests and associated farmland, especially in the
    Delta. This concern is twofold with concern over the long-term
    sustainability of the forests and their many products as well
    as concern over how to reforest cropland especially in the
    Wetlands Reserve Program and similar programs.
        Question 131. What is the Forest Service Research doing now
    to help landowners in the Delta restore and protect bottomland
    forests, wildlife, fish and mussel population, and develop
    revenue potential from these lands from recreation and forest
    commodity values?
        Answer. Forest Service Research has the Center for
    Bottomland Hardwoods Research located mainly in Stoneville, MS
    with subunits in Oxford and Starkville. This research unit is
    multidisciplinary with scientists working in the areas of
    forest management, wildlife and fisheries, soils, hydrology,
    seed biology, insects and diseases. These scientists work
    together and in collaboration with federal and non-federal
    partners to address forest susceptibility, restoration and
    protection including wildlife and fisheries issues. The
    capacity does not exist at the Stoneville unit to address
    socio-economic analyses but they work with other scientists in
    Southern Research Station to meet these needs.
        Question 132. Is there more that could be done to provide
    answers and techniques to landowners to address these issues?
        Answer. Yes, there are four areas in which we have the capability
    but lack sufficient funding to respond to these priorities:
      --Hydrologic function;
      --Restoration technology;
      --Silvicultural guidelines and aquatic monitoring techniques;
      --Socio-economic effects
        However, these areas do not rank as the highest priorities
    for expanding our research.
        There has been tremendous interest in the Wood Products
    Insects Research Unit in Starkville, Mississippi.
        Question 133. What impact will implementation of the Food
    Quality Protection Act have on termiticides and other products
    used to protect wood products from insect damage?
        Answer. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 is an
    amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
    Act (FFDCA). It requires the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) to apply new standards of safety, especially for
    children, in the registration of pesticides such as
    termiticides. It also requires the review of older pesticides
    to make sure they meet current standards.
        EPA must review all existing tolerances within 10 years to
    determine that they impose a low risk for children and may
    require an additional safety factor of up to ten-fold, if
    necessary, to account for uncertainty in data relative to
    children. Thus, it is too early to tell what impact the Act
    will have on the registered termiticides.
        Question 134. What role will this laboratory play in the
    testing of new products and the development of alternatives to
    existing products?
        Answer. Currently, EPA relies on the USDA Forest Service
    Wood Products Insect Research Unit at Starkville, MS to provide
    reliable, independent laboratory and field testing of the
    efficacy of potential termiticides. This involves two years of
    laboratory testing and at least five years of field testing at
    several sites in the US. This is to ensure that the chemical or
    non-chemical products submitted by developers to EPA for
    registration will protect the wood products and structures.
    This is an important service to the public so that they can be
    assured of reliable termiticides.
        The Unit has a number of chemical and non-chemical products
    under field test now and we expect that these will provide an
    array of alternatives to the public.
        Question 135. Please provide for the committee a five-year
    funding history for this unit.
        Answer. The funding for the Wood Products Insect Research
    Work Unit at Starkville, Mississippi for the last five years is
    given below:

    Funding history

    Fiscal year:
        1994......................................................  $851,000
        1995...................................................... 1,027,000
        1996......................................................   792,000
        1997......................................................   792,000
        1998......................................................   792,000

        Question 136. Are there additional funding needs for this
    laboratory for fiscal year 1999 and beyond?
        Answer. Sufficient funds are available in the President's
    Budget to fund this laboratory.
        Hercules, Incorporated, which has facilities in
    Mississippi, uses pine stumps as a raw input for products it
    manufactures. This company is interested in procuring stumps
    from the Apalachicola National Forest.
        Question 137. Is it possible for Hercules to purchase these
    stumps from the Apalachicola National Forest?
        Answer. The only stumps offered for sale on the
    Apalachicola NF occur within a proposed road, facility or other
    planned construction.
        Question 138. Are stumps offered under the same terms and
    conditions in timber sales?
        Answer. No, the only stumps offered for sale on the
    Apalachicola NF occur within a proposed road, facility or other
    planned construction.
        Question 139. If not, why not and under what statutory
    authority is this denied?
        Answer. A decision notice and finding of no significant
    impact amending the Appalachicola Forest Land and Resource
    Management Plan, signed 7/12/91, restricted harvesting of
    stumps to the areas within a proposed road, facility or other
    planned construction. This amendment was developed in
    accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the
    National Forest Management Act of 1976.
                                    ------                                9

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                            snake river adjudication

        Question 140. How much time and money has been spent on the
    Snake River Basin Adjudication and the Forest Service water
    claims?
        Answer. While the Forest Service does not know the total
    expenditures by all parties on this adjudication, it estimates
    that about $10 million has been spent on its own claims since
    the State initiated this adjudication in 1987.
        Question 141. Who did the claim work for the Service and
    how many claims were filed?
        Answer. Forest Service field employees on 11 National
    Forests and two Regional Offices did the vast majority of the
    claim preparation work from 1987 to present. In addition, since
    1995, eight non-Forest Service experts have been contracted to
    perform various analyses and quality control checks on the
    Forest Service claims and supporting data, and to prepare for
    trial scheduled in September 1998 by the head water judge. In
    1993, the Forest Service filed some 12,054 consumptive use
    claims and 3,759 instream flow claims. The latter have since
    been reduced to 71 claims.
        Question 142. For what purposes are the water claims made?
        Answer. The consumptive use claims were made for one or
    more of the following uses: domestic water, irrigation of hay,
    municipal, industrial, commercial, recreation, fire protection,
    stockwater, hydropower. The original set of instream flow
    claims were made for one or more of the following uses:
    fisheries habitat, recreation, channel maintenance, wild and
    scenic rivers, wilderness, National Recreation Areas and
    maintenance of hot springs and lake levels. The reduced set of
    instream flow claims now includes only fisheries, recreation,
    channel maintenance, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and
    National Recreation Areas.

                            jetboats in hells canyon

        Public Law 94-199, designating the Hells Canyon National
    Recreation Area, was enacted December 31, 1975. Section 10 of
    that Act provides that motorized river craft are recognized as
    a valid use of the Snake River within the recreation area. This
    language seems clear. However, the original intent seems to
    have been forgotten. The Forest Service has announced its
    intent to implement a ``motorless window'' on segments of the
    Snake River through Hells Canyon beginning this summer.
        Question 143. Contrary to the intention of the original
    Act, why does the Forest Service persist in closing the river
    to motorized users?
        Answer. The Act allows for motorized use of the Snake River
    in Hells Canyon, but also directs the Forest service to
    administer this as well as provide for other uses. The actual
    restriction is quite small, only on 21 miles of the 31.5 mile
    ``wild'' section for a maximum of 21 days per year. The new
    river plan actually provides for an increase in motorized use.
    All river portals will remain open to powerboats 365 days per
    year. When the non-motorized days are in effect, there will
    still be 50 miles of river available for powerboats.
        Question 144. There are numerous western whitewater rivers,
    several in Idaho and Oregon, which provide exclusive use for
    non-motorized floaters. Why is it necessary to force that same
    type of recreation use in Hells Canyon?
        Answer. The non-motorized period is in response to a
    distinct group of regional and national customers who indicated
    a preference for some level of non-motorized opportunity. The
    actual effect of the non-motorized period on motorized use is
    small. During the annually maximum 21 days of the period, there
    will still be 50 miles of river available for powerboats.

                             lewis and clark trail

        I understand the Forest Service is currently developing a
    strategic plan to participate in the upcoming Lewis and Clark
    Bicentennial Observance from 2003-2006. I hope funding to
    implement this plan will be a priority within the FS budget.
        Question 145. How is the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
    addressed within the Forest Service budget?
        Answer. Region 1 is actively planning for the Lewis and
    Clark Bicentennial, working closely with the Salmon Forest in
    Region 4. A draft strategy has been formulated to identify all
    the many ways that the National Forests may participate with
    the States, local communities and tribal governments in
    appropriately commemorating the Bicentennial. A Forest Service
    bicentennial coordinator has been appointed to insure that our
    plans are well coordinated with the National Bicentennial
    Council's plans and that our investments in preserving trail
    resources and accommodating trail visitors leave a lasting
    legacy that extends well beyond the Commemoration years of
    2003-2006. Each Forest is also actively participating in local
    community bicentennial planning efforts. Our preliminary
    conclusions include:
      --Lewis and Clark Bicentennial will affect National Forests in
            Regions 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 with most direct on-the-ground
            opportunities centered in Regions 1 and 4, particularly in
            North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
      --Many challenges and opportunities can be addressed by careful
            priority setting within existing funding criteria and
            allocations, however some potential projects and programs will
            not be feasible without national emphasis to target increased
            funding to the affected forests.
      --Many Forest Service programs will contribute to the Bicentennial.
            State and Private Forestry grants can assist rural communities
            in planning and carrying out their commemorative activities.
            Heritage Program funding can make necessary historic and
            archeological studies possible. Recreation funded programs will
            both insure that visitors find appropriate facilities and that
            fragile locations are not over used. Construction projects will
            make sure that roads, trails and campgrounds are open and in
            tip top shape for the beginning of and throughout the
            Bicentennial.
      --Most of the infrastructure needed is already in place though many
            existing facilities need to be spruced up or replaced. A few
            new facilities have been proposed for construction. Interagency
            and public private partnerships are key to meeting
            infrastructure needs.
      --Funding projections and needs are still very preliminary, but
            should firm up by the end of fiscal year 1998.
        In Summary the Forest Service is planning for the
    Bicentennial. We are committed to providing necessary focus to
    insure National Forests along the Lewis and Clark Trail can do
    what is necessary to protect resources, accommodate increased
    visitation, and support local community events. While we
    haven't all the final answers on how to fund many opportunities
    we expect to continue to seek effective partnerships to allow
    the completion of highest priority projects.

                          frank church wilderness deis

        The Forest Service recently released a Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Frank Church River of No Return
    Wilderness. Most who use the wilderness agree it is in
    excellent condition and one of the best managed wilderness
    areas. A few changes were needed in the management of the
    wilderness, a tweak hear and a tweak there, but not a complete
    overhaul of the system. The extreme cut backs on access, such
    as a 50 percent decrease in float boating, could have
    devastating effects on the tourism and recreation industry in
    Idaho. I realize the comment period has been extended to give
    everyone an opportunity to voice their concerns.
        Question 146. I would like a commitment from the Forest
    Service to work with the individuals most effected by their
    decision and develop a management plan that protects the
    integrity of the wilderness without severely restricting access
    to the resource for recreation and other purposes.
        Answer. The Forest Service is strongly committed to working
    with individuals most effected by the proposals in the Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Frank Church River of No
    Return Wilderness. This commitment is evidenced in the
    extension of the comment period, and the numerous public
    meetings and negotiations currently underway.
        Cabin Fees on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Many of
    the cabin owners on the SNRA protested the FS appraisal of the
    cabin sites and are having a second appraisal done at their own
    expense.
        Question 147. When will the second appraisal be completed?
        Answer. Approximately 87 permit holders on the Sawtooth
    have requested a second appraisal of approximately 18
    representative, or typical, lots to formally dispute the
    findings of the Forest Service's first appraisal. The Forest
    Service has already approved the qualifications of 2 appraisers
    that holders have secured to conduct second appraisals on 10-12
    typical lots. There may be more appraisers secured by permit
    holders for conducting a second appraisal and, if so, the
    Forest Service is committed to promptly reviewing the
    qualifications of those appraisers, and approving them for use
    by the holders.
        The second appraisals now being planned are expected to be
    completed and submitted to the Forest Service for review and
    approval by August 1, 1998. The Forest Service will promptly
    review the appraisal reports upon receipt of them from the
    permit holders.
        Question 148. Will the Forest Service wait to implement the
    new cabin fee until the second and if necessary third appraisal
    is completed?
        Answer. Public Law 105-83 directed that the Secretary of
    Agriculture could not increase recreation residence fees based
    upon a new appraisal of a recreation residence lot any sooner
    than one year from the time the permit holder is notified by
    the Forest Service of the results of an appraisal which has
    been conducted for the purposes of establishing such a fee. It
    also specifically cited that no increases in recreation
    residence fees on the Sawtooth National Forest could be
    implemented prior to January 1, 1999.
        The Forest Service notified the permit holders on the
    Sawtooth National Recreation Area of the results of its (the
    Forest Service's) completed appraisal of their tracts/lots in
    late 1997. In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105-
    83, the Forest is planning to assess a new base fee for those
    appraised lots beginning with the fee to be billed for calender
    year 1999. CY 1999 fees will be assessed and billed in
    November, 1998, with a payment due date of January 1, 1999. As
    stated above, the permit holders expect to have the second
    appraisals completed and submitted to the Forest Service by
    August, 1998. The Forest Service will promptly review those
    appraisal reports. If they meet agency standards and the
    specifications provided the appraisers by the Forest Service,
    the reports will be approved for agency use.
        Per agency policy, if the two appraisals result in
    estimated fee simple values of the appraised lots that differ
    by 10 percent or less (from the estimated value of the same
    lot(s) identified in the Forest Service's appraisal), then the
    authorized officer will have the discretion to use the
    estimated value identified in either appraisal report, or a
    combination thereof, in establishing a new base fee. If the
    Forest Service's appraisal report and the second report differ
    by more than 10 percent in value for any particular lot/group
    of lots, then the Forest Service will instruct the first and
    second appraisers to meet in an attempt to reconcile their
    differences. If that is not possible, then a third appraisal
    may be secured, upon the approval and concurrence of both the
    authorized officer and the affected holder(s), with the cost of
    such an appraisal shared equally by each party.
        For those recreation residence lots/tracts on the Sawtooth
    NRA that were appraised by the Forest Service in 1997, the
    Forest expects to have the appraisal process completed prior to
    its assessment and billing of fees for CY 1999. This appraisal
    process may not be completed in advance of our November 1998,
    billing of CY 1999 fees if (a) there are lots or groups of lots
    which qualify for a third appraisal, and (b) the holder(s) and
    Forest Service agree to secure a third appraisal. If there are
    cases like that, the Forest Service intends to assess and bill
    a new base fee for CY 1999 for those affected lots, even if the
    third appraisal(s) does not get done in advance of the CY 1999
    billing period. The base fee that will be assessed for CY 1999
    will use the estimated lot values identified in either of the
    first two appraisals, or perhaps a combination thereof. Should
    the results of a completed third appraisal subsequently produce
    a different base fee than that assessed for CY 1999, the
    resulting fee difference will be reconciled in an adjustment
    made to the fee assessed for CY 2000, scheduled to take place
    in November 1999.

              interior columbia basin ecosystem management project

        Question 149. Many of my constituents feel that ICBEMP is
    bureaucratic boondoggle that would harm ranching, mining and
    logging. What are you doing to convince them that this is not
    the case?
        Answer. We have met and talked with many people in the
    Basin that have concerns about the management of their public
    lands. The best way we can assure the continued use and
    enjoyment of these lands is to assure their continued long-term
    health. Healthy lands are productive lands.
        Healthy lands also are better able to meet the legal
    mandates under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act
    and the Clean Air Act, to name a few. Short of this, lawsuits
    and injunctions generally result in more restrictive use of the
    land. By developing a proactive approach to dealing with these
    legal issues now, we can assure the continued use of these
    lands.
        Question 150. You've indicated that the aim over the past
    four years is to develop a scientifically-sound management
    strategy. As best I can tell no progress has been made in
    achieving this objective. Why should the Congress continue to
    support ICBEMP when its track record to date is so poor?
        Answer. The Project is well on the way to fulfilling the
    Charter given it by the Director of BLM and the Chief of the
    Forest Service in 1994. Although it has taken longer than
    initial estimates, much of the work is complete. The scientific
    assessment, on which we are building the management strategy,
    is complete. The Draft EISs containing the management strategy
    have gone through an eleven month public comment period that
    ended May 6, 1998. What remains is analyzing public comments,
    deciding what needs to be changed, and preparing a Final EIS
    and ROD. Unless there is some other way to address the legal
    problems of continuing to manage under interim guidelines of
    INFISH, PACFISH, and the eastside screens, we will find all
    projects and plans at risk of legal challenge.
        Question 151. I understand that you intend to issue a final
    environmental impact statement in the spring of 1999. What
    assurances can you give the Committee regarding this date?
        Answer. At this time, we feel confident that we will meet
    that timeframe. The one question that has not yet been answered
    is whether or not we may need to supplement the draft
    statement. This is a possibility, as it is with any EIS
    process. A supplement may be needed if substantial changes to
    the draft statement are made, based on input to the draft, or
    if there are significant new circumstances or information
    relevant to the proposed action. The purpose of issuing a
    supplement is to allow the public to respond to the substantial
    changes or new information.
        If we determine it is necessary to supplement, it will
    delay the release of the final environmental impact statements
    and Record of Decision. The length of the delay will be
    determined by the type of supplement.
        Question 152. The project has cost $40 million already. I
    find this to be an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. Aren't
    you doing nothing more than through good money at a bad
    investment?
        Answer. The broad scale issues we are addressing are either
    going to be addressed in this process or a process very similar
    to this. A case in point is developing a long-term aquatic
    conservation strategy to replace the interim direction in
    PACFISH and INFISH. To start a new process or multiple
    processes seems less efficient and more costly than finishing
    the current process.
        Question 153. Implementation costs have soared to an
    estimated $125 million annually, much of it for weed and
    erosion control, forest health and watershed management. In an
    environment of constant, real dollar agency budgets, are you
    prepared to cut other Forest Service programs to come up with
    this kind of money?
        Answer. The estimated funding needed to fully implement the
    plan, you reference, were based on the preferred alternative
    (Alternative 4) in the draft statement. We expect there will be
    changes to the preferred alternative and that we will have to
    recalculate implementation needs.
        Question 154. We've been told that timber harvest should
    increase slightly under the plan. My guess is that this
    conclusion does not factor in your roads moratorium. What are
    you prepared to tell us about the timber impacts of the roads
    moratorium on ICBEMP?
        Answer. The Draft EIS contained direction which was similar
    to the proposed road management policy. The Draft provided
    strong direction for systematic road management and improved
    road maintenance. As we move toward a decision on the road
    management policy we are evaluating options that would allow
    the Forests covered under the ICBEMP decision to move forward
    without being subject to the moratorium once a Record of
    Decision is signed for the ICBEMP and plans are amended.
        Question 155. Elizabeth Holms Gaar, the Assistant Regional
    Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, has
    said that the new information contained in ICBEMP will allow
    agencies to ``begin the restoration efforts with the confidence
    that many of our highly valued public resources need.'' But
    with new information at virtually ever bend in the road, how
    will this planning process ever be brought to conclusion?
        Answer. Once the Final EIS is completed and the ROD is
    signed, this planning process will conclude. We will include
    any new information that has been surfaced since the draft
    statement was issued. Direction in this plan may have to be
    amended as pertinent new information comes forward. We intend
    to have a process to incorporate this information without
    having to start a whole new planning process.
        Question 156. I strongly feel that the best government is
    the most local form of government. There is some good, sound
    science in ICBEMP that could be used on the land. Why not just
    scrap this multimillion-dollar project and pass the scientific
    research onto local land managers?
        Answer. It is just not enough to have good science. The
    information given must be applied uniformly across the board.
    This is the reason why broad scale planning is needed and why
    the ICBEMP decision will amend forest plans. Also, regional
    direction is needed on how to use the new science information
    in order to provide viability determinations for fish, wildlife
    and plants and for assessing cumulative effects across a large
    area.
        In addition, two federal court decisions are relying on the
    Project to replace the current interim direction (PACFISH/
    INFISH/Eastside Screens). Our pledge to replace these interim
    directions through this process was an important element in the
    court decisions. Failing to do so will make us vulnerable to
    legal challenges.

                       timber sale set-aside regulations

        Two years ago we directed you to develop regulations which
    will allow people directly impacted by the Forest Service
    Timber Sale Set-aside program, to appeal those decisions. Now
    two years later you are still sitting on those final
    regulations.
        Question 157. What is the hold up Chief?
        Answer. There is an appeal rule in effect which allows
    purchasers affected by the Small Business Set-Aside Program to
    appeal. An interim rule published March 24, 1997 (62 Federal
    Register 13826), went into effect immediately to comply with
    the Conference Report accompanying the 1997 Omnibus
    Appropriation Act. The interim rule gives an appeals procedure
    and provided an opportunity for comments which will be
    reflected in a final rule. We are nearing completion of the
    final rule and plan to publish it soon.
        Question 158. Why haven't you published the final
    regulations?
        Answer. The comments received in response to the interim
    rule have been evaluated, and a final rule has been drafted.
    The final rule has been reviewed by our Office of General
    Counsel and is now being finalized by our Directives and
    Regulations staff. We anticipate that it will be ready for
    Department approval within the next few weeks.
        Question 159. Do you want this Committee to simply write
    legislative language to impose a appeals process?
        Answer. As noted in the previous answers, an appeal process
    is in place and while we recognize that the task has taken some
    time, we believe that the final rule will better reflect the
    desires of the purchasers affected by the appeals rule by
    reflecting their input. Legislative language to impose an
    appeals process is not needed.
        Question 160. Or would you prefer that we withdraw your
    authority to expend any more funds until you publish these
    regulations?
        Answer. Our objective is to finalize the appeal rule in a
    short time; withdrawal of authority to expend funds until the
    regulations are published would not expedite the process.
    Forest and Rangeland Research--Climate Change Technology
        You've asked for a $3 million earmark for Climate Change Technology
    Initiative and suggested that harvesting and maintaining forests in a
    younger healthier condition will help with global warming.
        Question 161. How much data already exists to support your
    contention?
        Answer. Considerable data exists that demonstrates the role of U.S.
    forests in the sequestration of carbon. This positive forestry role in
    sequestering carbon can be significantly increased by research to
    provide enhanced technologies aimed at improving biomass production,
    reducing carbon release during forest operations, reducing energy
    consumption in post-harvest production, and lengthening the life cycle
    of forest products. While this research will be enhanced by funding
    requested under the Climate Change Technology Initiative, it address
    problems of increasing biomass productivity that our users want
    answered even if climate change were not an issue.
        Question 162. If your research shows that young healthy forests,
    and the sequestration of carbon in wood products which resulted from
    harvesting on federal lands, improve the carbon cycle challenge facing
    this country, are you willing to help educate the American public on
    this issue?
        Answer. Forest Service Research will remain an objective source for
    scientific information and will make that information available to as
    wide an array of interested parties as possible, clearly including the
    American public. Our ability to provide objective, balanced information
    on subjects such as the role of forests in the global carbon cycle is
    limited by the funding appropriated to us. The $3 million funding
    increase requested under the Climate Change Technology Initiative would
    allow us to become a more active source for objective information while
    addressing needs of the user community.
    Forest and Rangeland Research--Urban Forestry
        Question 163. If you have a $10 billion backlog in Forest Road
    Maintenance and are having trouble funding management activities on the
    lands which have been entrusted to you, why are you requesting urban
    forestry research?
        Answer. Urban and community forests serve many ecological and
    aesthetic functions, while providing benefits to a majority of the
    nearly 200 million people in the United States that live and work in
    urbanized areas. Urban forests mitigate rainfall runoff and flooding;
    provide shade to reduce summer air-conditioning energy costs; reduce
    adverse health impacts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation; mitigate air
    quality impacts of various industrial processes, motor vehicle exhaust,
    and other human activities; provide wildlife habitat; and enhance the
    attractiveness and livability of our cities, communities and urbanized
    areas.
        Research on economic benefits of urban forest ecosystems will help
    to improve the quality of life for large segments of the U.S.
    population. This research includes studies to: (1) Assess the potential
    cost effectiveness of utilizing urban forests to mitigate air
    pollution; and (2) Identify psychological and physical health benefits
    and reduced costs due to improved urban ecosystems.
        Research, dealing with ecosystems impacted by rapidly urbanizing
    areas adjacent to many National Forests, is of critical importance due
    to the problems of: urban/wildland interface fire, watershed pollution,
    air pollution, high recreation demand by diverse populations, and
    concern for T&E species habitat. Examples of major urbanizing areas
    adjacent to National Forests with critical situations include: Los
    Angeles, San Diego, Lake Tahoe, Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, and
    Salt Lake City.
        Question 164. How many National Forest are located within the
    bounds of cities?
        Answer. As a general rule, National Forest boundaries are not
    located within city limits, with the possible exception of scattered
    parcels or inholdings. There are however a number of National Forests
    within an hours drive of many major metropolitan centers throughout the
    US.
        Question 165. Aren't most urban forests the responsibilities of the
    States, or local municipalities?
        Answer. Most urban forests are the responsibility of States, local
    municipalities or private landowners and Section 9 of the Cooperative
    ForestryAssistance Act enables the Forest Service to provide technical,
    financial and related urban forestry assistance to State Foresters and
    other partners.
    Forest and rangeland research--wilderness
        Question 166. Chief, refresh my recollection, didn't the Wilderness
    Act of 1964 say that Wilderness Areas are ``an area where the earth and
    its community of life are untrammeled by man?
        Answer. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law states in section
    2(c) ``A wilderness * * * is hereby recognized as an area where the
    Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man
    himself is a visitor who does not remain.''
        Question 167. If that is the case, why are you proposing to
    undertake research in these areas?
        Answer. (Sec. 2(c)) of the Act goes on to recognize that wilderness
    ``may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
    scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value''. In Section 4,
    Use of Wilderness Areas, the Act states that ``wilderness areas shall
    be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
    educational, conservation, and historical use'' (Sec. 4(b). It is
    therefore believed appropriate for research to be conducted in
    wilderness, when such activity is dependent on wilderness and can be
    done to minimize the impacts to the wilderness resource.
        As reported in the fiscal year 1996 Report of the Forest Service,
    recreation use in wilderness areas accounted for 14.5 million
    recreation visitor days in fiscal year 1996. At the end of fiscal year
    1996, there were 26,610 miles of trails available for use in wilderness
    areas. With the heavy visitor load in many wilderness areas, Research
    continues to explore fundamental questions to assist managers to better
    protect and preserve wilderness areas and the public values they
    provide. For wilderness near urban areas, investigations focus on
    changing recreation patterns. What are the factors underlying user
    conflicts? What changes are occurring in values, attitudes, and
    behaviors related to natural resources? Can these be affected by new
    visitor communication strategies?
    State and private forestry--forest health management
        Help me better understand how funds are spent within the State and
    Private Forestry Forest Health Management line item called Federal
    Lands.
        Question 168. You have requested $37.2 million for this item, isn't
    that correct:
        Answer. Yes. The President's Budget does include $37.2 million for
    Federal Lands Forest Health Management.
        Question 169. A $4 million dollar increase over the fiscal year
    1997. Am I right on that figure?
        Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 1997 Appropriation for Federal Lands,
    Forest Health Management was $33.2 million.
        Question 170. Why don't the other agencies within the Interior
    Department pay you for this service?
        Answer. The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act makes the Secretary
    of Agriculture responsible for forest health protection directly on the
    National Forest System and in cooperation with other Federal
    departments on all other Federal as well as Tribal lands. The Secretary
    has delegated responsibility for carrying out provisions of the Act to
    the Forest Service. To meet its responsibility the Forest Service
    through the Secretary requests annual appropriations for forest health
    protection based on estimated costs developed in cooperation with other
    the Federal departments; the other Federal agencies do not receive an
    appropriation for this purpose.
        Question 171. Would having them help with the expense of doing this
    much needed work help you focus more closely on the lands your tasked
    with managing?
        Answer. No. The resulting additional financial management and
    program overhead expenses would have the opposite effect. In addition,
    our current ability to respond in a timely manner to emergency
    situations across all ownerships would be impaired and national forests
    would be at increased risk from insect and disease outbreaks arising on
    adjacent other Federal or Tribal lands.
    National customer service plan
        Question 172. I note you want to expand funding for the National
    Customer Service Plan. Is that right?
        Answer. A budget increase of $35,000 has been requested in fiscal
    year 1999 only to fund the follow up action plans for customer surveys
    completed in fiscal year 1996-98, and to provide customer satisfaction
    and polling results required by Congress in the GPRA.
        Question 173. Isn't it true that the purchasers of federal timber
    sales produced 60 percent of the revenues collected by your agency in
    fiscal year 1997?
        Answer. No, it is more than 60 percent. Of the $679,964,000 in
    receipts received in fiscal year 1997, $534,125,000 or 79 percent is
    related to timber sales. This includes the sale of forest products, and
    deposits to the K-V fund, salvage sale fund, and brush disposal fund.
        Question 174. And that over $319 million dollars of timber trust
    funds were used last year to help fund your day-to-day operations
    (about $10 percent of the agencies budget request)?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 1997 final program budget advice to the
    field the agency allocated $187,810,000 from the salvage sale fund,
    $218,023,000 from the K-V fund, $30,000,000 from the reforestation
    trust fund, and $45,651,000 from the brush disposal fund, for a total
    of $481,484,000. This is 16 percent of the total Forest Service request
    included in the President's Budget.
        Question 175. Yet we're told that you've only met with members of
    your number one customer a handful of times over the last two years.
    Why would we fund this priority and what are you going to do to address
    the legitimate concerns on your most important customer?
        Answer. Timber contractors are one of our important business
    customers. In the course of our timber sale customer survey project
    (1997 & 1998), we engaged the timber industry in a variety of forums,
    from focus groups to large industry meetings. We have addressed many of
    the business delivery concerns of our timber industry customers and are
    currently implementing actions to improve our service and work
    processes. (See enclosed ``Report to Timber Sale Customers'')
        [Clerk's note.--The above mentioned publication ``Report to Timber
    Sale Customers'' has been retained in subcommittee files.]
    National commitments
        Question 176. Why are you holding onto 39 percent of the Forest
    Health Management Dollars in your regional allocation for the
    Washington Office?
        Answer. Only about 6 percent of the Federal Lands Forest Health
    Management budget line item in the fiscal year 1999 President's budget
    is held by the Washington Office (WO). A total of $1.3 million,
    approximately 3.5 percent, is planned for salaries, travel, training
    and supplies for staffs in the WO headquarters. Approximately $0.6
    million, approximately 1.6 percent, is held in the WO for National
    Commitments, and another $0.3 million, or 0.8 percent, for special
    forest health protection projects which are most efficiently managed
    from WO Headquarters. Some of the funds held for National Commitments
    are allocated to field units. Additional funds are included in the WO
    budget for the Forest Health Protection Enterprise Teams located in
    Morgantown, WV and Fort Collins, CO. The Teams are essentially field
    units in that they provide direct program assistance to the Regions,
    the Northeastern Area, the International Institute of Tropical
    Forestry, and also work closely with the Research Stations. A total of
    $8.7 million, or 23.5 percent of the President's budget level for
    Federal Lands Forest Health Management is held in the Washington Office
    Reserve for allocation to field units for: (1) specific pest prevention
    and suppression projects that are proposed and approved based on site-
    specific biological evaluations in early and mid-FY 1999, (2)
    Technology Development projects, and (3) support for the National
    Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.
        Question 177. Why are you holding onto 52 percent of Cooperative
    Lands funding from the States?
        Answer. Only about 5.3 percent of the Cooperative Lands Forest
    Health Management budget line item in the fiscal year 1999 President's
    budget is held by the WO. A total of $0.7 million, approximately 4.1
    percent, is planned for salaries, travel, and training of staffs in the
    Washington Office headquarters. Approximately $0.2 million,
    approximately 1.1 percent, is held in the WO for National Commitments,
    and another $0.02 million, or 0.1 percent, for special forest health
    protection projects which are most efficiently managed from WO
    Headquarters. Some of the funds held for National Commitments are
    allocated to field units. Additional funds are included in the WO
    budget for the Forest Health Protection Enterprise Teams located in
    Morgantown, WV and Fort Collins, CO. The Teams are essentially field
    units in that they provide direct program assistance to the Regions,
    the Northeastern Area, the International Institute of Tropical
    Forestry, and also work closely with the Research Stations. A total of
    $8.8 million, or 55 percent of the President's budget level for
    Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management is held in the Washington
    Office Reserve for allocation to field units for: (1) specific pest
    prevention and suppression projects that are proposed and approved
    based on site-specific biological evaluations in early and mid-FY 1999,
    (2) continuation of the pilot project phase of the gypsy moth Slow-the-
    Spread project, and (3) support for the State Forest Resource Planning
    program.
        Question 178. Why shouldn't this Congress limit the amount of funds
    which can be held in the Washington Office to say 10 percent and then
    force the distribution of the remaining funds out to the field offices
    so work can commence in the field?
        Answer. Please see responses to Questions 176 and 177.
    Approximately 6 percent of the Federal Lands Forest Health Management
    and 5 percent of the Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management
    expanded budget line items support WO Headquarters.
        Question 179. How would you feel about this Congress imposing the
    following direction:
        No more than a total of 15 percent of any budget line item may be
    held, for overhead or other uses, at the following offices: (1)
    Secretaries Office; (2) the Washington Office: (3) the Regional
    Offices; or (4) any Forest Supervisors Office, or analogous Forest
    Research Stations.
        Answer. We do not feel this direction will lead to sound, efficient
    resource management. Major efficiencies are gained in a number of
    instances by centralizing services or purchases in the Washington
    Office or a Regional Office, which would otherwise be done piecemeal at
    lower levels. For example, funds are held in the Washington Office to
    purchase a national software license for our major information systems.
    If each forest used these funds independently to purchase this
    software, the buying power would diminish by a factor of 100, and the
    ability to support common systems and exchange information coherently
    would be lost. If the Washington Office billed all of the units, rather
    than holding the funds, the paperwork would be expensive to accomplish
    the same result. It is therefore much more cost-effective to negotiate
    and pay for such a contract centrally and to hold the funds rather than
    bill each lower level. At the same time, we realize that we must
    continue to rigorously manage the debate and decisions on the priority
    and effectiveness of these investments, against alternative investments
    at the field level. Sound decisions on alternative uses of funds are a
    critical element in making these central services cost-effective.
        Many regions offer centralized resource specialists that work in
    the Regional Office or in a Supervisor's Office and service many
    forests and districts. Each district office cannot not afford a
    complete array specialists; most districts probably do not have
    sufficient work for an array of full-time specialists. Sharing
    specialists saves money, but may require the specialist to report to
    and be funded by a higher organizational level.
        Question 180. How would you feel about this Congress imposing the
    following direction:
        Further, all funds authorized in this Bill, less the prescribed 15
    percent for overhead, shall be distributed to the field offices within
    one month of final passage of this law, or one month after the
    beginning of the new fiscal year.
        Answer. The Forest Service Washington Office (WO) makes every
    effort to distribute available funds to its field units as soon as
    possible after the appropriation bill becomes law. In an attempt to
    expedite the allocation process for fiscal year 1999, we have developed
    a revised timeline which requires that the Final WO budget and national
    commitments be determined at a much earlier date than in previous
    years. This change will ensure that available funds are distributed to
    the individual forest level within 90 days of final passage of the
    Appropriations Act. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to
    complete our allocation process if given only 30 days from final
    passage of the law.
        Question 181. Why shouldn't we limit overhead from the cooperative
    lands line item to 15 percent and then block grant the remaining funds
    straight to the States?
        Answer. Please see response to Question 177. Only about 5.3 percent
    of the Forest Health Management Cooperative Lands expanded line item is
    held for use by the WO Headquarters and some of these funds are
    allocated out to the field. This is about the same percentage (6.1
    percent) for the entire State and Private Forestry appropriation.
        Block grants would provide the States with unlimited discretion as
    to how they expend and account for the funds, regardless of the purpose
    for which the funds are appropriated by Congress and granted to States.
    At present, State and Private Forestry authorities do not enable the
    issuance of block grants to the States. While recognizing the need to
    address different priorities in different regions and States, one
    dimension of the Federal role is to assure that program priorities of
    national importance, which address a range of needs and customers are
    advanced in a coordinated effort. Administration budget proposals and
    Congressional appropriations underscore this role, and determining the
    appropriate mix of different programs and budget line items. The shift
    toward performance based budgeting reinforces the need to associate
    budget allocations with planned program outcomes.
    State and private forestry--forest stewardship
        Question 182. Chief why do you need a 14 percent increase in Forest
    Stewardship?
        Answer. Nonindustrial private forestlands (NIPF) represent over 48
    percent of the nations forests. Almost 10 million owners hold 337
    million acres. Less than 20 percent of these lands are actively
    managed. Collectively, these lands are critical to the nation's timber
    supply, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, landscape aesthetics
    and the economic welfare of many resource dependent communities. This
    proposed program increase will support a modest increase in support to
    State Forestry agencies and their assistance to landowners in forest
    planning and application of forestry practices. This would only be a
    small beginning in implementing the recently released National Academy
    of Sciences report. This program is used nationwide on forested lands
    and has a strong agroforestry component. As a result a broader array of
    national interests in these lands will benefit.
        Question 183. Exactly what do we get for that investment?
        Answer. The increase in fiscal year 1999 will enable over 3,000
    NIPF landowners to develop multiple resource Forest Stewardship
    management plans. These plans will encompass over 400,000 acres of
    forest lands. Particular focus will address watershed health and
    restoration. This will support an increase of 70,000 acres of
    Stewardship Incentive Program practices, including 12,500 acres of tree
    planting. The increase will help provide information, technology, and
    training on forest nursery management, tree improvement, tree planting
    methodology, seedling culture, and equipment development to State,
    private, and federal nurseries, and support the tree seed bank. These
    specific treatments will contribute to the national interests noted
    above.
        Question 184. Why shouldn't we put the extra money in managing the
    lands your entrusted to manage?
        Answer. There are obviously many unmet needs on national forests as
    well as substantial national interests in non-Federal lands. The Forest
    Service is responsible for a coordinated forest stewardship program for
    management of this Nation's non-Federal forest lands in partnership
    with Federal, State, and local organizations. Demand for goods and
    services is increasing on NIPF lands. As noted above, only a small
    portion of these lands are under active management. The potential
    exists to do much more to assure adequate wildlife habitat, watershed
    protection and a sustainable forest resource on these lands. The number
    of small sized forest land ownership, less than 10 acres, is also
    rapidly increasing, putting more pressure on an increased number of
    landowners to provide the forest resources. This 14 percent increase
    will strengthen our partnership with state forestry agencies to help
    handle the increasing pressure on NIPF landowners and as again noted
    above will only be a start in implementing the recommendations of the
    recent National Academy of Sciences report.
    State and private forestry--urban and community forestry
        Question 185. Isn't the chief responsibility for Urban and
    Community Forestry fall with local government?
        Answer. We agree that local governments bear the chief
    responsibility for the comprehensive care of their trees, forests and
    greenspace and believe that this reflects the current situation.
    However, many communities are not knowledgeable about conditions,
    possibilities, technical issues, or overall impacts of healthy urban
    forests on the welfare of its citizens, or such economic factors such
    as energy costs, or costs to local government of providing such
    services as storm-water management. Nationwide, the care of trees and
    forests in many of our larger cities are in decline and most need work
    to reclaim trees and greenspace to provide a better quality of life for
    their residents. Many smaller communities and unincorporated areas do
    not have the necessary financial resources or technical expertise to
    care for their trees and related natural resources, while resources do
    not reach many inner city neighborhoods. The Forest Service goal is to
    create local capacities to manage urban and community forests and does
    so by creating awareness; providing information to the public; and
    providing assistance in assessment, planning, management and community
    action.
        At the landscape level trees and urban forests occur on land in
    mixed ownership and across jurisdictional boundaries and can become
    prey to insects and diseases. Counties, cities and other communities
    are even less equipped to deal with the loss of trees, forests,
    openspace, wildlife habitat and watershed functioning that is
    accompanying the urban sprawl occurring at unprecedented levels across
    the nation. In the last twenty years population in Atlanta has doubled
    while urban sprawl has consumed over 400 percent more land. A the
    landscape level the Forest Service has a responsibility to promote
    increased communication and coordination across political and
    geographic boundaries to protect and restore healthy ecosystems.
        Question 186. Why shouldn't we simply block grant $26.8 million
    requested in this budget straight to the States?
        Answer. The Program is designed to address concerns at the local,
    State and national scales. By the year 2000 over 80 percent of the
    American public will reside in metro areas with complex natural
    resource problems. National indicators of deteriorating environments
    associated with cities and other communities include decreases in air
    and water quality with their associated health risks; land use changes,
    forest conversion and fragmentation leading to loss of wildlife
    habitat, biodiversity and open space; diminished watershed functioning
    and increased storm-water flooding; and increased heat island
    temperature effects that exacerbate regional weather systems and global
    warming. The Forest Service provides research, technology transfer and
    technical assistance needed to identify national trends, assess, test
    and develop corrective actions needed to sustain and improve urban and
    community natural resources. The Forest Service works in collaboration
    with other federal agencies, State forestry agencies, local
    governments, non-profit organizations and the private sector to
    accomplish this work and keep Congress informed of important national
    trends.
        Question 187. Why couldn't these communities hire U.S. Forest
    Service expertise, if in fact your employees truly are the most
    knowledgeable and of course the price you would charge is competitive
    with private contractors?
        Answer. The scope and complexity of urban natural resource problems
    requires the combined talents and commitment of Federal, State and
    local governments, non-profit organizations and the private sector all
    working together. The role of the Forest Service is to provide the
    national leadership and long-term Federal continuity to assist States,
    cities and counties to recognize the importance of natural resources in
    populated areas, and to serve as facilitators and conveners to bring
    together all the parties needed to develop community based efforts to
    care for trees, forests, watersheds and openspace in urban areas.
        Question 188. Don't you think it is unfair to those striving to
    make a living in urban forestry for Congress to subsidize a federal
    agency at the expense of the private sector?
        Answer. Rather than competing for jobs in the private sector, the
    Urban and Community Forestry Program has been an important catalyst for
    creating new jobs and careers in both the private and non-profit
    sectors involved with caring for trees, forests and greenspace in urban
    areas. As local communities become more aware of the important role
    that trees, forests, and open space play in supporting the economic,
    social and environmental aspects of their lives, we believe that this
    segment of the economy will continue to grow.
        Not more than 20 full time equivalent assignments are tied to
    delivery of the Urban and Community Forestry program. All of them carry
    some level of national responsibility. The states and localities,
    including non-profit, citizen based volunteer organizations involved in
    urban forestry help craft the role and responsibility of federal
    participation. The role the Forest Service plays in urban and community
    forestry is defined by the partnership of federal/state/local
    interests.
    The National Forest System--recreation
        You've stated that driving for pleasure is the No. 1 recreational
    activity on the National Forest System. You've also stated that you
    have a $10 billion backlog in road maintenance. You've requested a 13-
    percent increase in funding for recreation above that budgeted in
    fiscal year 1997.
        Question 189. Why shouldn't we fund recreation at fiscal year 1997
    levels and then take this money and put it into road reconstruction and
    maintenance?
        Answer. The Forest Service budget proposal balances the needs of
    all the resource areas to provided multiple benefits and
    accomplishments. In fiscal year 1999, the increase in the Recreation
    budget line items provides an additional $23 million for the
    President's Land, Water, and Facility Restoration Initiative for the
    operation, maintenance, and reconstruction of recreation facilities and
    trails which have a combined backlog of over $1 billion. These
    facilities and trails in substandard condition exists at a time when
    more Americans are visiting the national forests than ever before.
        Removing these funds will eliminate the following projects across
    the Nation: Replacement of over three hundred toilets with more modern
    and sanitary, accessible sweet smelling toilets, and replacement of
    many which are leaking and causing environmental degradation. Over 400
    water systems will be repaired or replaced in order to meet health and
    safety standards required by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment. The
    $8 million provided for trails would provide heavy maintenance,
    rerouting, and reconstruction of over 3,000 miles of trails. This
    maintenance would enhance the health and safety of the forest visitors,
    improving accessibility, as well as preventing ecosystem degradation.
        Many of these projects anticipate contributed funds as well as ``in
    kind'' support from the local communities in the form of partnerships.
    This allows leverage of the funding to accomplish more than would be
    possible with only the Federal dollars.
        Examples of project proposal which could be done if this funding is
    provided include:
      --Providing for the maintenance and reconstruction of water systems
            at high use recreation areas, such as Swauk and Ice Water
            Campgrounds on the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington;
            Ward Lake recreation Area campgrounds on the Tongass National
            Forest in Alaska; Pounds Hollow Recreation Area on the Shawnee
            National Forest in Illinois; Hyalite Canyon and Reservoir/
            Gallatin Canyon on the Gallatin National Forest in Montana;
            Dolly Copp Campground wells on the White Mountain National
            Forest in New Hampshire; Albert Pike Recreation Area on the
            Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas; Bird Creek campground on
            the Humbolt National Forest in Nevada; Horseshoe Springs on the
            Sante Fe National Forest in New Mexico; the upgrade of 4 water
            systems on the Araphaho/Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado;
            and the Almanor pumphouse and tank replacement on the Lassen
            National Forest in California.
      --Providing environmental protection for water quality by improving
            sanitation facilities, sewer and/or wastewater systems such as
            Begich, Boggs Visitor Center Wastewater system on the Chugach
            National Forest in Alaska; Chewalla Lake Recreation Area in
            Mississippi; at the Hopewell, Handsome Lake, and Hooks Brook
            boat access campgrounds on the Allegheny Reservoir on the
            Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania; Fishlake Sewer Lift
            Station repairs in Utah; the Bog Springs Campground in Madera
            Canyon on the Coronado National Forest in Arizona; Stratton
            Pond on the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont; Davidson
            River Recreation Area on the Pisgah National Forest in North
            Carolina; and Juniper Springs Recreation Area on the Ocala
            National Forest in Florida.
      --Trail maintenance and reconstruction to protect stream crossings,
            steep trails and trails located within riparian areas, such as
            the Hanging Rock and Monday Creek ORV areas on the Wayne
            National Forest in Ohio; Shenandoah Mountain trail in West
            Virginia; the Badin Lake Horse Trail System on the Uwharrie
            National Forest in North Carolina; trail restoration on the
            Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina, the Coker
            Creek and John Muir Trails on the Cherokee National Forest in
            Tennessee; the Noisy Creek and Shedroof Mountain trails on the
            Colville National Forest in Washington; and the Quinault
            Valley, Soleduck River and Duckabush River trails on the
            Olympic National Forest in Washington.
        Additional project proposal information by Region or
    National Forest is available. The actual project selection will
    depend on the mix and amount of additional funding provided to
    the Forest Service in fiscal year 1999.
        You've also requested that we re-authorize the recreation
    user fees program which you indicate generated $7.7 of receipts
    which will be used by the Forest Service. In essence your
    asking this Congress to increase your funding by over $28
    million for recreation. For a program that returns less then
    $50 million to the government. At the expense of a program that
    has the potential to return over a billion dollars in revenues.
        Question 190. What are you guys down there in the Old
    Auditors Building thinking about Chief?
        Answer. Returns to Treasury are one indicator of a programs
    contributions to the economy of the United States. The USDA
    Forest Service plays a significant role in managing forests and
    rangelands and producing resource outputs that provide a
    variety of goods and services for the American public. The
    economic effects of these goods and services can be described
    by several measures, each contributing unique information. The
    Draft 1995 RPA Program presents three measures of economic
    effects: (1) benefit-cost analysis; (2) returns to Treasury;
    and (3) employment and income impacts. The benefit-cost
    analysis compares the cost of Forest Service programs to the
    benefits generated by those programs. Returns to Treasury are
    receipts to the government from sales of outputs and fees for
    services on the National Forests and Grasslands.
        The economic impacts resulting from Forest Service programs
    like timber, grazing, and recreation create ripple effects
    throughout the economy with measurable impacts at local,
    regional, and national scales. The economic impacts from Forest
    Service activities are often summarized as contributions to
    employment and income. At the national level, the most relevant
    measure of income is the contribution to Gross Domestic Product
    (GDP): the value added to the economy of domestic production of
    goods and services.
        As displayed in the Draft RPA Program, the national
    contributions to GDP from recreation are substantially larger
    than contributions from other resource areas. This difference
    is explained by several factors. The first factor is the sheer
    magnitude of recreation use on the national forests and
    grasslands. Second, recreation visitors are purchasing final
    consumption products (fishing equipment, clothes, etc.) as part
    of the recreation trip expenditures.
        However, economic impacts are just one perspective and
    there are many other valid perspectives and sources of
    information that should also be considered in evaluating Forest
    Service programs. These include the social and economic impacts
    to local communities, revenues generated, economic efficiency,
    historical program development and support, and actions needed
    to achieve desired conditions or to address urgent problems,
    such as forest health. Funding allocations are not based on a
    single dominant perspective or factor. Such decisions take into
    account all of the factors mentioned above, plus many more.
        Question 191. Do you think we can afford to throw good
    money after bad to support your social engineering experiments.
        Answer. Recreational opportunities continue to be important
    to the American public and contribute significantly to local
    rural economies. We believe providing recreation facilities and
    trails is an important part of the Agency mission--Caring for
    the Land and Serving People.
    The National Forest System--road maintenance
        Chief, you've testified that you have a $10 billion backlog in road
    maintenance. We also know that timber purchasers use to pay for 40 to
    45 percent of road maintenance. Maintenance that the recreationists,
    the agency, and all other forest road users enjoyed.
        Question 192. Why shouldn't this Congress take about 30 percent of
    the recreation and wilderness budget and put that money into road
    reconstruction and maintenance?
        Answer. The Forest Service budget proposal provides for recreation
    road maintenance and reconstruction within the maintenance and road re/
    construction budget line items. Budget constraints do not allow for the
    levels of funding needed for either the roads or the recreation
    programs. The President's Budget provides balanced funding for these
    programs within current funding constraints.
    Law enforcement
        According to your budget it costs the Forest Service $92,545 per
    law enforcement agent.
        Question 193. How many county law enforcement officers could the
    average county hire for $92,000 per year?
        Answer. It is unknown how many law enforcement officers could be
    hired by the average county, since we do not have pay information for
    county law enforcement personnel available. Simply taking the 1999
    estimate of $67,373,000 and the FTE level of 728 from the Forest
    Service Explanatory Notes, then dividing those, does not accurately
    reflect the cost of law enforcement personnel. The overall budget
    figure shown includes cooperative law enforcement funding, fleet
    equipment replacement and use, support costs for office space and
    clerical assistance, training and travel, transfer of station costs,
    and all other related employment costs.
        Question 194. Why shouldn't we block grant most, if not all, law
    enforcement dollars directly to those counties which have National
    Forest lands within them?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1996 the Senate Appropriations Committee
    asked for an independent review of the Forest Service law enforcement
    program. In March of 1997, Star Mountain, Inc., a company hired through
    the Office of Personnel Management, submitted their final assessment of
    the program. One of the four focus areas in their study was,
    ``Potential for establishing block grants to local law enforcement
    agencies, its merits, and cost benefit.'' The report concluded that
    block grants were not viewed as an alternative to cooperative
    agreements for assuming Forest Service Law Enforcement and
    Investigations responsibilities. The primary reason for their
    conclusion is the lack of accountability for block grants. Audits may
    be required on some types of block grants, however, they generally
    focus on the financial soundness of the grant recipients and their
    activities rather than accountability for results and outcomes.
    Essentially there are no requirements to show an increased benefit
    utilizing block grants.
    The National Forest System--prescribed fire
        Chief, you've state publicly that 90 percent of the lands within
    the interior west which are considered to be at a high risk for
    catastrophic fire will need to be mechanically treated prior to
    burning. We've also seen proposals to burn commercially valuable timber
    in some prescribed burns.
        Question 195. What is the average cost of prescribed burning?
        Answer. Answer combined with those for S-196, S-197, see below.
        Question 196. Your budget documents suggest you will treat 1.47
    million acres in fiscal year 1999 for some $235 million in fire
    operations funding.
        Answer. Answer combined with those for S-195, S-197, see below.
        Question 197. That works out to about $160 per acre if I did my
    math right.
        Answer. (Combined with answers for S-195, S-196) The fiscal year
    1999 proposed budget includes $235.0 million in fire operations
    funding. Of that amount, only $65.0 million is proposed for the
    Hazardous Fuel Reduction program. The balance of the Fire Operations
    program funding supports wildfire suppression activities.
        The $65.0 million Hazardous Fuel Reduction program supports all
    types of fuel treatment activities, including prescribed burning, and a
    variety of mechanical treatments. The program also supports associated
    activities, such as planning fuel reduction activities and assuring
    compliance with air quality standards. The fiscal year 1999 program
    proposed to treat a total of 1.47 million acres.
        Per-acre costs of prescribed burning, which is one component of the
    $65.0 million Hazardous Fuel Reduction program, vary by topography,
    vegetation type, weather conditions, and proximity to structures and
    developed areas. Per-acre costs range from $30 to $300 per acre, with
    some situations potentially driving per-acre costs higher.
        Question 198. If you could sell only 5,000 board feet/acre of
    commercial timber from the lands you want to burn, the commercial
    timber value would net the government approximately about $240 per acre
    treated. Tell me why we shouldn't require the Forest Service to remove
    and sell all commercial products prior to burning?
        Answer. Commercial timber does not occur on all lands scheduled for
    fuel treatment or prescribed burning. Mechanical fuel treatment and
    prescribed burning are not meant to cause damage to forest lands. Most
    of the mechanical treatment needed to prepare a forested area for
    prescribed burning involves removing small trees and brush that have
    little or no commercial value. The objectives are to reduce fuels that
    allow fire to move from the ground, surface fuel into tree crowns and
    to create a crown spacing that reduces the risk of wildfire spreading
    through tree canopies. Some commercial products may be produced as a
    result of this mechanical treatment, including biomass, pulpwood, and
    some sawlog products. It is current practice to seek to sell and remove
    products that have commercial value in preparation for prescribed
    burning. Unfortunately, much of the material to be treated has little
    or no value in the marketplace. Material that does have commercial
    value, such as biomass and pulpwood may have local markets, but those
    markets are often transitory and unreliable, making it difficult to
    plan with assurance that they will be available at all times.
        Question 199. If you did remove this volume won't you reduce the
    fuel loading and make these projects less risky and less costly to
    burn?
        Answer. Removing commercial timber from an area may increase fire
    hazard as the limbs and foliage that were a part of the harvested trees
    are left as slash and dead fuel. As fuel loadings on an area increase,
    the cost of fuel treatment may also increase.
        Question 200. Wouldn't you return a positive cash-flow to the
    federal coffers rather then sending $235 million up in smoke?
        Answer. It is current practice to sell merchantable products
    created as a result of treatment in preparation for prescribed burning.
    This can help offset the cost of fuel treatment, but normally is not
    sufficient to create positive cash flow. As stated before, the
    materials that are removed to prepare an area for prescribed fire are
    generally not valuable enough to create market interest.
    The National Forest System--purchaser road credits
        Chief, once again you've proposed to do away with purchaser credits
    and reduce road funding.
        Question 201. What percent of your road construction budget is
    spent on building new roads and what percent is spent on reconstructing
    existing roads?
        Answer. Only 1.0 percent of the proposed fiscal year 1999 road
    reconstruction and construction budget is proposed for actual road
    construction contract costs and 28 percent is proposed for actual road
    reconstruction contract costs. The remaining 71 percent is proposed for
    engineering support (survey, design, and contract administration) for
    roads reconstructed and constructed from appropriated funds, and by
    timber purchasers, and for program management and overhead. Recognizing
    both appropriated and purchaser funded work, and based on miles to be
    accomplished, there will be 3,541 miles of road reconstructed (89.6
    percent) and 410 miles of road constructed (10.4 percent) in fiscal
    year 1999.
        Question 202. How much of your bridge replacement backlog and
    maintenance backlog is dependent on reconstruction projects?
        Answer. Basically, all of the bridge replacement and maintenance
    backlog depends on reconstruction. Bridges can be replaced with
    maintenance funds and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    initiative includes replacing 40 bridges. However, about 13 percent of
    our 7,650 bridges are functionally obsolete or unsafe. On a 50-year
    replacement cycle, we would need to replace about 150 bridges per year
    to hold the bridge backlog line. With foreseeable maintenance funding,
    gaining on or even holding the bridge backlog line will depend on
    reconstruction.
        Question 203. Are you telling me that you have critical road
    maintenance and reconstruction problems yet your recommending further
    reduction in two to the line items which help you accomplish the very
    work your now wringing your hands over? The National Forest System--
    Purchaser Road Credits.
        Answer. The elimination of the Purchaser Road Credits program in
    fiscal year 1999 will not affect our ability to accomplish needed road
    work for ``critical road maintenance and reconstruction problems''.
    Purchasers of National Forest timber will still be required to do
    needed road work as before, but now the cost of that road work will be
    paid directly, rather than indirectly by the purchasers. This may then
    be reflected in lower bid prices; however, any suggestion or appearance
    of a subsidy will be removed. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    for roads reconstruction and construction is actually a 10-percent
    increase over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, and the request for
    road maintenance is increased 26 percent over the fiscal year 1998
    appropriation. However, critical road maintenance and reconstruction
    problems will still remain as the increases will slow the increase of
    the growth of the backlog in both these areas but not decrease it.
        Question 204. What percent of federal timber is purchased by small
    business purchasers?
        Answer. Data is currently unavailable.
        Question 205. Don't the small business purchasers may a greater
    cash flow challenge when it comes to paying for timber sales?
        Answer. Yes, small business purchasers may have a greater cash flow
    challenge when it comes to paying for timber sales. However, we believe
    that the timber sale provisions and requirements reflect reasonable
    rates of deposits and payments for the small business purchaser, while
    protecting the interest of the United States Government.
        Question 206. If you need forest product companies to help you
    accomplish your management goals and you are going to propose a policy
    which will financially disadvantage one group of timber sale purchasers
    over another, what are you going to do to protect these small
    companies?
        Answer. The Forest Service needs an industry to help achieve the
    long term management goals of the national forests. The President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget proposed language to modify Section 14i of the
    National Forest Management Act, which authorizes the Forest Service to
    build purchaser credit roads over $20,000 upon the request of small
    businesses. The proposed language is necessary to continue to provide
    this opportunity to small businesses.
    The National Forest System--purchaser road credits
        Question 207. Chief, has your agency done any analysis on how much
    it will cost to develop new contract procedures to allow for road
    design changes that are now handled under the purchaser credit
    provisions of the timber sale contract?
        Answer. We have not done an analysis at this time on the cost to
    revise the policy concerning timber sale purchaser roads. The process
    we will propose to put into place will try to cause as little
    disruption as possible to the process. As an example, we will still
    build the same standard of road necessary to protect the environment
    and that is necessary to remove the logs. Thus, the construction
    provisions will not change. We will try to include all the present
    contract provisions but will just handle them in a different manner.
    Currently, the sale is advertised as if the road is in place and the
    purchaser receives credit as the road is constructed. The revised
    approach will advertise the sale reflecting the cost of the road as
    part of the bid price.
        Question 208. What will happen when your employees identify a need
    to make a change in the road design?
        Answer. Needed road design changes will be handled similar to the
    present process. The contract will identify the same reasons,
    conditions and requirements to justify those needed design changes.
    Other changes will have to be by mutual agreement. In some cases,
    appropriated funds will have to used. As appropriated funds have been
    limited in the past, some design changes may not be accomplished if
    there are not sufficient funds.
        Question 209. How will your timber sale contract accommodate the
    change without delaying a purchaser's sale operations?
        Answer. The elimination of purchaser road credits requires change
    in approach in handling road costs in the timber sale contract.
        Question 210. Has your agency undertaken any analysis to understand
    how the elimination of the purchaser road credit program will impact
    timber bids and receipts?
        Answer. A year ago GAO reported to Congress what the possible
    effects of eliminating the purchaser road credit program might be. The
    Forest Service has not done any additional analysis. We would expect a
    slight decrease in bids because timber sale purchasers will have to
    carry borrowed funds longer and will pay more interest on borrowed
    monies without purchaser road credits. In addition, if there is no
    purchaser credit, this approach will not allow the timber sale
    purchaser to transfer earned purchaser credit between sales on the same
    national forest.
    American heritage rivers
        In Ms. McGinty's testimony on this program, she indicated the three
    primary objectives of the program are (1) local economic
    revitalization, (2) natural resources and environmental protection, and
    (3) cultural resource preservation. The federal register announcement
    on this initiative indicated that you (the administration) were
    ``creating the American Heritage Rivers (AHR) initiative to help these
    communities restore and protect their river resources, in a way that
    integrates natural resource protection, economic development, and the
    preservation of historic and cultural values.''
        Question 211. Chief, having listened to those objectives would you
    think these rivers would be located near metropolitan areas, or in the
    wilderness areas?
        Answer. We do not know where the 10 designated rivers will be
    located, but they may be in both urban and non-urban settings.
        Question 212. Chief, the President's Executive Order of April 8th
    on the American Heritage Rivers Advisory Group calls for some of the
    rivers which this group will recommend to be rivers that are
    ``relatively pristine.'' Is it your understanding that your agency will
    be asked to expend its budget to place additional protection on rivers
    within the National Forest System (NFS) as a result of the Heritage
    Rivers initiative?
        Answer. It is our understanding that this initiative will not
    require or allow any new federal regulations. We do not expect to place
    additional protection on AHR designated rivers within NFS lands.
        Question 213. What will this program do for rivers located on
    National Forest Lands that your existing forest plans can't already
    accomplish? Will this initiative result in any additional rivers be
    designated as wild and scenic on National Forest lands?
        Answer. This initiative will encourage greater interagency
    coordination, more partnerships with the private sector and non-profit
    organizations, and more involvement with communities. This initiative
    will not affect any rivers eligibility for wild and scenic river
    designation.
        Question 214. If the program is designed to help communities (town
    and cities) refurbish their river heritage, why are you mucking around
    out on the National Forests? How many towns over 5,000 people are
    located within the boundaries of the National Forests? How many have
    rivers which run through both the town and the National Forest?
        Answer. This information is currently not available at the
    Washington or local offices. Please contact us to clarify your needs
    and we will work with you to provide the appropriate information.
        The Agriculture Research Bill Conference Report includes language
    that puts the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program on a five-
    year cycle. This language has strong support among all forest
    constituents, and is the product of a blue ribbon report prepared for
    the Chief of the Forest Service by a diverse coalition including the
    National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges,
    National Association of State Foresters, the National Woodland Owners
    Association, the Wilderness Society, the Society of American Foresters,
    and the American Forest and paper Association. The language was
    overwhelmingly approved in the House and has met no significant
    opposition in the Senate.
    Forest and rangeland research--forest inventory and analysis
        Question 215. Is it the intention of the Forest Service, in
    response to Congressional mandate, to move the FIA program to a 5-year
    cycle?
        Answer. The Research Bill has not yet been finalized or signed by
    the President. However, the Forest Service shares the goal of moving
    the FIA research program to a 5-year cycle. The current legislation
    requires submission of a strategic plan with 180 days of passage
    indicating additional funding and personnel needs to transition from
    the current program to a more vigorous 5-year program.
        Question 216. What is the priority of this improved FIA program
    relative to other research initiatives? What research initiatives are
    higher priority?
        Answer. FIA is the highest research initiative priority for the
    fiscal year 1999 Forest Service Research budget.
        Question 217. Is the $4.5 million increase in funding for FIA in
    the President's fiscal year 1999 budget sufficient to move the program
    to a five year cycle?
        Answer. No. The increase proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget is
    only sufficient to reduce the national FIA cycle to about 11-years and
    begin annualized inventories on about 37 percent of the nation's
    forests. The strategic plan called for in the Research Bill will
    outline the additional needs above fiscal year 1999 funding to achieve
    the five-year cycle mandated on 100 percent of the nation's forests.
        Question 218. Would you agree that Congress, in response to the
    overwhelming support for a five year inventory cycle, should provide
    sufficient resources to make a 5-year cycle possible?
        Answer. Yes. As long as the resources permit the agency to collect
    information on the broader suite data essential to monitor ecosystem
    integrity.
        FIA is a global leader in inventory and monitoring technology and
    provides critical information on the status, trends and condition of
    forest lands for 10 million private and all public forest landowners in
    the United States. FIA is provides forest resource information across
    all ownerships that is more comprehensive, more detailed, and of higher
    quality than any other entity and has done so for 70 years. FIA's
    leadership and dedication to providing sound, unbiased resource
    information was recognized by the First Blue Ribbon Panel on Forest
    Inventory in 1992 and again by the Second Panel this year.
        Question 219. How much additional funding would the Forest Service
    need to move the FIA program to a 5-year cycle?
        Answer. The question has two answers because the five year cycle
    required by the Agriculture Research Bill is more stringent than the
    five year cycle sought in the Second Blue Ribbon Panel Report. Although
    the strategic planning required by the Research Bill has only recently
    begun and the budget analyses are still very preliminary, we estimate
    that it would take $98 million annually to provide the program outlined
    in the Research Bill. The estimated cost of complying with the Second
    Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommendations is $80 million. The cost
    difference stems from the fact that visiting 20 percent of the plots
    each year in very remote locations, such as interior Alaska and
    wilderness areas, is extremely expensive. The Blue Ribbon Panel report
    recommends negotiations with State Foresters, and some State Foresters
    are supporting cycles other than 5-years. For example, for some western
    areas, cycles of 7 or 10-years are supported by State Foresters, and
    perhaps 20-years for interior Alaska. This flexibility to negotiate a
    cycle that best meets customer needs results in the lower cost estimate
    of $80 million.
        Both the Research Bill and the Blue Ribbon Panel require reporting
    of forest health information as an integral part of the program. Thus,
    budget estimates for this response reflect a merged FIA and Forest
    Health Monitoring (FHM) detection monitoring program.
        In fiscal year 1999, Forest Service Research proposes $28 million
    on FIA and FHM detection monitoring and will leverage about $9 million
    in direct and in-kind support from FIA/FHM partners, for a total of $37
    million. This funding will support annualized inventories on about 37
    percent of the nation's forests, a national FIA cycle of about 11
    years, and provide for forest health detection coverage on about 70
    percent of the nation's forests.
        In addition, future inventory and monitoring efforts will include
    more ecosystem information to increase their value for analysis,
    planning, evaluation and education. This broader array of information
    in conjunction with improved linkages to other data sources will help
    streamline planning, analysis and implementation of a more efficient
    resource information gathering and delivery system. Future efforts will
    also pursue continued improvement and significant expansion of our
    popular interactive internet data delivery capability
    (www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/wofia.htm).
    National Forest System--reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire
        In his recent ``State of the Forest Address, Chief Dombeck state,
    ``There are approximately 40 million acres of national forests that are
    exposed to abnormally high risk of fire, disease, and insect outbreaks.
    To respond to this need, we are asking Congress for funding to: (1)
    increase prescribed fire and forest fuels treatment in critical
    watersheds from 1.1 million acres in 1997 to 1.5 million acres in 1999
    and (2) double the amount of thinning in unnaturally dense forest
    stands particularly along the urban--wildland interface over the next
    5-years.''
        Question 220. In October of 1997 the House Committee on Agriculture
    sent you a letter requesting the location of these 40 million acres.
    Did the agency ever respond to this letter?
        Answer. We cannot find record of a response to this letter.
        Question 221. Have these acres been identified? Where are they?
        Answer. The 40 million acres are estimated to be a portion of
    National Forest Land where hazardous fuels loads and the potential for
    insect and disease problems is greatest. These areas primarily occur in
    the extensive pine stands found in the west and south. In the fiscal
    year 1998 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations, Congress directed that $4 million in the Forest
    Service's Wildland Fire Management appropriation and the Department of
    Interior's appropriation be used to establish and implement a
    comprehensive approach for fuels mapping and inventory. This approach
    is now being developed by a joint Fire Sciences Team and will provide
    for improved fuels mapping and inventory.
        Question 222. Your ``State of the Forest Address'' indicated that
    you intend to ``double the amount of thinning in unnaturally dense
    forest stands over the next five years.'' How much of this thinning do
    you currently do?
        Answer. Two types of thinning operations are performed--
    precommercial and commercial. The difference between the two
    activities, as the names imply, is largely a function of whether or not
    the material being removed is of sufficient size to have acquired a
    market value.
        Annual data on the number of acres subject to each type of
    treatment are available from the Forest Service's TRACS-SILVA database.
    The figures for the last two years are provided below. These data
    indicate that we are presently thinning about 285,000 acres annually--
    155,000 acres precommercially and 130,000 acres commercially.

                                                       ANNUAL DATA
                                                       [In acres]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1996                                 1997
                    Region                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Precommercial  Commercial    Total   Precommercial  Commercial    Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Northern..............................       14,285        2,391     16,676       11,737        2,535     14,262
    Rocky Mountain........................       12,801        4,372     17,173       12,839        4,324     17,163
    Southwest.............................        4,353        1,915      6,268       14,189        5,707     19,896
    Intermountain.........................       10,723        5,122     15,845       12,268        2,947     15,215
    Pacific South West....................       25,303       11,171     36,474       31,456       16,808     48,264
    Pacific North West....................       66,437       12,785     79,222       57,724       20,149     77,873
    Southern..............................        8,874       61,943     70,817        8,501       51,827     60,328
    Eastern...............................        5,713       28,844     34,557        4,729       27,786     32,515
    Alaska................................        4,016    ..........     4,016        3,728    ..........     3,728
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Servicewide.......................      152,505      128,543    281,048      157,171      132,083    289,254
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question 223. Where is this thinning going to occur?
        Answer. While we are currently striving to improve the reliability
    of our data, at present it is estimated that approximately 40 million
    acres of National Forest land are exposed to abnormally high risk of
    fire, insect, or disease outbreaks. This heightened risk may be a
    function of many variables, but overstocking is certainly a key
    consideration. While some overstocking problems can be addressed by
    means other than thinning--e.g., prescribed burning--in many instances
    the existing stocking levels are so high that the risks associated with
    introducing a prescribed fire are prohibitive. In these instances,
    thinning is our only real mechanism for implementing positive change.
    Given that the risk of catastrophic fire tends to be greatest in
    wildland/urban interface areas, these zones would logically become
    focal points for our expanded thinning program.
        Question 224. The funding for this thinning doesn't seem to appear
    to be in any of the National Forest System line items, the State and
    Private Forestry line items or in any other program line items. Where
    precisely is this thinning initiative in the budget?
        Answer. The initiative proposes to double the amount of thinning in
    unnaturally dense stands over the next five years. In fiscal year 1999
    we will be using funding in the forestland management line items (NFTM
    for commercial thinning and NFFV for precommercial thinning) and from
    the K-V and reforestation trust funds only for precommercial thinning.
        Question 225. In what time frame do you anticipate treating all 40
    million acres in the current backlog? Is your budget request consistent
    with this timeframe? What level of funding would be consistent with
    this time frame?
        Answer. We plan to increase our fuels treatment program 30 percent
    per year until we are treating 3.0 million acres per year by 2005. At
    this rate of treatment, we anticipate that critical areas would be
    treated within 10-15 years, with much of the 40 million acres requiring
    multiple treatments on each acre.
        The work by the Fire Sciences Team will be used to determine
    priorities, judge the effectiveness of various treatments, and assess
    the risk. The funding request in the President's budget is consistent
    with this time frame.
    National Forest System--watershed health improvement
        In February Secretary Glickman transmitted a letter to House
    Agriculture Committee Chairman Smith expressing his opposition to
    Chairman Smith's forest health bill. The letter rejected Chairman
    Smith's proposal to use the Roads and Trails Fund for forest health
    recovery projects, yet advocated using this same fund for ``watershed
    restoration activities.'' The concept of ``watershed restoration, as it
    turns out, is nearly identical to the concept of forest recovery
    outlined in Chairman Smith's bill.
        Question 226. On February 27, Secretary Glickman transmitted a
    letter to Chairman Smith opposing the use of the Roads and Trails Fund
    for the purpose outlined in his forest health bill. This same letter
    advocated the use of the Roads and Trails Fund for ``watershed
    restoration activities.'' Where does this proposal appear in the fiscal
    year 1999 budget?
        Answer. Secretary Glickman's February 27, 1998 letter described the
    Administration?s suggested alternative to H.R. 2515. This alternative
    would emphasize watershed and forest health treatments such as:
      --Reconstructing, relocating, maintaining, or decommissioning roads;
      --Prescribed fire;
      --Watershed restoration through soil stabilization and abandoned mine
            rehabilitation;
      --Restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat;
      --Control of noxious and exotic weeds; and
      --Ecosystem analysis
        The fiscal year 1999 President's budget includes funding
    increases for programs that would carry out these kinds of
    treatments.
        The Administration's alternative would amend the 10 Percent
    Fund to expand its scope of spending from road and trail
    construction, reconstruction, and maintenance, to overall
    watershed health. The Secretary's letter was sent to the
    Committee after the fiscal year 1999 President's budget was
    released. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget for the 10
    Percent Fund would support activities that are currently
    authorized, including trail reconstruction, and road
    reconstruction and maintenance to address environmental
    degradation, especially in riparian areas.
        Question 227. Why was the Secretary's proposal not included
    in the USFS explanatory notes?
        Answer. The Secretary's letter was sent to the Committee
    after the fiscal year 1999 President's budget was released. The
    fiscal year 1999 President's budget, as described in the
    Explanatory Notes, includes funding increases for programs that
    normally conduct the kinds of watershed restoration and forest
    health treatments described in the Administration's
    alternative. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget for the 10
    Percent Fund would support activities that are currently
    authorized, including trail reconstruction, and road
    reconstruction and maintenance to address environmental
    degradation, especially in riparian areas.
        Question 228. Was the proposal presented to Chairman Smith
    sincere? Does the Department or the agency still view
    ``watershed restoration activities'' as an appropriate use of
    the Roads and Trails Fund?
        Answer. The Secretary's proposal was sincere. The
    Administration believes it would be appropriate to expand the
    authorized use of the 10 Percent Fund to include the types of
    watershed and forest health treatments described in it's
    alternative to H.R. 2515.
        Question 229. To what extent does the treatment of the 40
    million acres of forest at risk of catastrophic fire correspond
    with ``watershed restoration?'' How are the two similar? How
    are they different?
        Answer. A noted earlier, the location and actual risk
    associated with these acres will be defined by the Fire
    Sciences funding in the fiscal year 1998 Wildland Fire
    Management appropriation. Since large, damaging fires pose a
    threat to a healthy watershed, many acres included in the 40
    million occur within watersheds that need restoration. Fuel
    treatment can prevent severe fires which damage watersheds and
    cause floods and erosion. Prescribed fire can increase species
    diversity on a site, giving more resilience to ecosystems. Fuel
    treatments that put more organic matter on the ground speeds
    nutrient availability to new plants and prevents site
    deterioration. It is assumed that fuel treatment within these
    areas will be one very effective component of watershed
    restoration. There are riparian areas where fire may be
    damaging instead of restorative. In other cases, fire may
    expose old erosion sources, reactivating the erosion cycle.
    These areas would not be included within the 40 million acres
    and may require restoration activities other than fuel
    treatment or prescribed fire.
        Question 230. Does the current condition of the 40 million
    acres place watershed health at risk? Would it logically
    follow, then, that your proposal for watershed restoration
    would incorporate the 40 million acres?
        Answer. As noted in Question 229, much of the area would
    cover the same area. Fuel treatments are expected to reduce the
    fire hazard, restore the health of the ecosystem, and be an
    effective component of watershed restoration.
                                    ------

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                     hardwoods technology center, princeton

        Chief, the Forest Service has been involved with the
    hardwoods technology center in West Virginia that assists
    small, independent operators in their efforts to get
    established in the secondary hardwoods processing industry. For
    a variety of reasons, the Center is now faced with a need to
    restructure its operations.
        Question 231. What steps can the Forest Service, especially
    State and Private Forestry, take to assist in providing this
    center with a firm organizational footing?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 1992, a total
    of $8.9 million was appropriated to the USDA Forest Service,
    State and Private Forestry, to initiate the development of a
    hardwood training and flexible-manufacturing center in Mercer
    County, West Virginia. The initial role of the USDA Forest
    Service in assisting the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technology
    Center was largely grant administration by the Northeastern
    Area and some counsel by Research.
        During the last three years the Northeastern Area has taken
    on a more direct role of assistance, guidance and counsel. In
    May 1996, the Northeastern Area drafted a report entitled,
    Strengthening Hardwood Utilization: An Institute Concept for
    Hardwood Utilization Research, Technology Training and
    Transfer, and Industry Development. The report, provided to
    Congress, called for the USDA Forest Service to better
    coordinate its State and Private Forestry and Research role and
    to develop linkages with the Center to focus on the following
    program areas: Joint leadership, resource information and
    analysis, shared training, shared workforce toward common
    goals, shared planning, and shared initiatives.
        The Institute concept specifically called for funding for
    the Forestry Sciences Laboratory to be restored to the fiscal
    year 1995 level, a State and Private Forestry Liaison position
    to be created, and an economically self-sufficient Center to be
    programmatically linked to USDA Forest Service Research and
    State and Private Forestry programs. Funding has been restored
    at the Laboratory and a State and Private Forestry Liaison
    position has been established.
        The Forest Service continues to assist the Center by
    providing, through a partnership role, a wide-range of linkages
    and contacts, timely information, technical advice, and focused
    financial incentives. The research programs at the Forestry
    Sciences Laboratory have been recently restructured based on
    input from the hardwood industry. The Institute concept,
    bringing together the Center; the Northeastern Area; and the
    Forestry Sciences Laboratory; remains a viable option for the
    Center to be fully successful. The Forest Service continues to
    support the Institute Concept, however, since the Center is a
    501(c)-(3) non-profit organization, the Board of Directors for
    the Center controls the overall program agenda and makes all
    decisions concerning the operations of the Center.
        Chief, I would request that you develop, for the
    Subcommittee's consideration, a future vision for the Hardwoods
    Technology Center. Because of the nature of the center's work,
    I believe your State and Private Forestry branch should lead
    this effort. This group is familiar with this project, and
    should be able to address goals and objectives, leadership
    needs, and funding requirements for a restructed Hardwoods
    Technology Center. And, because the Appropriations Committee
    will soon begin its mark-ups of the fiscal year 1999 budget, I
    would appreciate a response within the next two weeks.
        Question 232. In light of the need to strengthen the
    program at the hardwoods center, why has the Forest Service
    proposed to reduce the fiscal year 1999 technical assistance
    funding below last year's enacted level of $200,000?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 President's budget proposes to
    maintain funding for the hardwoods center in Princeton, West
    Virginia at the fiscal year 1998 funding level of $200,000. The
    Forest Service fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes do not report
    the correct level of funding.
    Seneca Rocks Visitor Center
        Question 233. What are the estimated costs for operations of the
    visitor center? What plans does the Forest Service have in developing
    its budget for next year to accommodate the additional operating costs
    that will accompany this facility?
        Answer. The estimated annual operating cost for the Seneca Rocks
    Visitor Information Center is $275,000.
        The Forest and Region are exploring partnership opportunities to
    offset the increased costs of operation and maintenance for this, and
    one other new center (Northern Great Lake Visitor Center) in the
    Region.
        To assist the Forest Service in addressing the growing recreation
    demands on our national forests, Congress in fiscal year 1996
    established a demonstration fee program.
        Question 234. To assist the Forest Service in addressing the
    growing recreation demands on our national forests, Congress in fiscal
    year 1996 established a demonstration fee program. What has been the
    experience to date in the Service's implementation of the program?
        Answer. Our experience has generally been favorable. The
    flexibility of the program as authorized has given our project managers
    the latitude to craft projects that are generally acceptable for their
    particular site and their particular set of circumstances and visitors.
    It also allows us to make needed changes where changes are warranted
    because of public reaction. We have also found that projects in areas
    or for activities that had no prior fee associated takes more time,
    resources, and about a year of planning--to ensure a fiscally sound and
    publicly accepted program. We also find better success with projects at
    developed sites where reinvestment of funds is more apparent than on
    dispersed sites.
        Question 235. What revenues were generated last year, and what are
    your expectations for this fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1997 we collected $8.7 million from the fee
    demo program, at 40 sites. We anticipate collecting approximately $16
    million from the program in fiscal year 1998, at about 80 sites.
                              allocation of funds
        Chief, in recent years, the Forest Service has undertaken an effort
    to change the manner in which it decides how it allocates funds to the
    field. It appears that as a proportion of total National Forest System
    appropriated funds, Region 9 is not faring as well in the budget
    process. I understand that similar dissatisfaction has been heard in
    some corners from Region 8, the Southern region.
        Question 236. What are the factors that contributed to the Forest
    Service's decision to reallocate funding of the various National Forest
    System line-items?
        Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1995, there was no consistent,
    established approach for allocating funds in either the formulation or
    execution stages of the budget process. In budget formulation, the
    Deputy Chief established regional funding levels by adjusting the
    previous year's level based on personal knowledge of issues or program
    changes. These adjustments were not necessarily based on quantifiable
    or documentable information and tended to perpetuate historical funding
    distributions. In budget execution, the same approach was used except
    that allocations were proposed by individual staffs based on their
    knowledge of program issues and priorities. Some staffs used budget
    formulation information received from field units to help in these
    decisions. The agency's leadership generally approved these allocations
    without significant adjustments. The logic and rationale behind these
    decisions in both steps of the budget process were never communicated
    to the field. Many regions voiced concerns about the equity and
    objectivity of these allocations, particularly as program priorities
    within the agency began to change.
        The Forest Service began using a criteria-based approach for
    allocating funds in the agency's budget formulation process in fiscal
    year 1995. Significant progress has been made since that initial
    effort, and as of fiscal year 1997 criteria are now used to make
    initial and final allocations as well as allocations for budget
    formulation purposes.
        Allocation criteria provide some of the rationale needed to justify
    programs by linking the distribution of funds to expected performance
    as described in agency goals and objectives. They help sharpen the
    focus on objectives and communicate agency priorities. The allocation
    criteria establish a foundation for distributing resources by
    identifying differences in Regional resource conditions, workload,
    production capabilities and other elements.
        As the Agency refines its allocation criteria, Washington Office
    (WO) and Regional program managers are looking to improve the link
    between the performance indicators in the GPRA Performance Plan and the
    criteria. This connection will ensure that accomplishing the agency's
    priorities on the ground is rewarded and that funding is tied to
    accountable work.
        Question 237. What are the consequences to the forests, on-the-
    ground, of this type of reallocation? Are facilities having to be
    closed, or are services being reduced, or is staffing affected?
        Answer. Given the complexity of managing natural resources, no set
    of criteria will yield the optimum allocation for everyone. Management
    review remains a necessity to ensure that regional programs are
    maintained. Changes to address program viability or emerging needs
    usually take place when the regions respond to the Program Budget
    Instructions, the Initial Planning and Budget Advice (PBA), or even
    through reprogramming requests. Regions provide an analysis of the
    impacts that proposed funding increases and decreases would have on
    their program capabilities. In reviewing this information, WO program
    managers work to address emerging issues or priorities so that the
    final allocation balances Regional needs.
        In the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 Final PBAs,
    adjustments were made to some programs where shifts in funding due to
    applying the criteria would have resulted in significant changes. The
    adjustments generally limited an increase or decrease of no more than
    10 percent in a unit's percent share of available funding from one year
    to the next. In the fiscal year 1999 Initial PBA, NFS program managers
    eliminated the ``bridge'' for most of their programs, but kept it when
    the impacts would have been too drastic or if revisions to the criteria
    were soon expected to occur.
        Question 238. As the effects of these reduced budgets are being
    felt in the regions that have had to give up funds, is there any
    thought being given to re-evaluating the factors so that significant
    disruption to the delivery of services does not occur?
        Answer. For any given region, several factors would have led to
    increases or decreases in funding for a line item: total funding
    appropriated, the amount of funds needed to operate the National
    headquarters, earmarks or priorities for specific regions, and the
    criteria used. Since moving to a criteria-based approach can result in
    significant shifts in program funding among regions, an adjustment or
    ``bridge'' was applied to all regions to limit an increase or decrease
    of no more than 10 percent in a region's percent share of the available
    funding from one year to the next.
        While some Regions may have declining budgets for some programs,
    using the criteria has resulted in increases in other programs. Use of
    the allocation criteria has refocused funding in the regions on
    different programs. For instance, Regions 8 and 9 are receiving a
    higher percent share of the Ecosystem Planning, Inventory and
    Monitoring, but less of the Recreation and Wilderness funds.
        The evaluation and refinement of allocation criteria is an on-going
    effort involving Washington office and regional resource and budget
    staffs. This effort is designed to address issues related to specific
    program criteria. Resource or other information used to update the
    criteria is kept as current as possible. Unresolved issues related to
    specific criteria are periodically addressed to assure that the best
    possible criteria are in use. Staffs are also working to improve the
    link between the performance indicators in the agency's GPRA
    Performance Plan and the criteria. This connection will ensure that
    accomplishing the agency's priorities on the ground is rewarded and
    that funding is tied to accountable work. As criteria improve,
    additional shifts in funding among regions may occur. Those changes
    will be implemented incrementally to limit significant changes.
        Question 239. What was the Forest Service's logic in applying the
    reallocation to the base program, and not just the incremental changes
    in funding each year?
        Answer. Allocation criteria for each program are applied to the
    total funds available for distribution to the field for a given year.
    When the criteria were first used, a ``bridge'' or adjustment was also
    applied to mitigate the adverse effects of potentially rapid changes in
    program funding levels. This ``bridging'' approach temporarily
    maintained the link to an historical ``base'', but allowed some
    movement towards a more rational and equitable distribution of funds.
    Subsequent allocations using the criteria have resulted in further
    shifts away from historical levels of funding for some programs in some
    regions. This, however, reflects the intended result of this approach,
    a significantly more meaningful, visible and equitable allocation.
    Applying the criteria to incremental changes in the budget could
    eventually lead to the same result, but it would take significantly
    longer and there would be no justifiable reason for hanging on to a
    ``base'' program that does not reflect current workloads and the
    capabilities of field units to address shifting agency priorities.
        Question 240. To what extent does the allocation of funds take into
    consideration the number of recreation sites on a forest, and the costs
    associated with keeping these facilities available for public use?
        Answer. The regional and Washington office Recreation Management
    staffs worked extensively to develop and refine the criteria currently
    being used. The agency's Recreation Program Directors selected criteria
    that best represented the recreation resource situation and workload
    for which quality information was available. From this process they
    selected the following criteria:
      --Recreation Use calculated using Recreational Visitor Days (31
            percent weight);
      --Managed developed site capacity using PAOT-Days (Persons-at-one-
            time) (30 percent weight);
      --Non-Wilderness Forest Service acres per Region (18 percent weight);
      --Miles of existing Non-Wilderness trails (12 percent weight); and
      --Number of Special Use Permits (9 percent weight).
        Of these criteria, the PAOT-Days, weighted at 30 percent,
    attempts to account for the workload associated with recreation
    sites and managed site capacity. The recreation budget criteria
    are expected to change when the results of two important
    efforts (Recreation Meaningful Measures and the INFRA data
    base) provide consistent, validated measures and costs.
        Question 241. Does the allocation method address the
    different operating seasons for the various regions such as the
    short but intense use in the northernmost states, as compared
    to the longer, more dispersed seasons in the southern tier of
    states?
        Answer. The Recreation Program Directors measured the
    managed developed site capacity calculated using PAOT-Days
    (Persons-at-one-time). PAOT-days was used because it does
    consider the season of use, though it does not capture the
    timing differences in operating seasons. The Recreation
    Directors considered a range of potential indicators that
    attempted to measure the different workloads and resources in
    the regions.
        When Meaningful Measures and the INFRA database are
    implemented in fiscal year 1999, the Recreation staff intends
    to review its allocation criteria to assess the improvements in
    the information collected and to identify indicators that
    demonstrate the ``quality'' of experience.

                                  firefighting

        The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Forest Service
    appropriated funds is about $50 million above the fiscal year
    1999 enacted level. A significant portion of the increase is
    created by reducing funding for the firefighting program some
    $30 million below last year's level.
        Question 242. What is your confidence level that sufficient
    funds are included in the Forest Service request for
    firefighting this year?
        Answer. Within the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for
    Wildland Fire Management, firefighting funds proposed in the
    Fire Operations Expanded Budget Line Item at $235.0 million
    combined with $102.0 million in proposed contingency funding,
    represent a level slightly above the 10-year average annual
    fire suppression expenditures. In addition, there is still a
    $250 million emergency fund available should the President need
    to activate it.
        Question 243. Do you anticipate having to borrow any funds
    from the Knutsen-Vandenburg Reforestation Trust Fund this fire
    season? If so, how do you propose to repay the K-V account for
    those funds, let alone the outstanding balance of $493 million
    already owed the K-V account?
        Answer. The Forest Service does not anticipate having to
    borrow funds from the Knutsen-Vandenburg fund for firefighting
    this fire season.
        The ten year (1987-1997) average for wildfire suppression
    activities is $323 million. Yet the fiscal year 1999 budget
    request for operations is just $235 million, some $88 million,
    or 27 percent, below the 10-year average.
        Question 244. Does the Forest Service believe the ten-year
    average is an inappropriate indicator for firefighting costs?
    If so, what alternative basis would you recommend for
    determining firefighting funding levels?
        Answer. The ten-year average annual fire suppression
    expenditure figure is an appropriate indicator for capturing
    the variability of fire season severity year to year. At the
    same time, it provides a logical basis for consistent
    administration budget proposals, in the face of uncertain
    outyear fire seasons. Given the wide fluctuation in fire season
    severity, a ten-year average annual level, along with a
    contingency fund or supplemental appropriation in extreme
    wildfire occurrence years, provides for a more balanced annual
    budgeting process.
        As you may be aware, Budget Committee and the Congressional
    Budget Office expect the Interior Subcommittee to fund the
    firefighting accounts at the ten year average. Thus, even
    though you have not requested this amount, the Subcommittee may
    be ``charged'', or scored, with the increment of $88 million.
        Question 245. If this happens, where within the Forest
    Service budget do you propose that the Subcommittee obtain $88
    million in savings?
        Answer. The Fire Operations account at $235.0 million,
    along with the $102.0 million in proposed contingency funding,
    is slightly above the 10-year average annual suppression costs.
    In addition, there is currently a $250.0 million contingency
    that was established by Congress in fiscal year 1997 but not
    used. The amount available in fiscal year 1999 will depend upon
    fund usage, if any in fiscal year 1998. Given these additional
    funds, we feel there are adequate financial resources available
    to the Forest Service in fiscal year 1999.
                           state and private forestry
    Cooperative Fire Program
        Question 246. The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget request
    calls for a program increase to $23.5 million for Cooperative Fire
    Protection. Is this increase a result of budget restructuring or is it
    a proposed program increase? Please describe with specificity what a
    requested increase in funding will be used for.
        Answer. The increase is a result of budget restructuring. In the
    fiscal year 1999 President's budget the Cooperative Fire Protection
    budget is being proposed as a separate Budget Line Item within the
    Interior Appropriation for the Forest Service State and Private
    Forestry. Prior to this year, the funds for a Cooperative Fire
    Protection program came from two separate appropriations: The
    Cooperative Lands Fire Management EBLI within the Interior
    Appropriation for Forest Service State and Private Forestry, and the
    Rural Community Fire Protection (RCFP) component, funded through the
    Rural Housing Service within the Agriculture Appropriation.
        The funds for Rural Community Fire Protection will be used in
    fiscal year 1999 as they have been used in the past: for training,
    organizing, and equipping rural volunteer fire departments servicing
    communities with populations of less than 10,000.
        Question 247. What is the basis for allocation of these funds to
    the Regions? Will the fiscal year 1999 allocation differ dramatically
    from allocations made in fiscal year 1998? If so, why?
        Answer. State Fire Assistance Expanded Budget Line Item--Funds are
    allocated to the field units based upon continuation of a historical
    funding which took into account program complexities and fire workload
    in each state. The allocations are developed in consultation with the
    State Foresters who administer the program locally.
        Volunteer Fire Assistance Expanded Budget Line Item.--Funds are
    allocated to the field units based upon continuation of a historical
    funding which took into account program complexities and fire workload
    in each state. The allocations are developed in consultation with the
    State Foresters who participate in the program.
        The allocations for fiscal year 1999 will not differ significantly
    from those made in fiscal year 1998.
        Question 248. How does this program differ from what is planned to
    be accomplished in the Forest Service Wildland Fire Management
    activity?
        Answer. The Forest Service Wildland Fire Management activity
    provides for protection of National Forest System lands from damage by
    wildfires commensurate with the threat to life, firefighter and public
    safety, values at risk, and resource management objectives. The funding
    is used to provide resources which provide a preplanned fire protection
    capability to respond to the historical and anticipated workload on
    national forest lands. The purpose of the Cooperative Fire Protection
    activity is to protect lives, homes and natural resources from
    uncontrolled wildfires on non-federal wildlands and rural lands. The
    Forest Service provides technical, financial and other assistance to
    help States and volunteer fire departments maintain currency in
    prevention, suppression and wildland fire protection techniques. This
    promotes State, local, and citizen-driven solutions to fire protection
    needs, and provides the Forest Service with additional resource
    capability in the wildland urban interface.
        Question 249. How successful has the Forest Service been in
    utilizing cost-share arrangements to accomplish the goals of this
    program?
        Answer. Cost-share arrangements have been very successful in
    accomplishing this goals of this program. On the average, each federal
    dollar leverages at least two dollars in State funds.
    Forest health management
        Question 250. What criteria does the Forest Service use to allocate
    Forest Health Management funds to its Regions? Will the fiscal year
    1999 allocations differ dramatically from allocations made in fiscal
    year 1998? If so, why?
        Answer. Federal Lands Forest Health Management--Surveys and
    Technical Assistance Program consists of two components (1) a base
    technical assistance and survey program, and (2) Off-plot forest health
    monitoring. Funding for the base program is a historical distribution
    based on the size of the Forest Health Protection organization in each
    region. Off-plot forest monitoring funding is developed in the WO and
    the distribution is based on the number of participating States and
    acres of forested land in those States. Prevention and Suppression
    funding level is developed in the WO based on the 5-year average of
    actual expenditures. Allocations include funds, based on historical
    funding levels, for initial presuppression activities. Funds for
    suppression projects are allocated after project proposals are
    submitted, prioritized and approved.
        Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management.--Surveys and Technical
    Assistance Program consists of two components (1) a base technical
    assistance and survey program, and (2) Off-plot forest health detection
    monitoring. The base program allocation provided for each State is
    formula-based. The formula is: $0.01 per acre of State and private
    forest land + $40,000 divided by 2 (50 percent cost share), but not
    less that $25,000 total. Regions and Northeastern Area may alter the
    formula-based distribution of their respective Regional and Area
    allocations with concurrence of the participating States. Although the
    program is formula driven, it is based on the availability of funds.
    Forest Health monitoring funding is developed in the WO and allocated
    based on acres of forest and number of plots in participating States.
    Prevention and Suppression funding level is developed in the WO based
    on the 5-year average. Funds for suppression projects are allocated
    throughout the fiscal year based on the results of biological
    evaluations and the priority of each project in meeting national needs.
        The fiscal year 1999 allocation will be the same as fiscal year
    1998.
                             national forest system
    Rangeland management
        Question 251. (a): The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service budget
    includes an increase of $19.2 million for rangeland management, in part
    to be used for grazing allotment analyses. (b): To date, what progress
    has been made to complete grazing allotment analyses? (c): What amount,
    if any, will be needed in future years to complete this work? (d): What
    percentage of the requested increase will be used to complete grazing
    allotment analyses and what percentage will be used to complete other
    additional on-the-ground structural improvements?
        Answer. (a) The range Vegetation Management (NFRV) expanded budget
    line item (EBLI) proposed funding is requested at $37.807 million in
    the President's fiscal year 1999 budget. This budget includes a program
    increase over fiscal year 1998 in regular funding of approximately $4
    million and a Presidential Initiative of $16 million included in the
    President's Environmental Resources Fund for America (Clean Water and
    Watershed Restoration Fund Initiative, which includes a Rangeland
    Initiative $15 million and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
    Management Project $1 million). The range Grazing Management (NFRG)
    expanded budget line item is $27.840 million or $.300 million above
    fiscal year 1998.
        Rangeland Management budget line item (BLI) request for fiscal year
    1999 is $65.6 million (NFRG and NFRV combined); however, Rangeland
    Management budget trends need to be viewed in the context of past
    years. As can be seen in the Table below in millions of dollars
    (rounded), the Rangeland budget dropped in fiscal year 1994.

                                Rangeland budget

            Fiscal year                                             Millions

    1992..............................................................$43.20
    1993.............................................................. 44.42
    1994.............................................................. 16.40
    1995.............................................................. 18.50
    1996.............................................................. 27.00
    1997.............................................................. 38.00
    1998.............................................................. 45.40

    Note: Fiscal year 1998 is enacted to date.

        The request for fiscal year 1999 includes: adjustments to cover
    inflation since fiscal year 1993; an increase in the noxious weed
    program in response to public requests; increased dollars to gather and
    analyze data needed to accomplish the NEPA work that Congress mandated
    in the Rescissions Act of 1995; funding to implement the restoration
    decisions resulting from the Rescissions Act NEPA; and finally,
    resources to monitor and evaluate restoration progress on the ground.
    Riparian area restoration is included in the implementation of the NEPA
    decisions.
        (b): The Forest Service was required in the Rescissions Act of 1995
    to develop a schedule for NEPA analysis and management decisions on
    grazing allotments. The schedule was developed based upon performing
    NEPA analysis within a period of 15 years. The 15 year period was
    divided into 5 three year time blocks to make the process more
    manageable. A total of 2,516 analyses and decisions were planned for
    fiscal year 1996 through 1998. This is 37 percent of all the analyses
    needed in 15 years. By the end of fiscal year 1997, analyses and
    decisions were completed on 1,218 allotments. In fiscal year 1998, an
    additional 544 allotment NEPA analyses are underway for a total of
    1,752 or 70 percent of the analyses planned in the first time block.
    The Forest Service will be short of its goal of 2,516 allotments by 30
    percent or 754 allotments at the end of the first three year time
    block. While we have fallen short of our ambitious schedule, the
    accomplishment of 1,752 NEPA decisions in three years represents a 400
    percent or greater increase over the rate of decisions prior to the
    Rescissions Act.
        (c): The development and implementation of grazing management plans
    through NEPA needs input from range specialists, wildlife and fisheries
    biologists, soils scientists and many others to address the complicated
    effects of a livestock grazing program. This represents expanding
    workloads at a time when staff levels are limited or reduced; this has
    resulted in a growing backlog of NEPA analyses. Work on the remaining
    allotments will be shifted to future time blocks in the schedule.
    Implementation of existing decisions needs to occur as the NEPA
    decisions are made. This translates into a minimum program for
    Rangeland Management of approximately $75 to $80 million for future
    years if all Congressionally mandated assignments are to be completed
    and yearly permit administration is carried out.
        (d): The program funding increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 is
    explained under EBLI NFRV above. Under the Rescissions Act schedule, we
    have made 1,752 decisions in the past three years (including fiscal
    year 1998). The NFRV funds increase, in large part, is needed to
    implement these decisions. These monies are to be spent on improving
    and/or restoring vegetative capabilities of the National Forest System
    lands through implementation of the NEPA decisions and monitoring
    progress towards achieving the objectives described in these decisions.
    Additionally NFRV monies can be spent on inventory and analysis, this
    information can be used as base data for NEPA. This represents about
    fifty percent of the cost of doing NEPA analysis, but is less than 20
    percent of the NFRV budget. Direct work on NEPA and resulting decisions
    are accomplished under EBLI NFRG, as is structural improvement work.
    Since the proposed funding increase is not in the area of NFRG, no
    additional NEPA analyses are scheduled and no additional structural
    improvements are planned.
        The distinction between NFRG and NFRV has resulted in difficulty
    for the Rangeland Management program. A budget increase in one of the
    EBLIs does not provide for a parallel increase in the other EBLI. Thus
    an increase on the NFRV side of the Rangeland Management program
    provides added base data and information for NEPA without dollars to
    actually perform the NEPA work and inform the public. Moreover, the
    decisions that are currently in place will be implemented in fiscal
    year 1999 to the degree possible with NFRV considering that these
    monies can only be spent on vegetative improvements and not on the
    needed structural improvement work.
        The solution to the two types of funding would be the consolidation
    of the NFRG and NFRV EBLIs into a single BLI for Rangeland Management.
    This would allow decision makers the flexibility to plan the entire
    process under one set of funds. Thus, data gathering and analysis
    information could be immediately used in the writing of a NEPA document
    while consulting with the public. This could be followed by the
    creation of an allotment management plan after a decision is made. The
    next step would be the actual implementation of the decision on the
    ground with coordination and cooperation of the permittee. Finally, as
    a last step, monitoring should take place to evaluate progress towards
    achieving the objectives delineated in the NEPA decision. As described
    above, this is a building process that requires consistent funding at a
    level that provides for performing all the needed steps, while
    continuing the administration of permits and the rest of the Rangeland
    Management job. An adequately funded program would require between $75
    and $80 million on a long term basis.
        Question 252. What efforts has the Forest Service made to include
    landowners in the decision-making process relative to initiating
    rangeland improvements?
        Answer. The Forest Service considers local landowners who are
    holders of livestock grazing permits to be very important in the NEPA
    process. The permittees are the people who, in partnership with the
    Forest Service, carry out the decisions that stem from the NEPA
    process. They are our partners, as permit holders, in making management
    on the ground workable and productive. Therefore, the Forest Service is
    committed to completing the scheduled NEPA analyses with the help of
    our permit holders through cooperation, coordination, and consultation.
    That means continuing to inform them of our concerns, the
    responsibilities that we have under the law, the regulations that we
    are expected to carry out, and the issues that the general public
    brings forth in the NEPA process. It also means continuing to listen to
    their needs and their ideas for the improvement of management on their
    allotments. The Forest Service is committed to working closely with the
    individual permittees through ongoing consultation with them on
    developing situations and coordinating with them when rangeland
    management programs are developed for their allotments under NEPA.
    Likewise, the actual implementation of management plans along with the
    construction or development of improvements requires continued close
    cooperation between the Forest Service and the permittees. In addition
    to including the permittees in the NEPA process, Forest Service
    decision makers also have a commitment to work with other interested
    parties, other Federal and state agencies, and other Forest Service
    resource areas to ensure that management actions are ecologically
    responsible, economically viable, and socially acceptable.
        Question 253. Approximately how many acres of noxious weed
    treatments does the Forest Service plan to complete in fiscal year
    1999? Does this include acres of weeds to be addressed under the
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project?
        Answer. The proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 includes $4
    million for noxious weed work in regular appropriations with another
    $2.6 million in the President's Environmental Resources Fund for
    America (Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Fund Initiative, which
    includes a Rangeland Initiative and the Interior Columbia Basin
    Ecosystem Management Project). It is expected that these funds together
    will generate 67,500 acres of treated noxious weeds. Of the total acres
    predicted approximately 12,500 will be from treatments within the
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Additional acres
    of treated noxious weeds are expected from other programs as in
    previous years.
        An assigned target of 36,732 acres has been established for the
    Regions for fiscal year 1998 using noxious weed funding. Again
    cooperation is expected from non-Federal entities, also it is
    anticipated that additional weeds will be treated under the KV program
    in fiscal year 1998.
    Recreation use
        Question 254. In the fiscal year 1999 budget, the Forest Service
    repeatedly notes a backlog of project work relative to Recreation Use
    as a justification for some of the proposed increases. Specifically, it
    asks for an increase of $16 million. To date, has the Forest Service
    completed a formal inventory of recreation backlog projects? Has a
    priority list of backlog work been developed? What criterion will be
    used to chose projects?
        Answer. The backlog of deferred maintenance and reconstruction for
    recreation facilities and trails was based on condition assessments and
    field estimates in fiscal year 1994. Recreation facility backlog
    information was gathered by utilizing the following criteria: health
    and safety; resource protection; work needed to avoid closing a site;
    site work needed to return to a user fee system previously charged or
    to continue a user fee system; or facility elimination for those sites
    beyond a serviceable condition. The totals identified, $818 million for
    recreation facilities and $267 million for trails, have not been
    updated since fiscal year 1994. The Forest Service is in the process of
    developing a consistent set of definitions and identifying specific
    needs through development of the computerized inventory database called
    INFRASTRUCTURE. This is expected to be complete by the end of fiscal
    year 1999. In the meantime, the total funding needed to address
    substandard conditions has no doubt increased due to continuing forces
    of deterioration and rising costs.
        The emphasis in fiscal year 1999, as in recent years, is on
    reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing facilities. Based on the
    above criteria, each of the nine Forest Service regions develops a
    project list from which the national list is compiled. The list
    includes projects needed to meet the demands of today's recreation
    customer as well, but with the emphasis on the above criteria the
    majority of funding would be applied to reduce the backlog. Therefore
    the $16 million increase in the fiscal year 1999 budget, although only
    a small part, would help alleviate the total need.
        Question 255. To date, how would you characterize the success of
    the recreation fee demonstration program? What plans does the Forest
    Service have for expanding the program and making it more efficient?
        Answer. To date, we consider the demonstration program successful.
    The feedback has generally been favorable as long as the fees come back
    to the local area and the Agency budget is not offset. Some projects
    have more controversy than others--mainly fees for the dispersed types
    of recreation. With significant effort on the part of the local Agency
    personnel and modifications to the project proposal, even the more
    controversial projects are able to succeed and gain public acceptance.
        In 1997, 40 projects were collecting fees. Currently, 51 projects
    are charging fees. We have plans for an additional 37 projects to begin
    charging fees this year or the beginning of next year, and are
    expecting proposals to fill the additional slots. We hope by May 1999
    to have close to 100 projects charging fees.
        We continue to work with projects to streamline and enhance
    business operations, as our managers and workforce gain additional
    skills needed to collect fees on this larger scale, and run projects in
    a business-like manner. As we move into a second full year of
    operation, we will work on ways to better integrate the various fee
    systems. Our intent has been to test a variety of fee collection
    methods on a wide variety of recreation activities. We are also
    developing a proposal for a national pass. Although we are accepting
    the Golden Eagle passport at some locations, it does not work well for
    most national forests since we have very few ``entrance'' fee areas.
                            presidential initiatives
    Clean water and watershed restoration
        Question 256. The Forest Service Budget includes $60 million for
    the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative, including $35
    million in the National Forest System account. Please indicate the
    Forest Service's priority use of the funds in this account if only a
    portion of the funding is provided.
        Answer. The Forest Service priorities would be those activities to
    restore National Forest System watersheds. The priorities for this
    effort would be based on the priority watersheds identified by the
    States resulting from their Unified Watershed Assessments.
        Question 257. What other initiatives are included within the
    planned use of these funds, including amounts to fund the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Southwest Conservation
    Strategy, or other major projects?
        Answer. More than a million dollars is planned for use in the
    Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management project. Currently planned is
    twenty million dollars for Rangeland Vegetation Management, part of
    which will be applied to the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project and to the Southwest Conservation Strategy. Other initiatives
    to which the funding is applied are: $63 million in the land, water and
    facility restoration initiative, $3 million in the climate change
    technology initiative, and $1.3 million in the law enforcement
    initiative.
        Question 258. What are the long-term implications of not receiving
    the total amount of funding requested for this initiative?
        Answer. The long-term implications would be an adverse effect on
    the Forest Service ability to be trusted and effective partners in
    achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act and implementing its mission
    for watershed management and land stewardship.
        Question 259. An additional $14 million is included in the
    Reconstruction and Construction account for this initiative for roads.
    What is the planned use of these funds? How will priority
    reconstruction and construction projects be selected?
        Answer. These funds are planned for road work designed to improve
    watershed health and eliminate adverse impacts on fisheries and
    wildlife. Examples of work to be done with these funds includes:
      --Aggregate surfacing to reduce sediment production and runoff;
      --Reconstructing cross sections to improve drainage;
      --Revegetating cut and fill slopes; and
      --Replacing culverts and bridges to pass 100 year storm flows.
        Regions have set priorities for this work to provide the greatest
    amount of environmental improvement with the funds available to them.
    They estimate that they will be able to reconstruct 340 miles of road
    and replace 13 bridges with these funds. No new road construction is
    planned under this initiative.
    Land, water, and facility restoration
        Question 260. The Forest Service budget includes $63 million for
    the Land, Water, and Facility Restoration Initiative, of which $31
    million is included in the National Forest System account. Please
    indicate the Forest Service's priority use of the funds in this account
    if only a portion of the funds are provided.
        Answer. The $31 million is planned for a balanced program of
    priority restoration projects for recreation and FA&O facilities, and
    for roads and trails, in the proportions shown on page 316 of the
    fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes. Funds will be prorated to maintain
    this proportion between these elements of our infrastructure if only a
    portion of the requested funds are provided.
        The $11 million of initiative funds for road maintenance will allow
    us to increase maintenance to a full service level standard from 40
    percent to 45 percent and replace 40 of the bridges that are currently
    restricting access to public lands. The $5 million of initiative funds
    for FA&O facility maintenance will allow us to increase maintenance to
    a full service level standard from 20 percent to 24 percent thereby
    improving employee safety, efficiency and morale. In the case of the
    recreation facility and trail components, loss of funds will result in
    the elimination of water, sanitation and trail projects. In the NFS
    account, $15 million is provided for recreation facilities and trails.
    These funds, along with $8 million in the Reconstruction Account, have
    Recreation Facility and Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction projects
    proposed by all 9 Forest Service Regions. The total funding of $23
    million for recreation facilities and trails in NFS and Reconstruction
    will fund over 400 water projects, 300 sanitation projects, and provide
    maintenance and reconstruction on over 3,000 miles of trail. A
    reduction to this funding will be prorated across the Regions and will
    begin to eliminate the programs described above.
        Question 261. Please indicate the Forest Service's priority use of
    the $17 million in funding requested in the Reconstruction and
    Construction account for this initiative if only a portion of these are
    made available. To date, what steps has the Forest Service taken to
    inventory its maintenance and construction backlog? How will projects
    be chosen for the use of these funds?
        Answer. The $17 million is planned for a balanced program of
    priority restoration projects for recreation and FA&O facilities, and
    for roads and trails, in the proportions shown on page 316 of the
    fiscal year 1999 Explanatory Notes. Funds will be prorated to maintain
    this proportion between these elements of our infrastructure if only a
    portion of the requested funds are provided.
        Not receiving the $9 million of initiative funds for FA&O
    reconstruction and construction would postpone the completion of three
    airtanker bases and ten office and work center projects. These
    postponements would have a direct affect in the Forest Services ability
    to protect natural resources, meet the public needs, and the health and
    safety of employees and the public. In the case of the recreation
    facility and trail components, loss of funds will result in the
    elimination of water, sanitation and trail projects. In the NFS
    account, $15 million is provided for recreation facilities and trails.
    These funds, along with $8 million in the Reconstruction Account, have
    Recreation Facility and Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction projects
    proposed by all 9 Forest Service Regions. The total funding of $23
    million for recreation facilities and trails in NFS and Reconstruction
    will fund over 400 water projects, 300 sanitation projects, and provide
    maintenance and reconstruction on over 3,000 miles of trail. A
    reduction to this funding will be prorated across the Regions and will
    begin to eliminate the programs described above.
        Individual forests have project-by-project maintenance plans and
    awareness of reconstruction needs. Unfortunately, these are not in a
    standard format that facilitates summarizing needs nationally. We are
    presently updating our Infrastructure integrated information system to
    include this information.
        Regions have set priorities for this work to provide the greatest
    benefit to protect the facilities and best serve users.
        Question 262. What are the long term implications of not receiving
    the total amount of funding requested for this initiative?
        Answer. In general, the growth of the backlog of maintenance and
    reconstruction needs for these programs will be accelerated.
    Specifically, environmental damage from old non-engineered roads will
    not be reduced, many high priority health and safety administrative
    facility projects will not be accomplished, and we will be unable to
    meet critical time frames for air tanker base reconstruction needed to
    use the new air tankers on which our future fire fighting capabilities
    depends. As indicated above, hundreds of recreation water and
    sanitation projects will not be addressed in fiscal year 1999. They
    will be addressed as funds become available in the future and those
    facilities that represent a health or safety problem for the public
    will be closed until repairs/reconstruction work can be accomplished.
        Question 263. Please specify in priority order (including acreage)
    planned land acquisitions with the use of $15 million requested for
    this initiative.
        Answer. The land acquisition portion of this initiative is to
    provide $14.5 million to acquire lands identified by the Forest Service
    as a priority for acquisition. All of the land acquisition projects
    proposed for funding are identified in the President's budget request
    and would be funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In
    the fiscal year 1999 request, over $48 million of land was identified
    for acquisition. The land acquisition priorities are listed by
    priority, but were not developed to show specific projects funded by
    the initiative. Many of the land acquisition proposals, such as North
    Florida Wildlife Corridor and Pacific Northwest Streams serve to
    protect and enhance key watersheds.
              interior columbia basin ecosystem management project
        Question 264. What progress has been made relative to meeting the
    requirements of section 323(a)(b) of the Department of the Interior and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-83)?
        Answer. Section 323(a) of the 1998 Appropriations Act directs the
    Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to prepare and submit a report
    to the Committees ``prior to the completion of any decision document or
    the making of any decision related to the final Environmental Impact
    Statements * * *.'' This report is to address the time and costs
    anticipated for accomplishing decisions and sources of funds. Since the
    public comment period just recently closed on the draft EIS's, work has
    not begun on development of a decision document. A decision document
    will not be developed until the Executive Steering Committee for the
    Project have selected a final alternative for management of the Forest
    Service and BLM lands within the project area. Therefore, the report
    required by Section 323(a) has not been prepared at this time. This
    report will be prepared within the next twelve to fourteen months.
        Section 323(b) of the 1998 Appropriations Act required the Project
    to analyze and publish a report on the economic and social conditions,
    and culture and customs of communities within the project area. This
    report was published and released to the public in early March 1998. At
    the same time, an additional extension of the public comment period was
    given to allow additional time for people to read the report and
    comment.
        Question 265. Just recently, the comment period for the ICBEMP
    EIS's was extended an additional month to May 6,1998. In part, this
    means that less time is available to complete actual on-the-ground work
    in the Basin for this year. How, if at all, does this change your
    project implementation costs for fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. At this time, we have already factored that extension into
    our budget estimate. Therefore, the month extension of the comment
    period does not change our Project implementation costs for fiscal year
    1999.
        Question 266. Several interest groups, including county coalitions,
    have spoken out in opposition of the Project. What are their specific
    concerns? What steps have you taken to address their concerns?
        Answer. We have worked with a number of interest groups as well as
    governmental entities including other federal agencies, states, tribes
    and counties from the inception of this Project in 1994. To the extent
    possible, we incorporated their concerns into the draft statements. We
    expect to hear some of their concerns reiterated in comments we
    received from them during the comment period that closed May 6, 1998,
    plus additional concerns. We will continue to work with these interest
    groups, governmental entities and individuals we as prepare the final
    statement.
        We are including copies of two documents (What We're Hearing and
    Content Analysis Newsletter dated February 19, 1998) that outline some
    of the concerns we have received. We plan to make available a copy of
    the final analysis of public comment in late June.
        [Clerk's note.--Due to their volume, the above mentioned
    publications have been retained in subcommittee files.]
        Question 267. What has been the response from Forest Service field
    managers to plans for on-the-ground implementation of the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project? What has the Forest
    Service done to address their concerns?
        Answer. The BLM and Forest Service field managers agree with the
    need to address these broad scale issues so they have a framework to
    plan on-the-ground projects. But as with the public, there is not
    unanimous agreement on what needs to be included in the plan and the
    level of specificity in the direction. The land management and
    regulatory executives plan to work with their field managers in
    developing the Final EIS and ROD to insure the direction in the plan is
    feasible to implement.
                                  roads policy
        Question 268. How many acres of forest land will be affected by the
    Forest Service's recent 18-month moratorium on road building?
        Answer. The temporary suspension of road construction in roadless
    areas would be applied to those projects that are proposed to be built
    in fiscal years 98 and 99. The suspension does not involve a specified
    number of acres of land area. After development of a NEPA document for
    the Interim Rule, the number of miles of proposed road affected by the
    suspension will be available.
        Question 269. Please explain in detail the work that the Forest
    Service plans to complete during the 18-month moratorium. What actions
    does the Forest Service plan to take as a result of this work in order
    to improve the transportation system and improve the health of the
    land?
        Answer. During the 18-month period the Forest Service intends to
    develop a long-term policy for managing roads on the national forests
    that addresses the social, economic, and ecological basis for new
    construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and road decommissioning.
    The policy will emphasize the rapid assessment of problem areas,
    integration with Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, and
    reassessment of the body of science available for making the best road
    management decision. In addition, an analysis process for implementing
    the long-term policy, an interim policy for roadless areas access, and
    the identification of funding sources needed for implementation will be
    included. The process will be adaptable to local situations in order to
    assure that relevant information is provided to decision makers at an
    affordable cost. Finally, the process will consider the budgetary
    impacts of the alternatives, including addressing deferred backlog and
    other long-term costs. Finally, the process will consider the budgetary
    impacts of the alternatives, including addressing deferred backlog and
    other long-term costs.
        The January 28, 1998, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    published in the Federal Register indicates that the Forest Service is
    serious about revising its regulations to better address how the
    national forest road system is developed, used, and maintained. The
    substantial reasons for undertaking these changes are outlined in the
    notice.
        The analysis process will not be a new decision process, nor will
    the results of the analysis constitute an agency action. Rather, it
    will provide a management strategy and important information that can
    be used when making future decisions about constructing,
    reconstructing, relocating, decommissioning, and maintaining roads. The
    information developed through implementation of the new analysis will
    feed into existing National Environmental Policy Act and National
    Forest Management Act decision processes. While we will work to
    implement the new analysis process within the 18-month period, we
    recognize that there will be budget and resource limitations and have
    never intended to fully implement on-the-ground changes to the road
    system within that period. In order to implement the process it will be
    necessary to complete additional inventory work on some national
    forests. The complexity of the inventory will vary with the complexity
    of issues and site conditions related to the local transportation
    system.
        The agency currently has a team of scientists and forest managers
    working to develop the analysis process. Once drafted, it will be
    subject to peer and management reviews and will be tested on several
    national forests. The feedback provided from these tests and reviews
    will play a key role in finalizing the process. Once the new analysis
    process has been completed on a forest, or at the end of the 18-month
    period, the suspension would be lifted.
        The new transportation policy and analysis process will provide the
    minimum road system to best serve current and anticipated forest
    management objectives and public uses. We will more carefully consider
    decisions to build new roads, will aggressively decommission unneeded
    roads, and will aggressively upgrade and maintain the most critical
    roads to provide safe public use, ensure economically affordable and
    efficient management, protect and restore natural resources, and
    minimize ecological impacts.
        Question 270. Is it expected that the time needed to complete the
    road inventory will take longer than the 18-month moratorium?
        Answer. We have sufficient forest development road inventory data
    to develop the new road policy and analysis process within the 18-month
    period. Currently, the forest road inventory formats vary widely across
    the Forest Service. We anticipate a significant effort will be needed
    to standardize the inventory format, map the location of existing
    forest roads, and expand the inventory to include all other travelways
    for implementation of the new road policy and analysis process.
                   payments to counties--proposed legislation
        Question 271. Does this proposed legislation also apply to states
    covered by the northern spotted owl payments? That is, will those
    states covered by the owl payments also get an annual payment level
    equal to the greater of the fiscal year 1997 payment level or 76
    percent of the fiscal years 1986-1990 average payment?
        Answer. Yes, the proposal would replace the existing State
    payments, including those States currently receiving payments for
    counties with National Forests affected by decisions related to the
    northern spotted owl.
        Question 272. Does this policy include provisions for periodic
    assessments that adjust payments for inflationary purposes?
        Answer. No. As with the existing Forest Service payments to States,
    the stabilization proposal does not include an adjustment for
    inflation.
        Question 273. Are there some regions of the country or specific
    counties that will be negatively affected in the long run by this
    proposal? If so, which ones?
        Answer. This is dependent on whether actual National Forest
    revenues increase, decrease, or remain constant in the future. The long
    range budget projections indicate continued funding declines from $233
    million paid for 1997 to less than $216 million estimated to be paid
    for 2003 (-7.4 percent) on a national basis. We don't have an
    assessment of the projected revenues for all areas below the national
    level.
        Question 274. Is it possible that future receipts will be greater
    than the guaranteed payments? What does the Forest Service plan to do
    in those years?
        Answer. The total payments to States funding for each year of the
    budget long range estimates is projected to be greater under the
    stabilization proposal than with the projected receipt collections. The
    long range budget projections indicate continued funding declines from
    $233 million paid for 1997 to less than $216 million estimated to be
    paid for 2003 (-7.4 percent) on a national basis. In exchange for a
    stable, predictable payment level, the payments under the stabilization
    proposal will neither decline nor be increased due to future revenue
    collections from national forests. This more stable, predictable
    payment will allow states and counties the opportunity to better plan
    the use of these funds.
        Question 275. What are the implications of this policy relative to
    future Forest Service timber production levels? Are future production
    levels expected to increase, decrease, or remain level?
        Answer. Implementation of the payments to counties stabilization
    proposal should have no effect on the timber sale program. Decisions
    regarding the timber program will continue to be made independently of
    the payments to counties funding as they have in the past. Timber sales
    are planned and executed using funding from discretionary and mandatory
    appropriations that have no relationship to the amounts of revenues
    paid to the counties. Should the payments to counties stabilization be
    implemented as proposed, most of the revenues now being paid to
    counties would be returned to the Treasury.
        With the costs of conducting a vegetation management program on the
    national forests continuing to rise we expect a continued slow decline
    in production levels in the future given stable funding levels.
    Whatever is decided about payments to counties would have no effect on
    this trend. We believe that our proposal would be most helpful to rural
    communities in guaranteeing a higher, fixed income, plus permitting
    greater certainty and opportunities for more effective local planning
    and spending.
        Question 276. What are the PAYGO implications of the proposed
    policy?
        Answer. Briefly, the proposal recognizes that there has been a
    significant decrease in FS timber receipts due to operating a smaller
    program which is consistent with balancing all forest resource values
    as required by law and as enforced by the courts. The large component
    of low-value salvage sales in the timber program has also contributed
    to the reduction in receipts. Faced with a similar, but localized,
    situation in the spotted owl forests in 1993, the Administration and
    the Congress agreed to cushion the blow of reduced receipt-sharing
    payments to county road and school budgets by providing 85 percent of
    the 1986-1990 average payments, reducing the guarantee by 3 percent
    each year. The Administration is proposing to provide all of the
    roughly 800 counties that receive payments with the same guarantee
    using the 1997 level of 76 percent. Those counties that had a higher
    level of payments based on 1997 receipts would receive that higher
    amount. The Department's Office of Budget and Program Analysis has
    provided more detail including a discussion of offsets.
        [The information follows:]
    Proposal
        Under existing law, 25 percent of most Forest Service receipts are
    paid to the States for distribution to the counties in which the
    forests are located for financing roads and schools. About 800 counties
    across the Nation receive such payments. Historically, the largest
    source of receipts is from the sale of timber on the National Forests.
    Timber receipts have declined in recent years due to the need to manage
    forests on an ecosystem basis which takes into account the needs of a
    broad range of resources such as wildlife, water quality, and outdoor
    recreation. In addition, the program emphasis has shifted from timber
    production and sales as a strictly commodity activity to forestland
    management. A significant portion of the program now consists of the
    sale of dead and dying trees to achieve forest health objectives. Such
    material commands much lower prices than the large volumes of timber
    sold in the past.
        In recognition that the payments generated by the forests affected
    by the northern spotted owl litigation had dropped precipitously, the
    President's Forest Plan included an economic package that supported
    legislation enacted as part of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
    Act, which established payments for those forests at an annually
    declining percentage of the 1986-1990 average payment. For 1997, the
    percentage was 76 percent and it would decline to 70 percent in 1999,
    under the current legislation. In recent years, payments to the States
    in other regions have declined significantly. In order to provide all
    county governments with a predictable and equitable level of payments
    for the national forests, the Administration will propose legislation
    later this year to stabilize the payments. The 1999 estimate of $270
    million is based on providing each county with the guarantee currently
    extended to the owl forests of 76 percent of the 1986-1990 average
    payment. For those counties where the 1997 payment was greater than
    that amount, the payment is frozen at the 1997 level. The budget
    estimates that the proposal would cost $10 million more in 1999 than
    would the program operating under the current legislation. Under the
    proposal, the payments will continue to be funded by a permanent
    indefinite appropriation. This ensures that payments will not decline
    in future years.
    Offset
        The 1999 Budget for the Department of Agriculture proposes a number
    of changes in programs that are considered ``direct spending'' under
    current budget conventions. For the most part, these proposals would
    require changes in permanent statute and would be under the
    jurisdiction of the Congressional legislative authorizing committees
    rather than the Appropriations Committee. This is the case with the
    proposed change in the Forest Service Payments to States program. Such
    changes that result in increased spending require offsetting reductions
    in other direct spending programs or alternatively increased revenues
    such as user fees. This is generally referred to as the pay-as-you-go
    or PAYGO requirement. The requirement applies to discretionary spending
    as a whole. Offsets do not have to come from programs within the same
    agency or even the same cabinet Department. In general, the
    Administration's proposed spending increases, taken as a whole, are
    offset by the proposed decreases and increased user fees, again taken
    as a whole. Thus, it is not possible to relate any one specific
    increase to a specific offset.
        For your information, the PAYGO proposals in the President's 1999
    budget are set out in full beginning on page 348 of the Budget of the
    United States Government: fiscal year 1999. The proposals for the
    Department of Agriculture are shown below displaying the deficit impact
    by fiscal year in millions of dollars.

    Food Stamps deficit impact

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Restrict States; ability to increase Federal outlays by shifting
      administrative costs from TANF to food stamps and Medicaid (food
      stamps component)
            1998............................................................
            1999...................................................... -$160
            2000......................................................  -185
            2001......................................................  -190
            2002......................................................  -195
            2003......................................................  -200
    Restore benefits for vulnerable groups of legal immigrants (food
      stamp component)
            1998......................................................   100
            1999......................................................   535
            2000......................................................   500
            2001......................................................   455
            2002......................................................   460
            2003......................................................   480
    Shift certain crop insurance spending to mandatory
            1998............................................................
            1999......................................................   185
            2000......................................................   123
            2001......................................................   118
            2002......................................................   127
            2003......................................................   137
    Limit catastrophic crop insurance payments to $100,000
            1998............................................................
            1999............................................................
            2000......................................................   -15
            2001......................................................   -30
            2002......................................................   -30
            2003......................................................   -30
    Increase Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
            1998............................................................
            1999......................................................    13
            2000......................................................    49
            2001......................................................    70
            2002......................................................    59
            2003......................................................    52
    Forest Service Payments to States (delinking from receipts)
            1998............................................................
            1999......................................................    10
            2000......................................................    22
            2001......................................................    30
            2002......................................................    41
            2003......................................................    48
    Rural EZ/EC economic development grants for Round II
            1998............................................................
            1999............................................................
            2000......................................................     7
            2001......................................................    16
            2002......................................................    19
            2003......................................................    19
    Restructure Export Enhancement Program (EEP) consistent with
      market conditions
            1998............................................................
            1999......................................................  -230
            2000......................................................  -359
            2001......................................................  -258
            2002......................................................  -258
            2003......................................................  -270
    Restructure CCC cotton user marketing certificates consistent with
      market conditions
            1998............................................................
            1999......................................................  -110
            2000......................................................   -48
            2001............................................................
            2002............................................................
            2003............................................................
    Spend existing and new Forest Service recreation and entrance fees
            1998............................................................
            1999............................................................
            2000......................................................     3
            2001......................................................     3
            2002......................................................     3
            2003......................................................     3
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan
        Question 277. The Forest Service recently released its Natural
    Resources Agenda to focus agency efforts in four areas. Does this
    Agenda represent a departure from the Forest Service mission? To what
    extent does the fiscal year 1999 budget request further your capability
    to implement the Agenda?
        Answer. The Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda supports the
    main purposes of the 1897 Organic Act for the National Forests:
    maintaining watershed health, providing clean water, and maintaining a
    sustainable supply of timber. The Agenda is tiered directly to the
    Forest Service Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan. Compared to fiscal
    year 1998, the fiscal year 1999 President's budget supports each of the
    four elements of the Agenda. For example:
    Watershed health
      --A $12.6 million (49 percent) increase to provide an additional
            12,000 acres of watershed improvements and expand clean-up of
            hazardous materials on Forest Service lands.
      --A $14.9 million increase (15 percent) in the Wildlife and Fisheries
            Habitat Management program in the areas of habitat restoration
            and partnership programs.
      --A $20 million (112 percent) increase in Rangeland Vegetation
            Management to begin the first year of a multi-year cooperative
            effort to address both the status and restoration of rangeland,
            including riparian areas.
    Sustainable forest management
      --An increase of $10 million (5 percent) for Forest and Rangeland
            Research with primary emphasis given to Forest Inventory
            Analysis, forest health monitoring, and climate change
            technology.
      --Funding increases for a number of State and Private Forestry
            programs to help individual landowners, communities, and States
            capture the benefits of trees and forests through planning and
            stewardship. 490 million acres in the U.S. are in non-federal
            ownership.
      --A $15 million (30 percent) increase for hazardous fuels reduction.
    Forest roads
      --An increase of $8 million (9 percent) focused on road
            reconstruction to protect and restore watersheds, improve
            safety, and provide appropriate access for utilization of
            forest resources.
      --A $22 million increase (26 percent) to fund the decommissioning of
            3,500 miles of roads and increase the percentage of roads
            maintained to standard.
    Recreation
        A $21.1 million increase (10 percent) in the Recreation Use program
    focused on recreation facility and trail maintenance.
        Question 278. The Forest Service Budget request includes a
    substantial increase for fish and wildlife management. What public
    benefits accrue from fish and wildlife resources on the National
    Forests and Grasslands, and to what extent will this additional funding
    contribute to additional public benefits?
        Answer. In 1996, wildlife and fish recreation expenditures tied to
    national forest tallied $6.8 billion in association with 125.7 million
    visitor days of hunting, fishing and wildlife/fish-associated viewing.
    Anglers spent $2.7 billion (46.8 million visitor days), wildlife/fish
    viewers spent $2.1 billion (52 million activity days), and hunters
    spent $2.0 billion (27 million activity days) in pursuit of their
    pastimes. This $6.8 billion in direct spending translates to a total of
    $20 billion in local economic output and 226,000 jobs. Specific
    examples include:
      --Commercial salmon harvest from the Tongass National Forest averages
            120 million pounds per year, with an average annual earnings of
            $66 million. Meanwhile, sportfishing numbers in Southeast
            Alaska increased by 62 percent from 1984-93, a significant
            revenue source for local economies.
      --In 1997, nearly 183,000 people joined in ``Celebrating Wildflower''
            events on national forests.
      --The Forest Service and their partners held 3,985 aquatic education
            events in 1997 that landed 274,000 people. Events included
            National Fishing Week, Pathways to Fishing clinics and
            classroom talks.
      --Under Recreation Fee Demonstration Pilot program, in 1997 a fee of
            $36 was charged to view Brown Bears at Pack Creek on Admiralty
            Island National Monument, Alaska. The new fee raised $37,990
            for this limited access site and did not effect visitation
            since site saw an 11 percent increase in use over last year.
            The revenue generated will cover the cost of implementing the
            fee program and allow the additional dollars to be used to pay
            for site expenses.
        Any increases in funding will be used for habitat improvements and
    restoration, development of new hunting, fishing and viewing
    opportunities, and expansion of existing opportunities.
        Question 279. Your proposal to place a moratorium on road
    construction in most roadless areas has been highly controversial,
    among industry and environmental groups. Given this controversy, why
    have you placed so much emphasis on making changes to the way in which
    you manage the National Forest road system?
        Answer. Our proposal to suspend temporarily road construction in
    roadless areas is a matter of accountability to the American taxpayers.
    It is designed to give us time to develop new scientific tools that our
    managers can use to make more informed local decisions about when, and
    if, to construct new roads.
        Question 280. Now that you have your natural resource policy on
    track, how long will it take to straighten out several years of fiscal
    chaos, civil rights neglect, and uncertainty about natural resources
    policy? What can this Committee do to help?
        Answer.
        Fiscal.--Resolution of financial management issues identified in
    recent audits of Forest Service annual financial statements are
    dependent upon several factors. Key Agency positions responsible for
    providing financial management leadership, i.e. the Chief Financial
    Officer and the Director of Financial Management, will be recruited
    within the next several months. In addition, the Agency has recently
    recruited and filled several other financial management positions which
    were vacant. These positions included the Agency's Assistant Director
    of Financial Management for Operations and the Agency's Assistant
    Director of Financial Management for Fiscal Policy and Analysis.
        Implementing the new USDA accounting system titled the Foundation
    Financial Information System (FFIS), will also be critical in resolving
    the Agency's financial management issues. This new system, working in
    conjunction with associated feeder systems such as those for payroll,
    travel and purchasing, will provide state-of-the-art technology for
    data entry, data retrieval, and report preparation. Pilot testing of
    FFIS is currently taking place in two Forest Service regions and a
    research station. This pilot stage of implementation began October 1,
    1997. Full implementation Agency-wide, with a software version that is
    year 2000 compliant, is scheduled for October 1, 1999.
        Civil rights.--The Forest Service's number one challenge in Civil
    Rights has been to resolve the 425 complaints identified in the Civil
    Rights Action Team Report issued in February 1997. To resolve the
    complaint backlog , the agency proposed a special initiative in
    partnership with the Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration,
    USDA.
        Currently, there are 167 unresolved complaints.
        By the end of fiscal year 1998, we hope to see improved success in
    the area of EEO complaints because of a greater emphasis on
    preventative programs such as Early Intervention and Mediation, and
    work environment action plans developed as a result of the Continuous
    Improvement Program (all-employee survey). These programs, combined
    with new accountability systems, will work to foster an environment
    where employees and managers are free to discuss concerns openly and
    take appropriate steps to resolve complaints.
        Natural resources.--The Natural Resource Agenda will help to
    resolve uncertainties about where the Forest Service will focus its
    priorities with regards to developing programs, budgets, and actions to
    address these critical areas. These priorities include watershed
    restoration and maintenance, sustainable forest ecosystem management,
    forest roads, and recreation.
        The committee can help by supporting the President's Budget
    proposal which proposes more than $120 million in new spending on
    watershed protection and restoration. This will allow for an increase
    in stream and streamside restoration by 40 percent, habitat restoration
    for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species by 30 percent, and
    abandoned mine reclamation by 50 percent.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
                              rangeland management
        Question 281. The fiscal year 1999 Forest Service has asked for a
    large increase in its range management funding. How does the Forest
    Service plan on using these funds? What kind of assurances will the
    agency provide that the funds will be used on the ground to fund
    project work?
        Answer. Almost all of the $20.3 million increase is in the
    Rangeland Vegetation Management portion of the budget. $16 million of
    the increase is provided under the President's Clean Water and
    Watershed Restoration Initiative. These funds will allow the Forest
    Service, in partnership with other USDA and Interior agencies, to begin
    the first year of a multi-year cooperative effort to address both the
    status and the restoration of rangelands. The Initiative will focus on
    rangeland restoration, classification of range types, assessment of
    current range conditions, and provide for monitoring for the
    effectiveness of restoration practices and management modifications.
    These efforts will enable significant progress in NEPA analyses of
    grazing allotments required under the 1995 Rescission Act. The
    remaining funds would be used primarily to restore range vegetation
    through non-structural improvements. Much of the work described above
    supports the objectives of the President's Clean Water Action Plan, and
    is on-the-ground project oriented.
        Question 282. The Rescissions Act of 1995 directed the Forest
    Service to complete NEPA on all allotments where NEPA is needed. What
    progress has the Agency made? Have decisions been implemented? If not,
    what steps is the Forest Service taking to implement these decisions?
        Answer. The Forest Service was required in the Rescissions Act of
    1995 to develop a schedule for NEPA analysis and management decisions
    on grazing allotments. The schedule was developed based upon performing
    NEPA analysis within a period of 15-years. The 15-year period was
    divided into 5 three year time blocks to make the process more
    manageable. A total of 2,516 analyses and decisions were planned for
    fiscal year 1996 through 1998. This is 37 percent of all the analyses
    needed in 15-years. By the end of fiscal year 1997, analyses and
    decisions were completed on 1,218 allotments. In fiscal year 1998, an
    additional 544 allotment NEPA analyses are underway for a total of
    1,752 or 70 percent of the analyses planned in the first time block.
    The Forest Service will be short of its goal of 2,516 allotments by 30
    percent or 754 allotments at the end of the first three year time
    block. While we have fallen short of our ambitious first three year
    schedule, the accomplishment of 1,752 NEPA decisions in three years
    represents a 400 percent or greater increase over the rate of decisions
    prior to the Rescissions Act. It also represents 25 percent of all the
    decisions needed in the 15-year schedule.
        The development and implementation of grazing management plans
    through NEPA needs input from range specialists, wildlife and fisheries
    biologists, soils scientists and many others to address the complicated
    effects of a livestock grazing program. This represents expanding
    workloads at a time when staff levels are limited or reduced; this has
    resulted in a growing backlog of NEPA analyses. Work on the remaining
    allotments will be shifted to future time blocks in the schedule. In
    the meantime, the highest priority analyses will be conducted first, so
    to achieve the greater impact as rapidly as possible.
        Question 283. How does the President's Clean Water and Watershed
    Restoration Initiative affect the livestock grazing program of the
    Forest Service? How does the agency plan to implement this initiative
    on its livestock grazing allotments?
        Answer. The Initiative will provide the funds necessary to make
    significant progress in implementing new NEPA decisions. Without this
    Initiative, only minimal rangeland restoration progress has been made
    by the implementation of new decisions through allotment management
    plans. The Initiative will provide us with the ability to adequately
    fund actions recommended in our decisions. Watershed restoration and
    riparian rehabilitations are important concerns of the public. This
    Initiative represents the opportunity to continue proper management in
    most areas and in some locations to just begin the implementation of
    effective management.
        Implementation will begin on allotments of most concern to FS range
    managers, those locations where insufficient livestock grazing
    management has resulted in less than desired conditions. Without
    restoration, livestock grazing will likely be reduced as resource
    conditions remain stagnant or decline.
        Question 284. The rangeland management program receives funding
    under two separate lines in the Forest Service budget. What is the
    difference between the two budget lines? Isn't the rangeland program
    simple enough so that a single funding line would cover all activities:
    How is the noxious weed program provided for?
        Answer. The Grazing Management line item provides for the
    continuation of permitted livestock grazing through the issuance and
    administration of term grazing permits and the application of sound
    management practices on grazing allotments.
        The Rangeland Vegetation Management line item provides for:
      --Managing rangeland vegetation to achieve conditions prescribed in
            forest plans and refined in project decisions, and performing
            monitoring to ensure conditions are maintained.
      --Developing non-structural improvements that contribute to
            ecological objectives, provide for sustainable forage for
            livestock and wildlife, improve soil stability, improve water
            quality, and protect watersheds. Due to funding limitations,
            structural improvements are primarily funded through the Range
            Betterment Fund.
      --Providing for the protection, management and control of over 2,000
            wild horses and burros on NFS lands. These activities are
            coordinated with BLM.
      --Managing infestation of noxious weeds and preventing further
            infestations through implementation of the Forest Service and
            USDA noxious weeds strategies. The Forest Service fiscal year
            1999 budget proposal provides $5 million for the noxious weeds
            program--$4 million under the regular program and $1 million to
            support implementation of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
            Management Project under the Presiden'ts Clean Water and
            Watershed Restoration Initiative.
        There is significant pressure on the Rangeland Management budget to
    conduct and implement NEPA analyses of grazing allotments required
    under the 1995 Rescissions Act. Funds from both the Grazing Management
    and Rangeland Vegetation Management expanded budget line items are used
    to fund the work--and meet the 15 year schedule--required under the
    Rescissions Act. Funds under the Rangeland Vegetation Management enable
    data collection and ecological analysis to support NEPA analyses,
    however the subsequent NEPA documentation and public involvement work
    is performed with Grazing Management funds. Further, both expanded
    budget line items fund work to carry out final NEPA decisions--grazing
    administration, range improvements, and monitoring. Thus, the budget
    structure separates into two funding activities what should, from a
    management standpoint, be logically be viewed as one activity. This is
    a significant structural issue because much of the Rangeland Management
    budget is focused on meeting the requirements of the 1995 Rescission
    Act, and because limited funding under one expanded line item could
    prevent NEPA work from being accomplished that would not be the case if
    the two line items were merged. The Forest Service supports changes to
    its budget structure that provide more flexibility to and
    accountability by managers on the ground to address resource management
    needs. Merging these two expanded budget line items would accomplish
    this objective.

                             conclusion of hearings

        Senator Gorton. Thank you very much, that concludes our
    hearings, the subcommittee will stand in recess awaiting the
    call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., Thursday, April 23, the hearings
    were concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
       Prepared Statement of R. Dean Tice, Executive Director, National
                        Recreation and Park Association
        Mr. Chairman: The National Recreation and Park Association commends
    the Subcommittee for its fiscal year 1998 actions which set aside $100
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state assistance.
    We share your disappointment in the results of conference negotiations
    with the House. We are also concerned with the decision to use a
    portion of the LWCF appropriation for operations and maintenance of
    federal land systems. The decision to use a portion of the $699
    ``reserve'' to address operations and maintenance could create a
    pattern which threatens future use of LWCF funds for their intended
    purpose: to aid the acquisition of land and water resources at
    strategically important places and to develop and enhance of the
    capacity and quality of state and local recreation sites and resources.
        We urge the Subcommittee to consider the following for fiscal year
    1999:
      --A significant, sustained increase in public investment from the
            Land and Water Conservation Fund, including an appropriation of
            not less than $200,000,000 to restore the state assistance
            program as a catalyst for efficient reinvestment of public
            resources where they are most needed.
      --At least $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
            Program to aid and encourage restoration of the most distressed
            urban park systems and to stimulate innovation in recreation
            services.
      --Amounts sufficient to enable the National Park Service to increase
            its capacity for technical assistance to local and state
            governments--including the conservation of decommissioned
            military installations for recreation and resource
            conservation, and to aid others in conserving and making
            publicly accessible rivers and trails and other recreation
            resources.
        We believe these recommendations are well within the nation's
    fiscal capacity to address and urge the Subcommittee to make every
    effort to respond. We also believe that the partnerships encouraged by
    these investments have the high probability of containing federal costs
    over time.
                                why invest now?
        There is a growing imperative to return a greater proportion of
    public fiscal resources--principally Outer Continental Shelf revenues--
    to the American people for public recreation and parks. This imperative
    is both social and physical, and will increasingly be influenced by the
    changing demographics of the American people.
        In a social context, prudent investment in public recreation
    resources and services addresses some of the most obvious challenges of
    the day. We are largely a sedentary nation, for example, and while
    overweight young people can avoid the resulting health risks, as they
    age their health typically declines while health costs escalate. As the
    ``boomers'' move ever closer to retirement age the present $1 trillion
    per year national cost of health care may seem like a good deal.
    Further, as the nation ages and its ethnic composition changes, so,
    too, will the very nature of recreation demand. This subcommittee and
    others should initiate specific inquiries to examine the conditions
    which will influence longer term (at least to the year 2025) recreation
    demand and necessary public responses.
        At the other end of the age spectrum, we spend large sums of public
    resources to address conditions which influence the life of the
    nation's youth. While the vast majority of young America avoids serious
    negative antisocial or criminal activity, many end up costing society
    about $30,000 each per year through the juvenile justice system.
        The actions of this Subcommittee directly impact the ``quality of
    life'' for millions of people. In defense of reduced investments in
    public parks and recreation, some urge that we reduce spending first to
    not burden posterity with a debt accumulated by this generation.
    Certainly we must make prudent investments. But if we do not adequately
    invest today in recreation and park resources and services we burden
    our children and their children with a deficit of opportunity, and a
    legacy of diminished health and wellness and environmental quality.
        The Congress need only examine proposals by the Administration and
    scores of members of the 105th Congress to put our recommendations in
    fiscal context. Among proposals:
      --A budget request of $1,000,000,000 ($200 million a year for 5
            years) to increase spending on after-school activities,
            including recreation services, through the U.S. Department of
            Education's 21st Century Schools Program.
      --An element of S. 10, the proposed Violent and Repeat Juvenile
            Offender Act, now pending in the Senate includes a $500,000,000
            per year ``prevention'' block grant, notwithstanding that up to
            60 percent of it will likely be reserved for activities which
            differ from most perceptions of ``prevention,'' that is,
            actions which prevent crime before it occurs.
      --Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, including findings and
            policy which recognize that older adults can often stay healthy
            with moderate physical activity, including walking.
      --A request in excess of $550,000,000 per year for the federal
            Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.
      --A proposal to eliminate federal disaster relief eligibility for
            state and local park and recreation resources if they produce
            any revenue.
                  capital investments in parks and recreation
        It is inconceivable that we are prepared to take--or have already
    undertaken--so many costly actions, which largely ignore the record of
    recreation as a mitigating factor in each area. Our recommendations
    also address known capital investment needs. In 1994, we surveyed
    nearly 500 local park and recreation agencies selected randomly
    nationwide to determine the needs, priorities and probable funding
    sources for capital investment for fiscal years 1995-1999. A similar 5-
    year survey was completed in 1990, and we will initiate a third inquiry
    for the period 2000-2004.
        Local park and recreation agencies reported a total of $27.7
    billion in capital investment needs nationally for rehabilitation of
    public park and recreation facilities, land acquisition, and new
    construction. They expected to have less than half that amount
    available. While the total estimated need is down from $30.4 billion
    reported five years ago, the expected budget shortfall increased seven
    percent. New construction ranked highest with a total need of $13.6
    billion (49.9 percent) nationwide, with an average need per agency of
    over $3 million. Rehabilitation and restoration needs nationwide
    totaled $8.8 billion (32.3 percent). The average need per agency was
    just under $2.2 million, up from $1.8 million in the previous survey.
    Land acquisition needs through fee simple acquisition or non-title
    action totaled almost $5 billion (17.9 percent) nationwide.
                               why partnerships?
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Park and
    Recreation Recovery Program were conceived as fiscal and, in some
    circumstances, recreation resource partnerships. In a fiscal sense, it
    can be highly efficient to return national public resources to state
    and local decisionmakers to address perceived needs. Two well-
    established parks illustrate the principle of shared conservation,
    recreation goals and savings.
        Assateague State Park, with over 750 acres in Worcester County,
    Maryland, clearly illustrates federal costs savings. It encompasses
    over 2 miles of Atlantic Ocean frontage, plus marshes and forests on
    Sinepuxent Bay. The state park and northern unit of the national
    seashore host about one-half million visits annually. The National
    Geographic Society's Traveler magazine in 1994 selected Assateague
    State Park as one of the 50 best state parks in America.
        Assateague State Park bears the major impact of visitors to the
    northern end of Assateague Island. It has about 350 developed campsites
    (compared to about 200 in the national seashore). It annually pays the
    salaries of 10 year around state employees--and some 40 more seasonal
    workers. Recent capital investments include an estimated $500,000 for
    an additional full service campground, and about $1,500,000 for the
    complete renovation of the park's central day use facility, including a
    contact station, board walk, showers, parking, change facilities and
    concessions. ``The coordination (between state and federal managers) of
    policy and operational matters works well,'' a senior Maryland Forest
    and Park Service official observed. ``If the state had not responded to
    public demand, then the (National Park Service) would be forced to,''
    he added. What would be the cost in perpetuity to the federal
    government of development, maintenance, and management?
        Other Maryland forests and parks--Fort Frederick, Gathland and
    South Mountain state parks--help conserve the record of nationally
    significant actions or places.
        Indiana Dunes State Park, Indiana, represents another area where
    early and continuing state investment and management disperses user
    impacts and costs that would otherwise be borne by the federal
    government. Visitation to the state park in 1996-1997 was nearly
    800,000, the highest of all Indiana state parks; 42 percent were out-
    of-state visitors.
        Indiana Dunes State Park was established in 1925, and is today
    comprised of about 2,200 acres of Lake Michigan shoreline and beach,
    dunes, woods, and marsh areas. 1,530 acres is dedicated as Dunes Nature
    Preserve. As early as 1916, there was a proposal to create a national
    conservation area at the Dunes. The park has scenic, natural and
    historic values. Donations from industrialists in the area and money
    from a tax levy paid for the park's acquisition. Because the land was
    in private ownership with many landowners, acquisition took several
    years to complete. The special features and activities of this park are
    the dunes, which contain some of the most unique flora and fauna in the
    Midwest, and swimming and hiking. On summer weekends, this state park
    receives maximum usage of the beach, picnic areas, and the campground,
    and campers are frequently turned away. Many of the activities
    available at Indiana Dunes State Park are also available at the
    neighboring national lakeshore.
        Similar to Maryland, other Indiana state projects tend to lessen
    the pressure on federal resources. At Lincoln Boyhood National
    Memorial, for example, federal employees take advantage of a $3,000,000
    outdoor amphitheater in the state park.
        The National Recreation and Park Association shares your
    subcommittee's deep concern for the health and welfare of the American
    people and others who live within our borders.
        For these and other reasons, we urge the Subcommittee to consider
    fully our recommendations.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Beard, Senior Vice President, National
                                Audubon Society
        Chairman Gorton and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    National Audubon Society's more than 550,000 members, and over 500
    chapters in communities throughout the United States, I would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on 1999 Interior
    Appropriations budget requests. Audubon's priorities for the 1999
    Department of Interior budget are focused on programs that protect
    birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of all
    Americans. America's public land and wildlife resources belong to all
    Americans. This priceless natural heritage will be lost without
    adequate funding for the staff and other resources that ensure proper
    stewardship.
        We hope that the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations Act will
    repeat last year's historic funding levels for several programs that we
    all care so deeply about. With the strong leadership of this
    Subcommittee we can also increase funding levels for other programs as
    well.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        We applaud the Committee for approving last year's historic $969
    million LWCF allocation. The LWCF protects forests, wetlands, beaches
    and other open spaces for the protection of wildlife and the enjoyment
    of future generations. In many cases, direct fee acquisition from
    willing private sellers, facilitated by use of the LWCF, is the best
    way to accomplish long-term protection of priority lands. Purchase of
    inholdings within wildlife refuges and other federal lands may also
    result in long-term savings to the federal government because of
    reduced management costs. While the LWCF is authorized to receive $900
    million annually from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing
    receipts, last year was the first time it achieved that level of
    funding in more than 15 years. The long-term diversion of funds from
    the LWCF has translated into lost opportunities to acquire lands of
    ecological, recreational and cultural significance for preservation for
    future generations of Americans.
        The LWCF state program provides funding for the conservation
    priorities of individual states. This matching grant program allows
    states to complete conservation projects at the local level and the
    matching requirement ensures that states and communities are fully
    committed to these projects. Eliminating the acquisition funding for
    state side projects in fiscal year 1996 interrupted ongoing state
    projects.
        While the President's $270 million request for LWCF is
    significantly larger than last year's initial request, full allocation
    of the LWCF is needed on an annual basis to meet priority land
    conservation needs. It is expected that OCS mineral leasing royalties
    to the federal government will reach $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1999,
    an increase of $192 million over fiscal year 1998. We join the
    Americans for our Heritage and Recreation (AHR), of which the National
    Audubon Society is a member, in encouraging the Committee to take
    advantage of this substantial increase by allocating the full $900
    million. We further request the Subcommittee direct $200 million of the
    LWCF towards state grants. We have submitted our acquisition priority
    list separately.
    Everglades
        For Everglades restoration programs, the President has requested
    $144 million in funding for the Department of the Interior. We strongly
    urge the Subcommittee to support the President's Everglades restoration
    budget.
        The most important component of the budget is the $81 million
    requested for National Park Service's land acquisition account. It is
    our understanding that the allocation of this portion of the budget
    request has been amended by the Administration so that Everglades
    National Park would receive $40 million; the East Coast Buffer would
    receive $38 million; and Big Cypress National Preserve would receive $3
    million. This would provide the National Park Service with sufficient
    funds to complete acquisitions in the East Everglades Expansion Area,
    which Congress authorized in 1990; however, unless a more expedited
    process is created completion of the Park will not occur until 2008 or
    2009.
        As you know, one of the most important elements of Everglades
    restoration is land acquisition for water storage purposes. A National
    Audubon Society report concludes that there is an immediate need to
    acquire 75,000 acres for water storage in the Everglades Agricultural
    Area (EAA). We are very encouraged by the Vice President's announcement
    on December 6th of the ``Agreement in Concept'' to acquire the Talisman
    properties, which are located in the EAA. The 75,000 acres we
    recommended could be approached if the federal government used the
    remainder of the funds provided under the 1996 farm bill to close on
    the Talisman properties, and then prudently swapped its non-contiguous
    parcels and consolidated the contiguous block in the southern
    Everglades Agricultural Area. We urge the Subcommittee to monitor this
    situation closely to ensure that the federal investment is protected.
    National Wildlife Refuge System
        The National Audubon Society expresses its thanks to the Committee
    for approving an unprecedented $41 million increase in Refuge System
    operations and maintenance (O&M) funding in fiscal year 1998. These
    additional funds will make it possible for refuge managers to begin
    digging themselves out from under the backlog of operations and
    maintenance needs that have hindered their ability to provide optimal
    management of refuges.
        In 1993, Interior's Inspector General issued a report that
    documented a $323 million backlog in maintenance projects. This figure
    has grown to $599 million, jeopardizing the integrity of the entire
    Refuge System. The President's budget proposes $246 million for O&M,
    including implementation of the newly enacted ``National Wildlife
    Refuge Improvement Act,'' the development of comprehensive conservation
    plans and addressing the backlog of O&M projects. As a member of the
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), National Audubon
    supports the objective of incrementally increasing O&M funds for the
    Refuge System over the next five years (as outlined in CARE testimony
    prepared by the National Wildlife Refuge Association). While the CARE
    proposal will not meet optimum funding levels, it will go a long way
    toward meeting the bird and wildlife conservation objectives that we
    support for the System.
        We also wish to point out that while operations and maintenance
    allocations are equally important, it is important to note that the
    Refuge System carries out its regularly scheduled annual maintenance
    projects through its operations budget. Therefore, ensuring sufficient
    funding of refuge operations will aid in reducing growth of the overall
    maintenance backlog.
        Last year's increase represents an important first step, and we are
    hopeful the Committee will continue to provide adequate increases in
    future years as we count down to the System's Centennial in 2003. For
    fiscal year 1999, we support a funding level of $277 million for Refuge
    Operations and Maintenance.
    Forest Service
        We oppose funding for construction of more logging roads, whether
    by direct appropriation, or through the device of ``purchaser
    credits.'' Road building is one of the most environmentally destructive
    of all Forest Service activities. The President's proposal to
    discontinue timber purchaser credits and shift the cost of road
    building to become a direct cost does not adequately address the issue.
    Taxpayers would still be forced to subsidize additional and unnecessary
    road building.
        We support the Forest Service's request of $107 million for Road
    Maintenance and the dismantling of 3,500 miles of roads. This money
    would be spent in a prioritized manner on road dismantling and
    maintenance of existing roads which will not be removed, but contribute
    sediment into streams and threaten them with road blow-outs and
    mudslides.
        We support the President's proposal to reform Forest Service
    Payments to States by ``de-coupling'' them from timber sales. Currently
    Forest Service Payments to States ``in lieu of tax'' are made at a
    level commensurate with timber sales in the state. This system creates
    a perverse incentive to log in order to support educational and roads
    programs. The Forest Service's proposal would stabilize these payments
    so they are not directly dependent on the amount of trees cut,
    eliminating the perverse incentive to log.
        We support increased funding for the Forest Legacy Program. This
    program protects prime forest habitat while addressing the needs of
    forest landowners. Currently it only functions effectively in select
    states. Additional funding will allow it to be expanded to more parts
    of the country.
        An environmental assessment should be prepared prior to
    reconstruction of forest roads with Emergency Relief for Federally-
    Owned Roads (ERFO) funds except when emergency reconstruction is
    necessary to protect life or provide access to inholdings. ERFO funds
    should only be available for roads that have been open to recreational
    and general forest users for at least six months of the year for the
    past five years.
    Endangered Species Programs
        Audubon fully supports the President's 1999 budget request for the
    Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program of $113 million,
    nearly a $36 million increase over fiscal year 1998 levels. We believe
    that this increase is long overdue and necessary to properly implement
    many of the administrative reforms instituted in recent years by the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, which have resulted in a substantial
    increase in that agency's workload.
        The President's request includes increased funding for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service consultation budget, which covers both Section 7
    consultations and the rapidly expanding Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
    program. In 1992, the federal government had approved fewer than one
    dozen HCP's; to date they have approved 225 plans, with another 200
    under development. The federal government has an obligation to review
    and approve all HCP's, to monitor and enforce plans once they are
    approved, and to respond in the event that unforeseen circumstances
    require modification of plans. This long overdue increase is needed to
    fulfill these obligations and process the rapidly increasing number of
    HCP's.
        The President's budget also includes a substantial increase in the
    Service's recovery budget, which will fund increased on-the-ground
    recovery efforts, greater involvement of stakeholders in the recovery
    planning process, expansion of the Safe Harbor program, and the
    delisting of species. The budget also includes a small but necessary
    increase in the listing budget, and a $5 million pilot project that
    will offer incentives to landowners who take proactive steps to
    conserve and manage endangered and threatened species habitat.
    Preservation of Migratory Birds
        In the United States more than 65 million people identify
    themselves as birdwatchers, contributing more than $20 billion annually
    to the U.S. economy. Yet year after year the U.S. government fails to
    sufficiently fund programs that protect nongame birds, despite the fact
    that it makes good economic sense. Moreover, in conjunction with
    Partners in Flight, Audubon recently published the WatchList; which
    contains more than 120 bird species, primarily nongame, that are in
    decline. Funding for the conservation of these birds today will halt
    their decline and preclude the need for expensive emergency measures
    later to prevent their extinction. In recognition of the economic and
    environmental importance of this natural resource, we urge you to fully
    fund the following programs.
        The Office of Migratory Bird Management (OMBM) provides scientific
    information and management advice on migratory birds to federal land
    managers. We believe that the President's budget request of $18.675
    million for this key program is inadequate to meet current needs and we
    urge Congress to increase funding for this program by $10 million. The
    OMBM has simply been unable to comply with federal statutory
    requirements to protect nongame migratory birds. Without proper
    funding, the FWS cannot maintain its trust responsibilities to protect
    all 780 species of nongame birds, many of which play a critical and
    invaluable role in the economies of the U.S. and parts of the Western
    Hemisphere. Additional funding would enable OMBM (1) to monitor the
    status of our nongame birds; (2) to implement conservation plans that
    being developed under the auspices of the Partners in Flight program;
    (3) to provide technical assistance to our National Wildlife Refuges,
    other federal agencies, and private sector partnership groups; (4) to
    provide educational and recreational opportunities to some of the 65
    million people who actively feed and watch birds.
        National Audubon Society would also like the Congress to direct the
    FWS to fully participate in the development and implementation of a
    North American Plan for Birds. Currently, only a handful of game
    species receive adequate funding for monitoring and habitat restoration
    and acquisition, notwithstanding the fact that nongame bird enthusiasts
    contribute billions to our economy. The development of such a plan,
    similar to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, would greatly
    facilitate the protection of these birds species.
        We also support the activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Western Hemisphere Program, which trains protected area
    managers in Latin America and makes small matching grants for education
    and grassroots conservation. This is one of the few U.S. programs that
    benefits North American birds on their wintering grounds in Latin
    America. Audubon urges Congress to support an increase of $1 million
    for funding this important program.
    Biological Resources Division/USGS
        National Audubon urges Congress to increase funding for the
    Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological Service
    (BRD). BRD provides sound, unbiased scientific information to federal
    agencies, state and local governments, private industry and the public,
    which in turn use this information to make informed natural resource
    and land management decisions. To ensure the future of these vital
    programs, the President's request of $158 million should be increased
    to $175 million. We urge Congress to include an earmark of $1 million
    for research on the impacts of commercial fishing on seabirds.
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
        The National Audubon Society supports the Administration's request
    of $6 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The
    Foundation leverages its federal appropriations through the use of
    challenge grants. These appropriations will fund the implementation of
    the Partners in Flight North American Bird conservation strategy.
        national audubon society's lwcf priorities for fiscal year 1999
    Federal Projects
                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
        Balcones Canyonlands NWR, TX; Bayou Savage NWR, LA; Big Muddy NWR,
    MO; Black River NWR, WA; Cabo Rojo NWR, PR; Canaan Valley NWR, WV;
    Chincoteague NWR, VA; Ding Darling NWR, FL; Don Edwards San Francisco
    Bay NWR, CA; Eagle Lakes NWR, WA; Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, NJ; Grand
    Kankakee Marsh NWR, IL-IN; Great White Heron NWR, FL; John Heinz NWR,
    PA; Key Cave NWR, AL; Klamath Forest NWR, OR; Lake Wales Ridge NWR, FL;
    Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, TX; Marin Baylands, San Pablo Bay NWR
    Complex, CA; Montezuma NWR, NY; National Key Deer NWR, FL; Northwest
    Montana Wetlands Management District, MT; Ottawa NWR, OH; Palmyra Atoll
    NWR, U.S. Territory; Patoka River NWR, IN; Pelican Island NWR, FL; Red
    Rock Lakes NWR, MT; St. Marks NWR, FL; San Diego NWR, CA; Silvio O.
    Conte NF&WR, CT-MA-NH-VT; Stewart B. McKinney NWR, CT; Stone Lakes NWR,
    CA; Tualatin River NWR, OR; Waccamaw NWR, SC; Wallkill River NWR, NJ;
    Wertheim NWR, NY; Whittlesey Creek NF&WR, WI.
                National Park Service
        Big Cypress National Preserve, FL; Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams,
    Olympic NP, WA; Everglades NP, FL; Everlades East Coast Buffer, FL;
    Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve, LA.
                Bureau of Land Management
        La Cienga Area of Critical Environmental Concern, NM.
                U.S. Forest Service
        Baca Ranch, Santa Fe NF, NM; Brown Mining Claim, Kalmiopsis
    Wilderness, Siskiyou NF, OR; Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area,
    WA-OR; Lindbergh Lake, Flathead NF, MT; Pinhook Swamp, Osceola NF, FL;
    San Bernardino NF, CA; White Salmon/Klickitat National Wild and Scenic
    River, Gifford Pinchot NF, WA.
    State Projects
        Champion Property, Adirondack Park, NY; Fanita Ranch, CA Mines of
    Spain, IA; Moosic Mountain, PA; San Dieguito River Valley Park, CA;
    Santa Maria River Valley, CA; Rodman Ranch and Slough, CA; Whitney
    Property, Adirondack Park, NY.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Gary Werner, Chair, Partnership for the National
                                 Trails System
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
    the National Trails System appreciates the support you have given over
    the past several years, through operations funding and earmarked
    Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails
    administered by the National Park Service. We also appreciate the
    allocation of funds for fiscal year 1998 to directly support the trails
    administered and managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management. To maintain the momentum of progress that you have fostered
    the Partnership requests that annual base operations funding be
    provided for each of the 20 national scenic and national historic
    trails for fiscal year 1999 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service--$5.20 million for the administration of 15
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington Park Service office.
      --USDA Forest Service--$2.25 million to administer four trails and
            $550,000 for portions of 10 trails managed through agreements
            with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management.
      --Bureau of Land Management--$160,000 for administration of the
            Iditarod National Historic Trail and $1.20 million for the
            portions of 10 other trails managed through agreements with the
            National Park Service and Forest Service.
        We ask that you continue to earmark one-third (approximately
    $600,000) of National Park Service Challenge Cost Share funds for the
    15 national scenic and historic trails it administers.
        We ask that you appropriate $15.1 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund fiscal year 1998 Supplemental Appropriation for
    acquisition of lands by the National Park Service and United States
    Forest Service to protect the scenic quality of the Appalachian
    National Scenic Trail.
        We also ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund $1 million to the State of Wisconsin to match state
    funds available for acquisition of land for the Ice Age National Scenic
    Trail, $1 million to the State of Florida to match state funds
    available for acquisition of land for the Florida National Scenic Trail
    and $250,000 each to the states of Michigan and New York to match funds
    available for acquisition of lands for the North Country National
    Scenic Trail.
        The $5.2 million we request for the National Park Service will
    finally provide significant operational support for 8 of the trails
    that have received little funding. Annual operations funding for the
    Anza, Trail of Tears, Overmountain Victory, Natchez Trace, California,
    Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express and Potomac Heritage Trails ranges from
    $0.00 to $78,000 and averages about $46,000, barely enough money to pay
    for a federal trail coordinator with little left for projects that
    nurture the trail. The additional funds we request will provide the
    first operations money for the Potomac Heritage Trail to support trail
    planning and development projects with local organizations and
    agencies.
        Similarly, the added funding will enable real progress to be made
    in marking and interpreting sites along the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail
    right through the heart of California's largest communities, mobilizing
    local citizen groups and government agencies. There is also much work
    to be done, supported by this funding, to inventory, map and interpret
    the many important cultural heritage sites along the several strands of
    the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears Association, Cherokee Nation and
    the other displaced tribes are anxious to get on with the work of
    documenting their heritage in partnership with the Park Service when it
    has sufficient resources to do the job.
        Along the Natchez Trace Parkway and in the southern Appalachian
    mountains strands of the Natchez Trace and Overmountain Victory Trails
    are being patiently knit together by small dedicated organizations so
    that someday hikers will be able to retrace the steps of citizen
    soldiers of the Revolutionary War and returning Mississippi River
    boatmen of the last century. The additional funding we request will
    quicken the pace of these efforts by strengthening the capacity for
    planning and organizing trail making projects.
        The additional funding will also better enable the Park Service to
    support the innovative interagency Salt Lake City Trails office, a cost
    effective partnership enabling sharing of resources with the Bureau of
    Land Management and the Forest Service to cooperatively manage four
    national historic trails that cover 10,000 miles and extend across 12
    states. The completion of the new Comprehensive Plan for the trails and
    the 150th anniversary of the California gold rush in 1999 has
    heightened interest in the many strands of the Oregon and California
    Trails. There will be many opportunities to celebrate and interpret the
    heritage of these trails in partnerships with state and local
    historical societies if there is adequate funding to do the necessary
    organizing.
        Looming just over the horizon with the coming new millennium is the
    Bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. The Lewis & Clark Trail
    Bicentennial Council has been working for several years to guide the
    planning for this commemoration to minimize damage to irreplaceable
    resources and to maximize benefits for the Trail. The Bicentennial
    promises to be a large event with countless activities stretching
    nearly across the country. To guide this massive event to benefit the
    heritage of the Lewis & Clark, Nez Perce and the other trails of the
    National Trails System is an extraordinary undertaking requiring
    significant financial support. The Partnership's request includes a
    major increase in funding for planning and organizing activities,
    interpretation and protection of resources involved in the
    Bicentennial.
        All of these trails are amazingly complicated undertakings, none
    more so than the 4,000 mile long North Country Trail. With more than
    600 miles of Trail across 7 national forests in 5 states there is good
    reason for close collaboration between the Park Service and Forest
    Service to ensure consistent Trail management that provides high
    quality ``North Country'' experiences for hikers. Limited budgets for
    both agencies have severely hampered their ability to perfect this
    effective management procedure. The additional funding we request will
    give them that ability for the first time while also providing greater
    support for the trail building projects led by the North Country Trail
    Association, hastening the day when our nation's longest national
    scenic trail will be fully opened for use.
        It is equally important that the national scenic and national
    historic trails administered or managed by the United States Forest
    Service and the Bureau of Land Management receive similar budgetary
    recognition as America's Congressionally designated premier trails.
    Annual operations funding for these trails distinct from the general
    recreation program appropriations for these two agencies is essential
    to insure that these trails receive appropriate priority in annual work
    plans.
        Recognizing the special responsibility for administering three
    national scenic trails and one national historic trail, the Chief of
    the Forest Service recommended that $1 million be used for those trails
    in fiscal year 1995. You directed funding to these trails for fiscal
    year 1998. Consistent operations funding should be provided annually
    for these trails and we ask you to appropriate $1.25 million as a
    separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental Divide,
    Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
    National Historic Trail for fiscal year 1999. Recognizing the on-the-
    ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
    of the Appalachian Trail, more than 600 miles of the North Country
    Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Lewis & Clark, California,
    Iditarod, and Overmountain Victory trails, we ask you to appropriate
    $550,000 specifically for these trails.
        Administration of four national trails, two more than 1,000 miles
    long and two over 2,000 miles long, each crossing many management
    jurisdictions, is a complex endeavor. Each of these long trails passes
    through tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of land with great
    variations in topography, plant, animal and human communities. Each
    trail encompasses cultural and natural resources requiring sensitive
    management. As management endeavors they are comparable in scale and
    needs to the national forests, yet the Forest Service does not
    administer them as distinct entities with annual reliable budgets. The
    Partnership believes these national trails should be administered as
    distinct entities with appropriate supervision by the Forest Service
    and asks that you provide the funding and direction to do so. Here are
    several examples of the projects awaiting along the national trails
    administered by the Forest Service.
        Two major gaps in the Florida National Scenic Trail are poised to
    be closed through patient negotiations led by the Forest Service and
    the Florida Trail Association. Trail can now be built across Eglin Air
    Force Base at the northern end and the Seminole Indian Reservation at
    the southern end, adding about 100 miles to the completed Florida
    Trail, if adequate funding is provided.
        Last summer the Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with major
    assistance from the Forest Service and funding support from the outdoor
    recreation industry, sponsored ``Uniting Along the Divide.'' During
    this two week long event hundreds of volunteers surveyed the entire
    3,200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail to develop the first
    comprehensive assessment of the condition and construction and
    management needs for the Trail. They documented $10.3 million of
    construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To continue the
    funding, begun in fiscal year 1998, for this new trail construction we
    ask that you appropriate $1 million for projects along the Continental
    Divide Trail in fiscal year 1999.
        With critical Forest Service assistance the Pacific Crest Trail
    Association is growing and assuming greater responsibility for
    maintaining the western complement to the Appalachian Trail. The
    Pacific Crest Trail, an original component of the National Trails
    System, is complete from the Canadian to the Mexican border. However,
    like the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail is not entirely
    protected from disruption from end to end. The PCT crosses more than
    300 parcels of private land on narrow easements that are not
    conveniently cataloged so they can be effectively monitored and
    managed. The Pacific Crest Trail Association has secured a private
    foundation grant to work with the Forest Service to search out and
    catalog the legal documents and survey the ``on-the-ground'' condition
    of these easements as a baseline for future monitoring. This is a good
    example of essential work to protect the PCT accomplished through
    public/private partnership. The project will only be successful if it
    has sufficient funding and staffing from both partners.
        While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
    for just the Iditarod National Historic Trail, it has on-the-ground
    management responsibility for 628 miles of two scenic trails and 3,590
    miles of eight historic trails administered by the National Park
    Service and U.S. Forest Service. However, the Bureau of Land Management
    budget does not reflect this responsibility; the agency receives no
    funding specifically for these trails. We ask that you appropriate
    $160,000 for fiscal year 1999 earmarked as a separate budgetary item
    for administration of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and
    $1,200,000 for management of the portions of the 10 other trails under
    the care of the Bureau of Land Management.
        The level of annual funding that we request is essential to support
    the public/private partnerships working to complete these trails.
    Attachment 3 details the specific funding requests.
        The land acquisition accomplished to protect the continuity and
    quality of the Appalachian Trail has been one of the most successful
    projects ever undertaken by the National Park Service and United States
    Forest Service. Today, only 35 miles remain unprotected of the 2,160
    mile Appalachian Trail. This far-sighted project to protect the most
    significant recreational resource in the eastern United States must be
    continued to successful completion and the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund which has made the land acquisition possible must be preserved and
    renewed.
        There are many important historical sites and critical stretches of
    the other national scenic and historic trails that remain unprotected
    and vulnerable to destruction or loss for public use. The Land and
    Water Conservation Fund must be available as one source of funds to
    help acquire these significant resources and protect the integrity and
    value of America's national scenic and historic trails. At least the
    annual funding applied to protecting the Appalachian Trail over the
    past 20 years should be used to protect critical resources of other
    national scenic and historic trails.
        The National Trails System Act encourages states to participate in
    the conservation of the resources and development of the national
    scenic and historic trails. Florida and Wisconsin have committed
    millions of dollars to help conserve the resources of the Florida and
    Ice Age National Scenic Trails, respectively. Michigan and New York
    have funding programs that can similarly help acquire lands for the
    North Country National Scenic Trail. All of these state resource
    protection programs are predicated on matching funds. The Partnership
    asks that you provide grants to these states from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to further assist and encourage their participation
    in stewardship of these components of the National Trails System.
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it. They combine
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way to
    enlist private financial support for public projects, often resulting
    in a greater than equal match of funds.
        The commitment of the private trail organizations toward the
    success of these partnerships as the means for making these trails
    grows even as Congress' support for the trails has grown. In 1997 the
    trail organizations channeled over 435,000 hours of documented
    volunteer labor valued at more than $5,628,000 toward completion of the
    national scenic and national historic trails. In addition the various
    trail organizations also directly applied private sector contributions
    of $4,213,943 to benefit the trails. Additional in-kind and uncounted
    monetary contributions from thousands of volunteers and cooperating
    organizations would likely double this amount. These contributions are
    documented in Attachment 1.
        The earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds have significantly
    increased the activity along the trails administered by the National
    Park Service. In fiscal year 1997 $556,062 provided by Congress funded
    88 projects throughout the country with a total value of $1,949,069.
    The $1,393,007 provided by trail organizations and state and local
    government agencies to support these projects represents a 2.5:1 match
    to the Federal investment. The array of projects that have been
    completed with this funding is detailed in Attachment 2. For every
    trail project funded there is another awaiting funding.
        The Challenge Cost Share approach is one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
    Challenge Cost Share programs should be funded as generously as
    possible as a wise investment of public money that will generate public
    benefits many times greater than the appropriation made. Directing a
    portion of those funds specifically toward the national scenic and
    historic trails will continue the steady progress underway to make
    these trails fully available for public enjoyment.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 1997 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
                                                   TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated
                                                                         Volunteer       value of        Financial
                              Organization                                 hours         volunteer     contributions
                                                                                           labor
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appalachian Trail Conference....................................         160,850      $2,091,050  \1\ $2,425,000
    Continental Divide Trail Society................................       \1\ 1,500          19,500  ..............
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance...............................          18,800         265,630         217,370
    Florida Trail Association.......................................      \1\ 40,000         440,000         138,000
    Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation...............................          50,687         658,931         261,861
    Iditarod Trail Committee........................................      \1\ 12,900         206,400      \1\ 70,000
    Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza Juan Bautista De Anza Trail......       \1\ 6,800          95,200  ..............
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation.........................          11,763         180,459         166,004
    Mormon Trails Association.......................................           4,200          58,800          30,000
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association..................................           4,360          61,040          32,000
    Natchez Trace Trail Conference..................................           1,919          26,886          29,000
    National Pony Express Association...............................           1,602          20,826          15,790
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation......................................       \1\ 3,000          39,000  ..............
    North Country Trail Association.................................          17,440         212,306          53,877
    Oregon-California Trails Association............................          28,376         397,264         172,796
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association..........................           4,400          48,708             500
    Pacific Crest Trail Association.................................          41,600         499,200         120,967
    Santa Fe Trail Association......................................      \1\ 16,300         195,000          71,500
    Trail of Tears Association......................................          11,822         165,508           9,139
    Trail of Tears Advisory Council.................................         \1\ 380           5,320  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Totals....................................................         439,299       5,686,028       4,243,943
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

     Attachment 2.--National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Projects on
                    the National Scenic and Historic Trails
        During fiscal year 1997 88 projects valued at $1,949,069 were
    completed in support of the National Trails System trails administered
    by the National Park Service. These include:
      --Trail design and construction: on the North Country, Appalachian,
            Ice Age, Iditarod, and Natchez Trace Trails; preparation of
            bridge construction manual for the Appalachian Trail;
      --Trail heads and parking facilities: 10 on the Ice Age Trail;
      --Bridges, boardwalks and shelters constructed: bridges on the Ice
            Age, Natchez Trace, North Country and Potomac Heritage Trails;
            boardwalks on Ice Age and North Country Trails; shelters on the
            North Country, Appalachian and Ice Age Trails;
      --Trail mapping and marking: mapping of the 10 branches of the
            California Trail and the Applegate Trail in California, of the
            North Country Trail in Michigan and the Oregon Trail in Idaho
            and Oregon; route research for the Trail of Tears; trail
            marking on the western end of the Iditarod Trail, the Mormon
            Pioneer Trail in western Wyoming, North Country Trail highway
            crossings in Michigan and New York, the Mormon Pioneer, Oregon
            and Pony Express Trails across Utah, and the Santa Fe Trail;
      --Interpretive signing installed: on the Anza Trail in Los Angeles
            and the East Bay Region, and wayside exhibits: 14 in Oregon,
            and 13 across South Dakota for the Lewis & Clark Trail, for the
            Mormon Pioneer Trail, North Country Trail in Michigan, Oregon
            Trail at the Columbia River Terminus, 3 for the Santa Fe Trail
            in Kansas and others in Missouri, New Mexico and Oklahoma and
            along the Trail of Tears in Kentucky and Tennessee;
      --Exhibits and brochures developed: museum exhibits for the Trail of
            Tears and the Santa Fe Trail Center in Kansas, and at the end
            of the Pony Express Trail in California; brochures for the
            Lewis & Clark, Mormon Pioneer, and North Country Trails;
      --Natural resource management/Landscape restorations: prairie/
            grassland restorations on the Ice Age Trail with Dane County
            Parks Department and at the National Frontier Trails Center;
            natural heritage inventory along the Appalachian Trail through
            Massachusetts; preparation of land management handbook for the
            Appalachian Trail;
      --Archeology: on the Santa Fe Trail in Bent County, Colorado;
        Funding also supported interpretive program development and work
    safety training programs for volunteers along the Appalachian Trail, a
    course for teachers about Indian-White relations along the Oregon Trail
    in Idaho, and a Spanish translation of an interpretive booklet for the
    Anza Trail.

            ATTACHMENT 3.--PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Project/programs possible with increased
              Agency/trail             1998 approp.    1999 request                       funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NPS:
        Appalachian.................        $871,000        $877,000  ..............................................
        Natchez Trace...............          26,000         151,000  Planning, guidance and support for trail
                                                                       development projects with NTTC.
        California..................          61,000         361,000  Comprehensive Plan implementation: trail
                                                                       brochure, markers and interpretive waysides;
                                                                       Sesquicentennial wagon train and other
                                                                       activities with OCTA.
        Ice Age.....................         325,000         331,000  ..............................................
        Juan Bautista de Anza.......          67,000         217,000  Guidance and coordination of Trail site
                                                                       protection, interpretation and development
                                                                       projects with local agencies and
                                                                       organizations.
        Lewis & Clark...............         399,000       1,174,000  Planning, coordination and support for local
                                                                       Bicentennial projects.
        Mormon Pioneer..............          78,000         178,000  Coordinate interpretive exhibits and route
                                                                       marking with 12 states for 4 trails.
        North Country...............         226,000         376,000  Closer collaboration with National Forests to
                                                                       strengthen management consistency; Trail
                                                                       route planning; Support for NCTA trailmaking
                                                                       projects.
        Oregon......................         103,000         250,000  Interagency collaboration to protect and
                                                                       interpret critical sites like South Pass.
        Overmountain Victory........          36,000         136,000  Stronger coordination of projects with OVTA;
                                                                       new route signs.
        Pony Express................          61,000         201,000  Implementation of Comprehensive Plan: support
                                                                       for GIS database, site inventories,
                                                                       certification and interpretation with NPEA
                                                                       and local agencies.
        Potomac Heritage............  ..............         150,000  Coordination of trailmaking projects with
                                                                       organizations and local agencies.
        Santa Fe....................     \1\ 460,000         469,000  ..............................................
        Selma to Montgomery.........         100,000         140,000  Coordination with citizen support
                                                                       organizations and local agencies.
        Trail of Tears..............          42,000         192,000  Survey, protection and interpretation of
                                                                       critical Trail sites with TOTA.
                                     --------------------------------
          Total National Trails
           System...................       3,068,000       5,203,000
                                     ================================
    BLM:
        Iditarod....................         100,000         160,000  Coordination and support for collaborative
                                                                       management with other Federal agencies,
                                                                       Iditarod Trail organizations and State of
                                                                       Alaska.
        CDT, PCT, CAT, JBAT, L&CT,           300,000       1,200,000  Support for on-the-ground projects for BLM
         MPT, NPT, OT, PXT, SFT.                                       managed trail segments; California Trail
                                                                       Sesquicentennial projects and events; Lewis &
                                                                       Clark Bicentennial preparations; Support for
                                                                       Oregon Trail interpretive center.
                                     --------------------------------
            Total...................         400,000       1,360,000
                                     ================================
    USDA-FS:
        CDT, FT, PCT, NPT...........         900,000       1,250,000  Assumption of full administrative
                                                                       responsibility and leadership for consistent
                                                                       interagency collaboration for each trail;
                                                                       support for ongoing, consistent management
                                                                       with trail organization and local agency
                                                                       partners; trail brochures, signs, project
                                                                       planning etc.
        AT, NCT, IAT, IDT, CAT,              300,000         550,000  Support for on-the-ground projects for trail
         L&CT, OT, OVT, PXT, SFT.                                      segments in National Forests.
        Continental Divide..........     \2\ 750,000   \3\ 1,000,000  Trail construction projects along the
                                                                       Continental Divide Trail.
                                     --------------------------------
          Total.....................       1,950,000       2,800,000
                                     ================================
    LWCF grants Appalachian Trail...       7,200,000  \4\ 15,000,000  Complete protection of Appalachian Trail end-
                                                                       to-end.
    LWCF grant Florida Trail--        ..............       1,000,000  Provide assistance to State of Florida to
     Florida.                                                          protect threatened FT corridor and connect
                                                                       trail segments across private land.
    LWCF grant Ice Age Trail--        ..............       1,000,000  Provide assistance to State of Wisconsin to
     Wisconsin \6\.                                                    protect threatened IAT corridor and connect
                                                                       trail segments across private land.
    LWCF grants North Country Trail.  ..............  ..............  Provide assistance to States of Michigan and
                                                                       New York to protect threatened NCT corridor
                                                                       and connect trail segments across private
                                                                       land.
        Michigan....................  ..............         250,000
        New York \7\................  ..............         250,000
                                     --------------------------------
          Total.....................       7,200,000       2,500,000  ..............................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $242,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Appropriation resulting from request by Continental Divide Trail Alliance.
    \3\ Request from Continental Divide Trail Alliance.
    \4\ Administration request for allocation from supplemental $699 million appropriated for fiscal year 1998. This
      would be a supplemental fiscal year 1998 appropriation to complete the Appalachian Trail over the next several
      years.
    \5\ This would be a grant to the State of Florida to be matched at least 1:1.
    \6\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
    \7\ These would be grants to the States of Michigan and New York to be matched at least 1:1.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Bruce Runnels, Chief Conservation Officer, The
                               Nature Conservancy
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
    dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity.\1\ To date our
    organization has protected more than 9 million acres in the 50 states
    and Canada, and has helped local partner organizations preserve
    millions of acres overseas. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,600
    preserves--the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the
    world. Three concepts that have been fundamental to our success are
    sound science; strong partnerships with public and private landowners;
    and tangible results at local places. This testimony highlights
    projects and programs that foster each of these three key factors of
    success.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the
    plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of
    life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.
    The Conservancy has more than 900,000 individual members and over 1,850
    corporate sponsors; we currently have programs in all 50 states and 17
    nations. Our Board of Governors includes corporate officers such as
    Durk I. Jager of Proctor and Gamble and John G. Smale of General
    Motors, distinguished leaders such as General Norman Schwarzkopf, and
    renowned scientists such as E.O. Wilson.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In our 45 years of conservation work, perhaps the single most
    important lesson we have learned is that local communities hold the key
    to conservation success. Without the support of the people who live in
    and around the places we are trying to protect, we can never achieve
    our goals. By making a community's interests ours, and conservation
    theirs, together we can start developing an ecologically compatible and
    economically sound vision for the future.
        The Nature Conservancy is in the midst of launching the most
    ambitious fundraising campaign ever initiated by a private conservation
    organization. In doing this, we are demonstrating our firm commitment
    to private investment in biodiversity conservation. But private efforts
    alone will not suffice. As the largest owner and manager of land across
    America, the federal government is a critical partner and leader in
    effecting conservation. In that vein, I respectfully offer the
    following fiscal year 1999 funding recommendations to the Subcommittee.
    Acquisition and Management of Federal Land
        We feel that continuing to make additions to the public lands base
    in high-priority sites is extremely important. We also recognize the
    tremendous need for getting ahead of the backlog of maintenance and
    construction problems on federal lands. We believe the Administration's
    proposed 5-year plan addresses the need to think longer-term about
    acquisition and maintenance needs. In fiscal year 1998, Congress took a
    bold step in funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its
    fully authorized level. We urge you to provide that level of investment
    every year.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Nature Conservancy offers
    for your consideration a list of biologically rich land acquisition
    projects totaling $139,405,000. Each project is a high priority for the
    corresponding land management agency and has active negotiations
    underway for acquisition. A list of these projects is included with
    this testimony. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the
    Subcommittee's leadership in consistently supporting this important
    activity.
        Stewardship of Public Lands.--In addition to maintaining the
    infrastructure on our public lands, we must protect our overall
    investment by maintaining their biological resources. Many of our
    nation's ecosystems are extremely degraded and are in need of active
    management. Invasion by alien species is perhaps the most pervasive
    threat to native biodiversity on public lands, and can be treated
    through prescribed burns and other techniques. We support all increases
    proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget requests of the public land
    management agencies for stewardship activities. For example, the USFWS'
    National Refuge System has proposed a $15 million increase in
    operations to support habitat improvement and other projects.
    Scientific Information
        A base of high-quality scientific information is needed in order to
    make sound decisions regarding public and private land acquisition and
    management. The Conservancy supports strengthening research programs
    within the Interior Department that relate to status and trends of
    biological diversity. By making modest investments in information
    today, we can avoid more costly crisis management in the future. We
    suggest an increase in funding for the biological research programs
    within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and specifically within its
    Biological Resources Division (BRD). We applaud the Administration's
    request for an $11 million increase for research on habitat and species
    relationships which will greatly assist Department of Interior land
    managers. The Conservancy also supports BRD's request of $748,000 for
    Species at Risk, which funds research on status and trends of sensitive
    species. By generating information on species before they decline, the
    program reduces the need for formal listing under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA).
    Endangered Species Act
        It is widely recognized that the federal ESA's chronic lack of
    adequate funding is a major limitation to its success. Therefore, the
    Conservancy strongly supports the USFWS's fiscal year 1999 request of
    $129.9 million to administer the ESA--the most ambitious request ever
    for this program. Most notably, the new funding would provide
    incentives to private landowners to protect species, such as candidate
    conservation and safe harbor agreements. Funds are also included for
    100 new Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP's). In carrying out this
    element, we urge USFWS to adhere to the following principles we feel
    are crucial to an effective and biologically defensible HCP process:
    plans are locally developed by stakeholders; they are developed in a
    regional context; they have a strong scientific foundation; and they
    include comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management programs. The
    Natural Communities Conservation Plan now underway in Southern
    California provides a strong example for successful application of
    these principles.
        We are also pleased to see $17 million requested for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fundunder Section 6 of the Act (grants
    to states). For the past two years, this Fund has included $6 million
    for land acquisition related to large-scale HCP's. These funds have
    been in high demand, and this year the Administration has increased the
    level provided in its budget to $9 million. The Conservancy supports
    this elevated level, as we have seen the direct benefits of these funds
    on the ground in several HCP's where we are involved.
        We also urge your support of the Recovery Program for the four
    endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. We join the
    other partners in this project (including three states, USFWS, Bureau
    of Reclamation, environmental groups and power users) in requesting
    $636,000 of resource management funds; at least $200,000 under Section
    6; and $308,000 for fish propagation at the Ouray National Wildlife
    Refuge.
    Partnership Initiatives
        One of the best conservation investments the federal government can
    make is one that will multiply its limited dollars. The following
    programs help leverage scarce resources from both the private and
    public sectors to increase the total amount of funds available for
    conservation activities.
        National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--The National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is an excellent example of a federal program
    that effectively leverages conservation benefits. The Foundation builds
    partnerships between the public and private sectors to support
    activities that are focused on solving environmental problems, and has
    an outstanding record of encouraging and rewarding innovation in
    natural resource management. For every federal dollar that goes to the
    Foundation, at least $3 is spent to benefit fish, wildlife and plants.
    In its twelve-year history, NFWF has awarded 2,420 grants, with $82
    million of federal funds generating another $195.7 million in outside
    money. The Administration has requested the same level as the fiscal
    year 1998 appropriation for NFWF ($6 million for USFWS, $1.5 million
    for BLM, and $2 million for USFS). We feel the need is even greater,
    and recommend $7.5 million for USFWS, $3 million for BLM, and $3
    million for USFS.
        North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.--One of the most
    successful conservation programs in the nation is the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Fund. The Fund supports the implementation of the
    North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and also funds habitat
    conservation for nongame wetland-dependent migratory birds, via the
    international grant program authorized under the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act. A variety of partners in Canada, Mexico, and
    the U.S. have matched federal dollars at more than 2:1 to acquire,
    restore, and enhance these wetlands. Since this program was established
    in 1989, the $233.2 million of federal funding invested in its projects
    have generated an additional $473.4 million of partner funding. As a
    member of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council since its
    inception, the Conservancy has been part of the panel that recommends
    projects for final approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation
    Commission. The Administration has proposed to increase the funding for
    this program by $3 million, to $14.7 million. The Conservancy strongly
    supports this modest but high-leverage increase.
    Private Landowner Programs
        Private landowners, both large and small, are essential--and often
    enthusiastic--partners in the goal of protecting biodiversity.
    Financial and regulatory incentive programs have motivated many private
    participants to take conservation actions. Private lands collectively
    are critical to the survival of many rare species and their habitats;
    federal incentive programs can make them an asset rather than a
    liability to landowners.
        We support the USFWS's request of $27 million for Partners for
    Wildlife, a program which allows private landowners to undertake long-
    term protection and restoration projects that benefit species at risk
    of becoming threatened or endangered. The USFS' Forest Legacy Program
    provides matching funds to private entities for the purchase of
    conservation easements on working timberland threatened with conversion
    to non-forest use. We support a level of $10 million for this program.
    Challenge Cost Share Programs within USFWS, BLM and USFS offer private
    landowners a federal match for activities they undertake to manage,
    restore or enhance natural resources.
    Freshwater and Coastal Programs
        Freshwater and coastal protection are among the Conservancy's top
    priorities this year. We were therefore gratified by the announcement
    of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. This program seeks to
    encourage partnerships between state, local and federal agencies,
    tribes, and local communities to plan for watershed management. Funds
    to be devoted to this project are proposed within USGS, BLM, USFWS,
    USFS, Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Indian Affairs. We support
    the emphasis given in the budget to the Florida Everglades and the
    California Bay-Delta, two ecologically and economically significant
    watersheds in dire need of restoration. In addition, we urge the
    Committee to continue to support the USFWS's National Coastal Wetlands
    Grants which provide matching grants to coastal states and territories
    for projects involving acquisition, restoration or enhancement of
    coastal wetlands.

    Recommended LWCF appropriations for fiscal year 1999

                                                                      Amount

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
        Black River Unit--Nisqually NWR, WA.................      $3,000,000
        Cape May NWR, NJ....................................       3,000,000
        Cypress Creek NWR, IL...............................       1,000,000
        Darby Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Project,
          OH................................................       2,500,000
        Emiquon NWR, IL.....................................      20,000,000
        Great Dismal Swamp NWR, VA..........................       1,200,000
        Kodiak NWR, AK......................................       1,000,000
        Lake Wales Ridge NWR, FL............................       3,000,000
        Morzhovoi Bay Lagoons--Izembek NWR, AK..............       3,600,000
        National Key Deer Refuge, FL........................       2,000,000
        Northern Tallgrass Prairie, MN......................       1,000,000
        Oahu Forest, HI.....................................       1,000,000
        Ohio River Islands, WV..............................         500,000
        Oregon Coastal Refuges, OR..........................       5,000,000
        Palmyra Atoll, Pacific Ocean........................       5,000,000
        Point Possession--Kenai NWR, AK.....................       3,000,000
        Rappahannock River Valley NWR, VA...................       3,000,000
        Roanoke NWR, NC.....................................       2,250,000
        Sacramento River NWR, CA............................       3,000,000
        San Diego Refuges, CA...............................       6,000,000
        Shadmoor--Amagansett NWR, NY........................       2,500,000
        Stratford Great Meadows--Stewart B. McKinney NWR, CT       2,500,000
        Waccamaw NWR, SC....................................       3,700,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal..........................................      78,750,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Bureau of Land Management:
        Chadwick Hill--Point Colville Area, WA..............       1,000,000
        Cosumnes River, CA..................................       3,000,000
        Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa, CA..........................       2,000,000
        Santa Rosa Mountain, CA.............................       1,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal..........................................       7,000,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    National Park Service:
        Cumberland Island, GA...............................      10,900,000
        Salt River, USVI....................................       3,500,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal..........................................      14,400,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    U.S. Forest Service:
        Coronado NF, AZ.....................................       1,200,000
        Francis Marion NF, SC...............................       3,000,000
        Nantahala NF (Thompson and Hennessee tracts), NC....       7,100,000
        North Fork Flathead River--Flathead NF, MT..........       1,155,000
        Pisgah NF, NC.......................................         300,000
        Sumter NF (Jocassee Gorges), SC.....................       6,500,000
        Valles Caldera (Baca Ranch), NM.....................      20,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal..........................................      39,255,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     139,405,000
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund
        World Wildlife Fund appreciates the opportunity to present its
    views on the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for the Interior
    Department and the U.S. Forest Service. Generally, WWF is very
    supportive of the administration's overall budget request, including
    increases for natural resource management and conservation agencies.
    Several specific program budgets are important to the organization's
    goals of recovering endangered species, achieving ecoregion-based
    conservation, and effectively dealing with global threats--overfishing,
    toxic chemicals, climate change, and unsustainable logging--to
    biodiversity.
                           department of the interior
    Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
        Scientists at World Wildlife Fund have identified the South Florida
    Everglades as one of the most unique and important ecoregions in North
    America, and also one of the most threatened. WWF has selected 25
    ecoregions in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America and
    the Caribbean, and North America in which to focus our highest priority
    attention during the next five years. These are the places we believe
    simply must be protected if we are going to make a serious effort to
    save life on Earth. The Everglades is one of the focal 25 ecoregions.
        WWF greatly appreciates the attention and the priority this
    Subcommittee has given to Everglades restoration, especially the fiscal
    year 1998 appropriation of $136 million for the Interior Department.
    This figure represents a very significant increase in funding from
    previous years for the Everglades program.
        The administration's request for $144 million for the Interior
    Department Everglades budget in fiscal year 1999 is only a slight
    increase over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The total South
    Florida/Everglades funding request in the President's budget is $282
    million, including programs in EPA, NOAA and the Department of
    Agriculture, as well as Interior.
        We strongly support this request as the minimum necessary to move
    forward with Everglades restoration with a continued strong commitment
    at the federal and state level. It is clear the total price tag to
    achieve the goals identified for the Everglades system by the
    intergovernmental federal/state South Florida Everglades restoration
    partnership will cost at least $3 to $5 billion over the next decade.
    That estimate will likely be revised by the Army Corps of Engineers as
    it prepares the Comprehensive Plan for Everglades restoration that
    Congress required be completed by July 1999.
        WWF is pleased that significant progress is being made towards
    restoration, and we believe a continued investment in federal funds for
    this purpose is strongly needed. Our optimism is based on the
    following:
      --Public support for the Everglades in Florida and at the national
            level is strong, and there is a broad recognition that
            restoring the Everglades ecosystem is an important national
            goal;
      --Everglades restoration has attracted strong bipartisan political
            support in Washington and in Florida, with the Clinton and
            Chiles administrations as well as key leaders of both parties
            in both houses of Congress;
      --We now have a clear understanding of how natural hydrological
            conditions of South Florida have been disrupted to serve urban
            and agricultural interests, and scientists and policy experts
            believe nearly natural timing, flow and delivery of water can
            be restored through much of the Everglades ecosystem while
            enhancing water supply for urban areas and protecting the needs
            of agriculture;
      --At long last we are at the stage where specific water management
            decisions and projects are about to happen, which will begin
            the long process of actual restoration. The announcement this
            past December by Vice President Gore of the intent to acquire
            the Talisman sugar cane farm in the southern Everglades
            Agricultural Area is a good example.
        WWF also wants to emphasize the critical importance of a fully
    funded Land and Water Conservation Fund to the success of Everglades
    restoration. In fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested $81
    million from the fund to purchase lands in the East Everglades
    expansion area, for water preserve areas, and for inholdings in the Big
    Cypress National Preserve. The State of Florida continues to acquire
    property for Everglades restoration from several sources of funding,
    including its nationally acclaimed P-2000 program, the largest single
    conservation land purchase program in the country.
        LWCF money is essential to the Everglades, and it is important to
    the conservation and recreation needs of the nation. We are very
    pleased that the program was nearly fully funded in fiscal year 1998.
    However, the country needs a commitment of funds to LWCF of at least
    $900 million every year. The Everglades is one of many national
    conservation priorities that deserve attention and support from LWCF.
    The Appalachian Trail, northern New England's forests, the Mississippi
    Delta, San Francisco Bay and the Baca Ranch in northern New Mexico are
    a few other examples of nationally significant conservation lands that
    demand LWCF funding.
        We also urge the Subcommittee to restore some reasonable level of
    funding to the state LWCF matching grant program. It is clear there is
    a major need for a dramatic increase in federal, state and local
    support and participation in enhancing and expanding a wide range of
    urban and non-urban recreation and conservation opportunities
    throughout America outside of areas served by the federal lands.
    Congress should fully fund LWCF, and it should revive and revitalize
    the State and Local Assistance program.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
    African Elephant, Asian Elephant and Rhino/Tiger Conservation Funds
        WWF supports the President's request for $1 million each for the
    African Elephant Conservation Fund and Asian Elephant Conservation Fund
    and recommends that the Subcommittee increase the President's budget
    request for implementing the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act to
    $1 million as well. Funding allocated under these programs has proven
    that the spiral toward extinction for these species can be stopped.
    Additional funds are urgently needed for protected area conservation,
    anti-poaching efforts, monitoring populations, translocating animals,
    and mitigating human/wildlife conflicts.
    Wetlands for the Future
        WWF requests a $500,000 increase in the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    international budget for implementation of an expanded Wetlands for the
    Future Program. Specifically, we would like to see the program expanded
    to Africa. The program currently provides funding for wetland
    conservation projects and training wetland managers in Latin America
    and the Caribbean. A phased expansion of the program to developing
    countries in Africa will provide habitat for a wide range of animals as
    well as important natural resources for people.
    Endangered Species
        WWF applauds the dramatic increases in funding for endangered
    species programs requested by the President for fiscal year 1999,
    particularly the $18.4 million increase for recovery programs. We
    enthusiastically support the $5 million earmarked for the Safe Harbor
    grant program, a promising vehicle for encouraging species conservation
    on private lands. Unfortunately, much of the increase in the recovery
    program budget is requested in anticipation of passage of S. 1180, a
    bill that contains new, extremely burdensome recovery planning
    procedural requirements of dubious utility. We urge that this increase
    be retained in full regardless of the fate of Endangered Species Act
    reauthorization legislation, and used primarily for on-the-ground
    recovery activities that directly benefit listed species.
        Likewise, WWF supports the President's request for an increase of
    $12.6 million in funding for consultations and habitat conservation
    planning under sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. Consultation and HCP
    procedures have been successful at reconciling species conservation
    with development projects, but monitoring of the impacts of resulting
    incidental take of species has been lacking. We urge that a large
    percentage of this budget increase be dedicated to monitoring
    functioning HCP's and section 7 incidental take authorizations in order
    to ensure, as the law requires, that those activities are not reducing
    appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected
    species.
    Environmental Contaminants
        WWF believes the USFWS Division of Environmental Contaminants (DEC)
    is woefully underfunded. At the proposed core funding level of $10.4
    million, the program will not meet its objectives of investigating and
    assessing the effects of environmental contaminants on wildlife and
    maintaining a ``scientifically credible program through proper program
    support, training, and technical assistance.''
        After reductions for five consecutive years, funding for the core
    program has been restored to the fiscal year 1995 level. Yet during
    this same period, reports from around the nation and the world indicate
    more strongly than ever that wildlife populations are being stressed by
    contaminants. The DEC is the government agency best qualified to
    investigate reports of deformed frogs, feminized male fish, and bird
    kills caused by legal pesticide use.
        The USFWS cannot respond, under its present budget, to these new
    findings. This past year, WWF called for doubling the proposed budget
    to $18 million. We are pleased with the modest proposed increase of $1
    million enacted, however, a more substantial increase is justified.
    Core funding for the program should be increased to $18 million to give
    the USFWS analytical capability it currently lacks, and to help it
    assist partner states, universities, and other agencies in assessing
    adverse effects in wildlife. Funds should be used to upgrade the
    Patuxent Analytical Control Facility and to support forensic field
    investigations with USFWS partners. These investigations, in the past,
    have provided early warnings of chemical threats to wildlife and
    humans.
                              u.s. forest service
        WWF supports the administration's increase in the road maintenance
    budget and for road decommissioning and stabilization. These increases,
    however, would still leave more than half our nation's forest road
    system in need of repair and maintenance. Road failures continue to be
    a major forest health problem on public lands and have contributed to
    the degradation of fisheries, water quality, and slope destabilization.
    Moreover, the 3,500 miles of road slated to be decommissioned is
    grossly inadequate and would not even meet the demand on most national
    forest regions, let alone on a national basis.
        WWF endorses the cooperative activities of the Forest Service
    through the activities of state and private forestry programs. Thus, we
    agree with the administration's request for increases in the Forest
    Stewardship, Stewardship Incentives, Forest Legacy, and Urban and
    Community Forestry programs. These programs provide high visibility to
    the public on forestry operations that are based on sound stewardship
    and land protection principles and are held in high regard with the
    public. Our experience suggests that despite such increases, these
    programs are still largely underfunded and will not be able to keep up
    with growing demand.
        WWF urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $12 million for
    the Forest Legacy program. The program has a proven track record of
    protecting environmentally significant privately owned forests from
    being converted to other uses through purchase of permanent
    conservation easements. Fifteen states currently qualify to participate
    in Forest Legacy. The administration's request for $6 million in fiscal
    year 1999 is inadequate. For northern New England alone, the Northern
    Forest Alliance has identified $26 to $31 million of specific, high
    priority Legacy projects that need funding.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views. We look
    forward to working with the Subcommittee on the fiscal year 1999
    legislation.
                                     ______

                           Bureau of Land Management
    Prepared Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado
                           River Board of California
        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 1999 funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to
    the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This
    program is carried out as a part of ecosystem and watershed management
    pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
    Water Act.
        The President's proposed budget for the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM) has included $31,031,000 in BLM's budget for Management of Land
    and Resources--Soil, Water and Air Management. The Colorado River Board
    of California, the state agency charged with protecting California's
    interests and rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado
    River System, formally requests that Congress allocate $5,200,000 of
    these funds for the Colorado River Basin salinity control activities as
    recommended by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource for California. California's Colorado River water users
    are presently suffering economic damages estimated at about $800
    million per year due to the river's salinity, and those damages are
    expected to increase significantly by the turn of the century without
    further salinity control measures being implemented. Preservation of
    its quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid
    the additional economic damages to river users in California.
        The Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance and
    leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital program.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Joe Judd, Commissioner, Kane County, UT
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies, I am Joe Judd, a member of the Board of Commissioners
    of Kane County, Utah. On behalf of the Kane County Commission and all
    the citizens of Kane County I would like to thank you for inviting us
    here today to testify regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
    Monument and the first year of our cooperative planning effort with the
    Bureau of Land Management and the need for $1,340,000 in additional
    funding for basic visitor information facilities.
        Testifying with me today is the Honorable Karen Alvey, the mayor of
    Kanab City, Utah, who will testify about the opportunities for an
    expanded role for the rural communities in the planning process.
        When we provided testimony last year, there were many questions
    and, yes, many doubts about how the joint planning process would work--
    if it would work at all. The people of Kane County were still angry
    about the sudden announcement of the monument by the President and were
    highly suspicious of how they would be treated by the Interior
    Department and BLM.
        We were very fortunate to receive a great amount of advice and
    assistance from Senator Bob Bennett, Senator Orrin Hatch and their
    professional staff members.
        We concluded that without substantial participation by the local
    people who know and love the land, the monument plan would never be in
    harmony with the area. I met with Secretary Babbitt and he indicated a
    belief in working with the local citizens. He said he wanted the
    process to work.
        So, overcoming serious misgivings, the Commission asked me to
    provide testimony asking for your support and the funding necessary to
    allow our participation with the agency.
        Senator Bennett suggested language to be included with the Senate
    bill that would allow us to participate on an official basis with the
    agency. You graciously accepted that language. Thank you. The support
    from your committee provided the basis and authority for our role as
    sanctioned participants and not as subservient and trivial kibitzers.
        We have used the opportunity in the first year to work toward a
    true partnership with the federal government. We have established a
    mutually respectful relationship with the monument director, Jerry
    Meredith, and his professional staff. With the funds provided to us by
    the Department for fiscal year 1997, we formed a selection committee
    and solicited experts to independently provide recommendations
    regarding infrastructure requirements, public safety, transportation,
    and local community needs.
        Those preliminary recommendations are in. They present a
    comprehensive picture of both capabilities and shortfalls in our joint
    preparations to provide a rewarding national monument experience--while
    protecting the fragile monument lands.
        This year, with the fiscal year 1998 funds requested by the
    department and appropriated by this committee, we are proceeding to the
    second phase of the planning process. Our principal areas of concern
    will be: the gateway community and destination tourism plan; grants to
    Kane County communities for monument impacts planning; and Kane County
    services to the monument area.
        Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that the President's fiscal
    year 1999 budget includes $6.4 million for the monument with $250,000
    intended to be provided to each of the two impacted counties. That is
    the same funding level as in fiscal year 1998.
        We are encouraged that the Administration is continuing to
    recommend a significant level of support. However, with the
    recommendations of the completed studies in hand, it is obvious that we
    need to begin now to plan and develop some very basic facilities for
    both the BLM and the visiting public. The Draft Plan will be completed
    in September, and the Final Plan in September of 1999, but the need to
    provide information to visitors is there now. It is non-controversial.
    The information centers will be adjacent to the monument at those very
    few established entryways. The identified ``gateways.'' Let me just
    briefly mention the facilities that are to be located in Kane County:
    Monument Headquarters, BLM ($0)
        Immediately after the 1996 announcement, the agency entered into a
    three year lease for headquarters space for the monument director and
    staff--in Cedar City, Utah. That is eighty miles from the monument. The
    agency indicated at that time its intent to locate the permanent
    headquarters adjacent to the monument. With only one and one-half years
    remaining on the BLM lease, it is extremely important that a new
    facility be identified and made available as soon as possible.
        We are working with the agency in selecting an appropriate site
    that provides access to the monument and has adequate community
    amenities for the full-time staff. But it is extremely important that
    we begin that process as soon as possible. The estimated total cost is
    $2 million.
        This is our number one priority.
        However, we are not requesting funds for that purpose. We are
    exploring other arrangements wherein we would finance the building and
    lease it to the agency. We respectfully request that the committee
    include language that directs the Bureau of Land Management to work
    with Kane County and Kanab City to plan the facility and enter into an
    agreement to occupy the facility upon completion of construction.
    Visitor Center ($650,000)
        We also need to move quickly to accommodate visitors. There is
    virtually no information regarding monument conditions or accessible
    monument sites in Kane County. Only a tiny portion of this huge area of
    3,125 square miles, (larger than the size of the state of Delaware--
    2,498 square miles) will ever be accessible to the public under our
    plan. But it is a national monument established for the American
    people--and an international attraction. We must treat it as such.
        The first necessity is a Visitor Center. We are suggesting that a
    center be located about halfway between Kodachrome Basin State Park to
    the north and Johnson Canyon on the southern boundary of the monument.
    This would be on the only currently paved road in Kane County that
    crosses portions of the monument. A tentative site is located just
    inside the monument boundary, but on school trust land. It is a very
    beautiful and dramatic location that would exemplify the character of
    the monument. We would also include a campground which would have
    drinking water, rest rooms and showers.
        The estimated cost is $2,321,000 for the Visitor Center, and
    $1,715,000 for the campground. We are requesting that the committee add
    $650,000 for planning and design in fiscal year 1999.
    Information--Interpretive Centers ($440,000)
        In addition, there is an immediate need for information centers at
    Big Water the south-eastern entry to the lands and Glendale, Utah, on
    the northwest corner of the monument. These would have rest rooms and
    water. Visitors would be informed of accessible scenic locations and
    warned of the ruggedness of the area and the lack of even the basic
    fuel and water supplies--or sanitation facilities.
        The estimated costs for design and construction of the visitor
    information centers is $440,000 and we are requesting that that amount
    be added to the monument budget.
    Planning funds, Kane County ($250,000)
        A final item that I need to address is that of Kane County's
    participation in the planning process. We began this joint program with
    a grant from the Department of Interior for $200,000. I believe we have
    demonstrated that we have maximized that funding with an almost
    unlimited participation and contribution by local officials. This year,
    the federal contribution will be $250,000. We are grateful that both
    the department and the Congress has recognized our growing
    participation. The Bureau's budget reportedly includes the same level
    of funding to be provided in fiscal year 1999.
        However, as the planning process becomes one of implementation to
    meet the basic requirements related to visitation in such an immense
    area, the demands on the Kane County budget increase also. As you know,
    70 percent of the monument is in Kane County and the elimination of the
    Smokey Hollow Coal Mine has impacted greatly on the County. Kane County
    has lost $1,000,000 in anticipated annual revenues.
        This year we ask that the amount provided to the county be set at
    $500,000. We are requesting that the $250,000 be an ``add-on.'' We are
    not suggesting that the additional $250,000 be transferred from within
    the amount requested by the administration for the management of the
    monument. The BLM budget is constrained as it is. This should be in
    addition to the President's budget.
        As we move toward a partnership with the federal government, we
    need, at least, the minimum resources to be effective.
        Thank you again for inviting me to provide testimony for the
    record.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado
                       River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
    Management for activities that assists the Colorado River salinity
    control program. The Bureau of Land Management has reformulated its
    budgeting process so as to support ecosystems and watershed management.
    The activities needed to control salinity being contributed from the
    BLM lands are a part of ecosystem and watershed management. Because the
    budgeting process lumps all activities together, we can only presume
    that there is adequate dollars in the President's budget to move ahead
    with the water quality enhancement and protection programs needed in
    the Colorado River drainage to ensure that the salts in excess amounts
    are not contributed to the river system. Our analysis indicates that
    the Bureau of Land Management needs to specifically target the
    expenditure of funds in the amount of $5,200,000 to salinity control in
    fiscal year 1999. The Forum simply supports the President's Budget
    because we presume, but cannot discern, that adequate funds will move
    to this needed water quality effort.
        Although the Forum has not been able to determine from limited
    budget documents how appropriated funds will be spent, we are much
    encouraged by public statements made by Administration officials.
    Statements have been made as follows: ``The BLM is anxious to
    participate in the implementation of the Administration's Clean Water
    Action Plan,'' ``The 1999 Budget requests a $16 million increase for
    implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan,'' ``Together with the
    USFS and the NRCS we will develop a standardized rangeland health
    inventory and classification system, by 2000,'' ``It also is
    responsible for BLM's efforts at reducing salinity,'' ``improve overall
    management of watersheds and minimize harmful consequences of erosion,
    saline discharges, water quality degradation,'' ``In 1998, $800,000 is
    planned for the BLM's Colorado River water quality improvement
    effort,'' ``Federal Salinity Control--In the tributaries of the Upper
    Colorado River Basin, BLM will accelerate management actions and
    facilities maintenance on saline soils to complement the overall salt
    reduction efforts of Reclamation and the USDA, and our commitments to
    Mexico.'' The Forum strongly supports the above-stated intentions.
                                    overview
        The Colorado River Basin salinity control program was authorized by
    Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
    had made via a treaty with Mexico with respect to the quality of water
    being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
    established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
    River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
    of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
    of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead
    Federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of funding
    for the Title II program.
        After a decade of investigative effort, the Basin states concluded
    that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. Congress revised
    the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping the Secretary of the
    Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River Basin salinity control
    efforts, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the
    Department of Agriculture, and to a sister agency of the Bureau of
    Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has charged the
    Administration with implementing the most cost-effective (dollars per
    ton of salt removed) program practicable. The Basin states are strongly
    supportive of that concept, as the Basin states cost share 30 percent
    of federal expenditures for the salinity control program, while in
    addition proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in
    the Colorado River system.
        Since the Congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
    has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
    system. The Bureau of Reclamation has recently completed studies on the
    economic impact of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages
    to United States' water users alone may soon be approaching $1 billion
    per year.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
    coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
    support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
    salinity of the river system. Forum members are appointed by the
    governors of the seven Colorado River Basin states. In close
    cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under
    requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum
    prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
    anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary to keep the
    salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
        In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
    the salinity levels measured at Imperial, Parker, and Hoover Dams in
    1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary
    for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan of
    implementation.'' The 1996 Review of water quality standards includes
    an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested
    in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If adequate
    funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in
    agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from
    the high salt levels in the water will be widespread and very
    significant.
                                 justification
        The BLM is, by far and away, the largest landowner in the Colorado
    River Basin. Much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the
    Bureau of Land Management are heavily laden with salt. Past management
    practices, which include the use of lands for recreation; for road
    building and transportation; for oil, gas, and mineral exploration; and
    most importantly, for grazing, have led to man-induced and accelerated
    erosional processes. When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode,
    the silt is carried along for some distance and ultimately settles in
    the streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved and
    remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream.
        The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and
    important responsibility with respect to controlling pick-up of salt
    from public lands. Recent reports drafted by the Western Water Policy
    Review Advisory Commission find this to be true. Congress charged the
    federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the salinity of
    the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-
    effective options. It has been determined that BLM's rangeland
    improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective
    salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures
    are more cost-effective than some now being implemented by the Bureau
    of Reclamation and by the Department of Agriculture. They are very
    environmentally acceptable, as they will prevent erosion, increase
    grazing opportunities, increase dependable stream runoffs, and enhance
    wildlife habitats.
        Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
    Colorado, and Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies,
    including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-
    effective salinity control efforts could be implemented immediately. In
    keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that out of
    the overall requested and authorized budget the Congress appropriate
    and the administration allocate adequate funds to support the Bureau of
    Land Management's portion of the Colorado River salinity control
    program as set forth in the adopted plan of implementation.
                 details concerning the requested appropriation
        After conferring with BLM officials, the Forum believes there needs
    to be spent in fiscal year 1999, by the Bureau of Land Management,
    $5,200,000 for salinity control. We are particularly concerned that the
    line-item titled Management of Lands and Renewal Resources is
    adequately funded.
        The Forum believes that although it is commendable for the
    administration to formulate a budget that focuses on ecosystems and
    watershed management, it is essential that funds be targeted on
    specific sub-activities and the results of those expenditures reported;
    this is necessary for accountability and for the effectiveness of the
    use of the funds. The Forum requests that the Committee require
    accounting by the Bureau of Land Management in such a way that the
    results of their activities in connection with the expenditures the
    funds can be reviewed and measured. The Forum made this request last
    year but we have not seen any improvement in the ability of the BLM to
    account for its expenditure of funds and accomplishments as their
    efforts relate to Colorado River salinity control. Please find a way to
    make BLM accountable.
                                     ______

                           Office of Insular Affairs
    Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Janger, President, Close Up Foundation
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Stephen A. Janger and I am President of the Close Up Foundation. It is
    a privilege for me to submit this testimony with regard to our work in
    the Pacific Islands to provide quality civic education experiences for
    students and educators.
        On behalf of all of us at the Foundation, I would like to begin
    this testimony with a very sincere thank you to this Subcommittee for
    its support of our efforts. We are fully aware that without the funding
    provided by the Subcommittee to the Office of Insular Affairs for our
    programs, it would not have been possible to reach the thousands of
    students and educators who have benefited so measurably from our
    programs. We hear over and over again, from students and educators
    alike, that participation in Close Up's programs has had a positive,
    life-transforming effect on them. We enjoy having that affirmation of
    our work, and we know that a large part of it would not have been
    possible without this Subcommittee's support.
        The Close Up Foundation began working with the Pacific Islands 15
    years ago. From only a few participants from American Samoa in 1983,
    the word spread about our program and its educational value. With help
    from Congress, we now have students and educators participating from
    American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
    (CNMI), the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Guam, the Republic of
    the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. These island entities
    have a unique and special relationship with the United States. As these
    entities develop independence and strengthen democratic institutions,
    it is vital to ensure that their citizens have an understanding of the
    important role each of them plays in establishing a democracy and
    taking responsibility for its continuance. Moreover, many Pacific
    Islanders are American citizens who deserve the same quality of civic
    education that is offered on the mainland.
        Our citizenship education programs in the Pacific have been aided
    by this Subcommittee and the Congress with funds made available through
    the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). Although we are well aware of the
    budgetary pressures facing the Subcommittee, we believe we have a very
    worthwhile program that makes a significant contribution. Therefore, we
    respectfully request $1 million in fiscal year 1999 funding for Close
    Up's Pacific Islands programs.
                 close up foundation's pacific islands programs
    Washington High School Program
        The Washington High School Program is the core element of all of
    Close Up's programs. Through this program, we offer experiential,
    hands-on learning opportunities for youth of all abilities and
    aptitudes, from all areas of the world. Our teaching methodology is
    focused on allowing students to have first-hand, person-to-person
    interactions that are designed to build self-esteem and inculcate a
    belief in the importance of every person in a democracy. This
    methodology is particularly well-suited to the students of the Pacific
    Islands, since these young people lead a much more isolated life than
    most of their peers in the United States.
        In order to help meet the civic education needs of the Pacific
    Islands region, Close Up plans to offer three Washington High School
    program options. All three options include a week in Washington on
    Close Up's program. Two of the program options involve a week in
    Washington plus another week in either Hawaii, or in Williamsburg,
    Philadelphia, and New York.
        During the week in Hawaii, Pacific Island students and educators
    take part in the Close Up Pacific Basin Program. In this program,
    participants from the Pacific Islands and from the U.S. mainland meet
    to study issues of importance to both areas. The program usually
    includes a seminar on the changing role of the U.S. armed forces in the
    Pacific, a simulation addressing the economic interdependence in the
    region, workshops on immigration issues, and other activities related
    to the interests of the region.
        The second option includes a two-day trip to Williamsburg to
    explore the roots of American democratic government; a visit to
    Philadelphia to examine the U.S. Constitution, its origin, and its
    impact on Pacific constitutions; and a visit to New York City, where
    students study the cultural and political implications of America's
    diverse citizenry.
        The third option is a Washington program expanded to eight days.
    This program was created by Close Up staff and Pacific educators in
    response to an approximate 25 percent reduction in funding in fiscal
    year 1997. Rather than significantly reduce the number of students who
    would be able to participate, four Pacific Island entities decided to
    offer an eight-day program instead.
        The Eight-Day Program has been well-received by the entities that
    have taken part. Given the expense and logistical difficulties involved
    in traveling from the Pacific, Close Up provided an extra day and one-
    half for Pacific Island students to work on activities specifically
    devoted to the Pacific Islands and their relationship to the U.S.
    government.
        In Close Up's current program year, we are planning to offer all
    three program options and estimate that there will be approximately 261
    participants. This level is slightly lower than last year. We recently
    learned that our grant for fiscal year 1998 will be $750,000. This
    level of funding should allow us to reach this year's estimated level
    of participation. If the Foundation's fiscal year 1999 funding request
    is granted and we are able to offer the three program options mentioned
    above, we hope to be able to increase the number of students and
    educators taking part in our programs next year.
        One of the most rewarding aspects of Close Up's programs is the
    positive feedback we receive from participants. Their experiences have
    helped them realize their responsibility to make contributions to their
    communities for the rest of their lives. While we consider it a
    privilege to assist Pacific Island students and educators in their
    civic learning process, it is reaffirming to know that our programs are
    having a positive, long-term, and lasting effect in the developing
    democracies of the Pacific Islands.
    Civic Education Needs Assessment
        As we mentioned in last year's testimony, we believed it was
    necessary to conduct a civic education needs assessment in the Pacific
    Islands. In order to maximize the effectiveness of our civic education
    activities, we believed it was important to learn from Pacific
    educators what needs existed and what would be the best ways to address
    those needs.
        With the assistance of a grant from the Office of Insular Affairs,
    Close Up conducted a nine-month civic education/social studies needs
    assessment from 1997 into early 1998. Close Up staff met with directors
    of education, curriculum chiefs, social studies specialists, and other
    appropriate representatives in January 1998. They discussed social
    studies curricula, materials, training, and technology available to
    teachers in grades five through twelve in the public and private
    schools of American Samoa, the CNMI, the FSM, Guam, the Marshall
    Islands, and Palau.
        The meeting participants, combined with Close Up's own research and
    program experience, produced results that are comprehensive, complex,
    and very useful in charting the direction for Close Up to be most
    helpful in addressing the civic education needs of the Pacific Islands.
    As we expected, there is no ``one size fits all'' approach to the needs
    of the various Pacific Islands. However, the meeting uncovered common
    needs that can be categorized into four general areas: (1) development
    of social studies standards; (2) materials acquisition; (3) teacher
    training and staff development; (4) use of technology in social
    studies. Close Up has proposed various programs to meet some of these
    needs in the most expeditious manner possible.
    Teacher Training and Teacher Institute
        At this time, we do not know what amount, if any, will be made
    available to the Foundation from fiscal year 1998 funds to support
    activities in addition to the Washington High School program. We have
    requested funding to support a teacher training institute to be
    conducted in the Washington area during July or August of this year. We
    are very hopeful that funding will be made available for this important
    activity.
        The need for teacher training and staff development has been a
    constant theme in our formal and informal discussions with Pacific
    educators. While the entities have different types of training needs,
    our strategy is to address these differences by focusing on capacity
    building. With capacity building, we would conduct sessions in which we
    would be training the trainers. We would teach educators how to train
    other teachers, thereby developing a group of resident island trainers
    who could help other educators become more self-reliant and self-
    assured.
        Regardless of whether we are fortunate enough to be awarded funds
    to conduct a ``Trainer of Trainers'' Institute this summer, we believe
    the need is so strong that a second institute is necessary in fiscal
    year 1999. We could not possibly include in one year the numbers of
    trainers necessary to meet the needs of Pacific Island teachers.
    Therefore, we would like to work with Pacific educators to conduct a
    (hopefully second) Trainer of Trainers Institute in the summer of 1999.
        Additionally, we have found during the past several years that
    Pacific educators believe island-specific training conducted on the
    island entity is very helpful. The training and staff development that
    take place on the islands are less abstract than other activities and
    help to build the self-confidence of the teachers involved. The
    difficulty, however, is that island-specific training sessions
    sometimes can be limited in terms of the number of teachers reached by
    the program. This is why Close Up, in balancing the benefits of various
    training activities, would like to provide trainers with technical
    assistance and onsite evaluation, but do so as requested and on a
    limited scale.
    Civic Education Materials
        One of the most disturbing findings of the needs assessment meeting
    was the overwhelming need in most of the entities for current materials
    in sufficient numbers. Again, as with teacher training, the specifics
    of the needs vary from entity to entity, and from island to island.
        Close Up currently has the ability to help address this materials
    shortage in a cost-effective manner. Close Up has collaborated with
    Pacific educators for the past six years, to develop island-specific
    social studies resource books. These books were modeled on Close Up's
    Civic Achievement Award Program (CAAP) books, which are designed to
    connect history, government, geography, economics, culture, and current
    events with responsible citizenship. Since these CAAP books are
    specifically tailored to the island entities, additional distribution
    of CAAP materials would help mitigate the need for supplementary
    materials.
        We propose that the CAAP materials be reformulated into a
    comprehensive text focusing on the entire Pacific region. The
    Foundation has included in its fiscal year 1998 proposal a small amount
    of funding to begin to provide CAAP books and start the process of
    creating a comprehensive text. Should our fiscal year 1998 request be
    granted in this area, there remains a need to distribute additional
    CAAP books and to further disseminate the new textbook. We would expect
    to commit a limited amount of fiscal year 1999 funds, should they be
    provided, to help to address this critical need.
    Local Programs
        As part of Close Up's message of life-long civic learning and
    involvement, the Foundation provides a very limited amount of money to
    help the island entities conduct civic education programs in their own
    communities. These local programs enable many groups to learn and
    contribute, increasing the civic literacy of the entire community.
        Mr. Chairman, the Close Up Foundation is proud of its work in the
    Pacific Islands. We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in our
    mission to help meet the civic education needs of students and
    educators in this very important region. Our plans for the coming
    fiscal year warrant additional support because of the impact that Close
    Up can make on students and teachers in their understanding of the
    value of being an informed participant in democracy. We would be happy
    to respond to any questions and to provide any additional programmatic
    or budgetary detail. Thank you very much.
                                     ______

                             National Park Service
       Prepared Statement of Margaret A. Parker, President, Meigs County
                               Historical Society
        The Meigs County Historical Society presents the following as
    testimony supporting the request for allocation of funds to be used for
    preservation and purchase of the Buffington Island Civil War
    Battlefield.
        For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
    the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
    save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
    the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
    took place at Portland, Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July
    19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
    leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
    Known to have been present at this battle were two future United States
    Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
        The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
    battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
    in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
    as a Class C principal battlefield for historic significance. The site
    has been determined by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to be
    eligible for the National Register of Historic Sites. However, a
    portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
    mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
    Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio have applied to the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
    loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The 520 acres of
    land that Richards and Sons, Inc. owns for sand and gravel purposes is
    located on known portions of the battlefield, including a section
    referred to as ``the bloody ground.'' As part of a required 106 Review,
    the gravel company recently had a Phase I cultural resources
    reconnaissance investigation completed on the property they own. This
    archaeological survey identified twenty-two prehistoric archaeological
    sites, including 9 isolated finds. Sixteen multi-component historic and
    prehistoric sites were identified, and 6 historic sites were
    inventoried, making a total of 44 archaeological resources encountered
    in these investigations. Of the 44 sites identified, 19 were
    recommended for additional Phase II testing and evaluation studies. The
    study also concluded that based on eyewitness officer's accounts
    portions of the Civil War battle occurred within the study area,
    particularly the final engagement and the Confederate withdrawal. Based
    on these combined data sources, it appeared likely the study area
    included properties which may retain evidence for the battle. Because
    of this conclusion it was recommended that additional research on the
    probable locations of battle actions on these properties be
    investigated.
        The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
    This Trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
    of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
    Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
    historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
    identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation, and
    visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
    national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
        The first Confederate invasion of Ohio was by Brigadier General
    Albert Gallatin Jenkins in September 1862. Jenkins crossed from
    Virginia (now West Virginia) at the Buffington Island ford. He
    proceeded to Racine, Ohio and then crossed back into Virginia at the
    ford at Wolf's Creek Bar, down river from Racine.
        The Buffington Island ford was also an important crossing point for
    the Underground Railroad, with much of the present Meigs County black
    population being descendants of blacks who followed Colonel Lightburn
    on his retreat from the Kanawha Valley. So, not only is this ground
    significant for the Battle of Buffington Island, it also contributed to
    a great deal of other Civil War history.
        This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
    important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
    compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
    vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
    to stimulate the local economy.
        The states of Kentucky and Indiana are in the process of marking
    the Morgan's Raid Route across their states, and it is our
    understanding that research is also being done in Ohio, so that the
    route across Ohio maybe marked. The Meigs County Historical Society was
    awarded a Travel and Tourism grant to research and mark the route in
    Meigs County and significant sites in the Buffington Island Battlefield
    area. Research for this project has been completed and text is now
    being written. Several markers have been already been delivered and
    will be set over the next few months. We anticipate setting at least
    twelve of these markers along the route across the county and in the
    Portland area. But, without the battlefield, what meaning will marking
    the Morgan's Raid route across the state, or even Meigs County, have?
    What meaning, when the places where men fought and died are only holes
    in the ground? When nothing remains to show future generations the
    turning point of the longest raid of the Civil War; the only
    significant battle on Ohio soil; the site where two future U.S.
    Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley (both native
    Ohioans) participated in battle; and where the U.S. Navy played a
    deciding factor in the outcome from gunboats on the Ohio River. This is
    not just Ohio's battlefield, this is West Virginia's battlefield, also.
    Those gunboats were on the Ohio River and that belongs to West
    Virginia. But, more important, the blood that poured out upon the soil
    that hot day in July, was blood from many states and lineages that
    stretched far back across an ocean. It was the blood of our forebears
    who believed in freedom and were willing to fight for it. The freedom
    that we today take for granted as we enjoy a life style unthought of
    one-hundred and thirty-five years ago. We owe those men respect and
    reverence, whether they fought for the north or the south. They were
    sons, husbands and fathers who were only doing what they believed their
    country asked of them. How can we do anything less than see that this
    battlefield is preserved? Preserved to the memory of those who gave so
    much of themselves upon her fields. The Official War Records state that
    47 Confederate soldiers were buried by Union troops on the battlefield
    and seven more by the local citizens. We believe these bodies may still
    be buried on the battlefield, but the site has not been identified. We
    hope the Phase II study will achieve this.
        In an effort to Save the Battlefield, we are negotiating with the
    gravel company concerning the immediate danger to the site. However, we
    must also look for ways to guarantee long-term protection and
    development of the rest of the battlefield and other historical sites
    in the area. An appropriate way to preserve, might be through purchase
    of significant locations identified with the battle. This should also
    include the area known as Portland at the time of the battle and
    restoration of the village. To protect lands which cannot be purchased,
    land easements should be secured. A park and visitors center portraying
    the battle history should also be part of the battlefield development.
        The battlefield itself remains in a pristine condition, the land
    having only been farmed. There are produce growers in the area who
    would like to farm part of this land, preserving it as it was when the
    Battle of Buffington Island occurred.
        It has been recorded that three out of every five Ohio men between
    18 and 45 served in the Union forces, leading all northern states in
    proportion to population. Only New York and Pennsylvania exceeded the
    total figure. But, those statistics do not tell the whole story, for
    the state did not receive credit for those who served with the regular
    Army or Navy, or in the regiments of other states. Of the eight Ohioans
    who were elected president of the United States, five of them fought in
    the Civil War, four as generals and one a major. Two of these were
    known to have participated at Buffington Island. And we must not forget
    the ``Fighting McCooks'' of Columbiana and Carroll counties, Ohio.
    There were ten sons of Daniel McCook and seven sons of his brother,
    John McCook who served in the Civil War. It was at the Battle of
    Buffington Island that father, Major Daniel McCook, was mortally
    wounded, by the Confederate troops he believed had killed his son,
    Brigadier General Robert L. McCook the year before. We believe that the
    only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio should be preserved as
    a lasting memorial to the memory of these men.
        We also believe that by working together, the Buffington Island
    Battlefield can be preserved for future generations. The memory of that
    long ago war must not be erased, because as it has been stated, ``those
    who forget history are deemed to repeat it.''
        We sincerely hope that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies will deem the Buffington Island Civil War Battlefield worthy
    of preservation and consider it for appropriation.
                                     ______

       prepared statement of patricia ann cook, president, meigs county
                              genealogical society
        The Meigs County Genealogical Society wishes to lend its support to
    the efforts of the Meigs County Historical Society in their attempt to
    save Ohio's only Civil War Battlefield, known as the Buffington Island
    Battlefield at Portland, Ohio.
        The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
    battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
    in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
    as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance, which
    suggests preservation at the local or state level. Because an important
    section of the battlefield is owned by the Richards and Sons Sand and
    Gravel Company of Racine, Ohio, there is immediate concern for
    preservation of the site. The company has applied for permits to begin
    mining and if these are issued, we believe an important part of the
    battlefield will be lost. Because money is not available to purchase
    the company owned land, nor surrounding properties, eventually, much of
    the battlefield maybe lost. We feel that appropriation for acquisition
    of the land where the battle took place is crucial and sincerely hope
    this committee will agree.
        The Battle of Buffington Island was the only significant Civil War
    battle fought in Ohio, or north of the Ohio River. The Morgan's Raid,
    which culminated in the battle, was the longest raid of the war. Had
    General John Hunt Morgan successfully crossed at Buffington Ford, his
    raid might very well have had a definite influence on the outcome of
    the war.
        This historical landmark certainly has elements which make it
    uniquely eligible for preservation. Notably some of these being: the
    only Civil War Battlefield in Ohio; the only Civil War battle that
    occurred north of the Ohio River; contribution as a turning point to
    the longest raid of the war; the only battle on Union soil in which
    gunboats on the Ohio River participated; two future presidents
    participation; and the fact, that never again did Confederate troops
    invade the Union states.
        We sincerely hope that this committee will recognize the
    significance of this battle and vote to appropriate funds for
    preservation of the Buffington Island Battlefield.
                                     ______

    prepared statement of john carey, jr., state representative, ohio house
                               of representatives
        Thank you Chairman Gorton and members of the Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies. I would like to take this opportunity to
    show my support and share my concerns for the preservation of the
    Buffington Island Battlefield site in Portland, Ohio (Meigs County,
    Lebanon Township).
        It has recently come to my attention that there is an appropriation
    of $699 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for priority
    land acquisitions and land exchanges, of which $362 million is not yet
    earmarked for special projects. I understand the committee is seeking
    to identify opportunities to use a portion of this special
    appropriation for acquisitions that will help preserve important Civil
    War battle sites.
        As one who appreciates the importance of our heritage, I am very
    concerned with the possible mining of the Battlefield. It is to my
    understanding that a certain gravel company recently submitted an
    application for a permit to build a loading facility on the Ohio River
    at Portland, Ohio. We are all very concerned with the integrity of this
    historical landmark. I feel that if they are granted this permit, it
    would indeed have a significant environmental impact on the Ohio River
    in southern Ohio, as well as diminish the only site in the State of
    Ohio where the Civil War Battle was fought.
        Over 10,000 soldiers fought and died on this land. I recognize the
    significance of Buffington Island to our state and our nation, and I
    hope that you will also. For the record, I oppose the issuance of a
    permit for mining of gravel on this historic landmark and I hope that
    you will do the same.
        Therefore, I wholeheartedly believe that the Buffington Island
    Battlefield site is very deserving and worthy of receiving a portion of
    this special appropriation.
        I would appreciate every effort that you can make to preserve the
    Buffington Island Battlefield site. Your assistance in this matter will
    be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration on
    this very important matter. If I can be of any service to you, please
    do not hesitate to contact me.
                                     ______

      prepared statement of michael shoemaker, state senator, 17th senate
                                    district
        Ohio has only one Civil War Battlefield, the Buffington Island
    Battlefield, maybe this is the reason so many in Ohio wish to preserve
    this portion of our history. For many years now the Meigs County
    Historical Society and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been
    heading a campaign to save this battlesite located in Lebanon Township
    in Meigs County. The battle at Buffington Island took place on July
    19th, 1863 and it involved nearly 2,000 Confederate troops under the
    leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
    Two future U.S. presidents also participated in this battle, Rutherford
    B. Hayes and William McKinley. This battlefield site is on the critical
    list of 384 principal battlefields defined by Congress to be preserved
    and it is ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed
    conflicts. It is ranked as a Class C principal battlefield for
    historical significance.
        Unfortunately, a portion of this battlefield is in danger of being
    lost to sand and gravel mining. Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine,
    Ohio have applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington
    District, for a permit to build a loading facility on the Ohio River at
    Portland and to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a mining
    permit. The area that Richards and Sons, Inc. owns for sand and gravel
    purposes is located on known portions of the battlefield. This area is
    also historically known for Native American tribes inhibiting the land
    and artifacts are found periodically. As part of a 106 Review the
    gravel company had a preliminary archaeological and historical survey
    completed on the property they own. The survey report identified forty-
    four prehistoric/historic sites. A mental detecting survey was
    recommended to determine if there are any Civil War artifacts.
        The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
    This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most important
    historical assets. Kentucky and Indiana are currently in the process of
    marking Morgan's Raid Route across their states. The Meigs County
    Historical Society was awarded a Travel and Tourism grant to research
    and mark the route in Meigs County and significant sites in the
    Buffington Island Battlefield area. Several markers have been delivered
    and will be set in the next few months.
        In an effort to save the battlefield the Meigs County Historical
    Society is negotiating with the gravel company concerning the immediate
    danger to the site.
        However, we must also look for ways to guarantee long-term
    protection. One way to preserve this battlefield is through the
    purchase of significant locations identified with the battle. A park
    and visitors center portraying the battle history should also be part
    of the battlefield development.
        All of this seems so much to go through for just a piece of land,
    but it is really more than that. This piece of land is a piece of
    history, where husbands, sons and fathers gave their lives. These men
    believed in freedom and fought for it, whether they were Union or
    Confederate soldiers doesn't matter, they were fighting for a cause
    they chose to believe in. It is only right that we preserve this
    battlefield in memory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, their
    life. The official War records state that 47 Confederate soldiers were
    buried by Union troops on the battlefield and seven more by the local
    citizens. This burial site has not been positively identified, it is
    imperative that this site be found and preserved as hallowed ground.
    Working together, the Buffington Island Battlefield can be preserved
    for many future generations to come.
                                     ______

    prepared statement of the ohio department sons of union veterans of the
                                   civil war
        The Ohio Department Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War is the
    primary organization representing the largest Union veterans
    organization of the post-Civil War period--the Grand Army of the
    Republic (G.A.R.). When the G.A.R. disbanded due to the death of most
    of its members, it literally wrote a will naming the Sons of Union
    Veterans of the Civil War as its legal heir to its property as well as
    to its purposes to keep the memory and sacrifices of the ``Boys in
    Blue'' alive.
        It has been a primary concern of the Ohio Department of the
    imminent danger of the destruction of Ohio's only Civil War
    battlefield, the Battle of Buffington Island at Portland, Meigs County,
    Ohio. This battle involved nearly 8,000 Union troops as well as 2,000
    Confederate troops. The only other battles on northern soil were the
    Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania and the Battle of Corydon in
    Indiana. (This latter battle was also a result of the same Confederate
    raid that resulted in the Battle of Buffington Island.)
        The Battle of Buffington Island has several unique historical
    points to make. First, it involved both federal Union troops as well as
    local militia troops. This is the only battle known to us that involved
    local militia as well as federal troops. Meigs County, Ohio, where the
    battle occurred, had a significant number of county militiamen
    dedicated to the defense of its county. Historians credit the vigor and
    dedication of these militiamen to the delaying of the Confederate
    troops that caused their delay and engagement at Portland, Ohio.
        Further, the Battle of Buffington Island is unique in that it
    involved artillery, cavalry, infantry, and naval operations. Three
    Union gunboats assaulted the Confederates from their points in the Ohio
    River.
        In addition to these points, this battle involved the participation
    of two future U.S. Presidents--Rutherford B. Hayes and William
    McKinley, both Ohio ``boys''. This is likely the only Civil War battle
    where such a situation occurred.
        One point about the significance of this battle is often
    overlooked. The Battle of Buffington Island occurred on July 19, 1883.
    This is just a few days after the Confederate defeats at Gettysburg and
    Vicksburg. It is also the same time that the largest riots in U.S.
    history occurred--the New York Draft Riots. Had the Confederates
    succeeded in the Battle of Buffington Island, it could have renewed
    Confederate hopes that invasions onto northern soil would be a primary
    goal thus changing the whole end to the Civil War.
        The official records of the Civil War indicate that at least 54
    Civil War soldiers of the Battle of Buffington Island are buried on the
    Buffington Island Battlefield. Currently, the locations of these graves
    are unknown. With both time and funding, archeologists have assured us
    that the locations can be located. Since Confederates are legal U.S.
    veterans of the Civil War, it really does not matter which kind of
    soldiers are buried there. If this battlefield is allowed to be
    excavated by a sand and gravel company, the bodies of the veterans of
    this country may very well end up in paving material created from this
    sand and gravel--a disgrace in the opinion of anyone with a shread of
    patriotism in them.
        The exact boundaries of the Battle of Buffington Island are not yet
    completely known. Again, it will take time and money to obtain expert
    archeological study to determine this. We do know, however, certain
    parts of the area that are undoubtedly part of the battle--a
    significant part of which is owned by the Shelly Company of Thornville,
    Ohio. This company has already applied to the Ohio Department of
    Natural Resources for a mining permit. Since the State of Ohio has no
    laws regarding preservation of historical areas, the Ohio Department of
    Natural Resources has no choice but to eventually issue this permit
    thus guaranteeing the destruction of the battlefield.
        The reason the exact boundaries of the battle are yet unknown is
    due to another unique situation of the battle. It is what is called a
    ``running battle''. The Union was attacking the Confederates on three
    sides--one of those sides being the Ohio River. That left the only path
    of escape for the Confederates being up river along the Ohio River.
    That caused the Confederates to keep moving up river as the battle
    flared.
        The question may arise why Meigs County, the home of the battle,
    has not done anything to preserve the land. Meigs County is a part of
    the Appalachian region of Ohio. It has a population of 23,000 people.
    Federal statistics indicate that about half of the population receives
    Government checks from Government agencies such as the Social Security
    Administration and the Department of Human Services. Unemployment runs
    much higher than the average for the U.S. The largest employers in the
    county are a coal company, a school district, and the county
    Government. The county has the lowest teaching salaries in the State of
    Ohio--so low in fact that some teachers qualify for food stamps. The
    county is too poor to afford to buy the property even though land
    prices are comparatively low for the rest of the state.
        The State of Ohio is also currently in a funding crisis due to a
    recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling requiring a complete restructuring of
    the school funding to equalize schools around the state. They do not
    have the funding to pay for the battlefield either.
        It has always been a basic premise of American democracy that the
    people through its Government must supply funding and assistance to the
    public when the people cannot handle problems as individuals. Clearly,
    the Buffington Island Battlefield falls in this category. Neither the
    local people nor the State of Ohio has the funds to save this critical
    historical area. Current Ohio law gives eminent domain to condemn the
    land of this battlefield if the money is available for the legal costs
    and the purchase of the land. It is absolutely imperative that your
    committee provide the funds to condemn and purchase the property. Some
    of this property is coming up for private sale by a private owner on
    April 25. We fear that the Shelly Company will endeavor to purchase
    this thus making it even more expensive to condemn and purchase the
    property.
        Currently, a new organization called the Ohio Civil War Trails
    Commission has been formed to inform the public on Ohio's contributions
    in the Civil War. The loss of the most important Civil War site in Ohio
    will cripple any attempt to increase tourism in Ohio through this
    commission. It would be devastating to show a large hole in the ground
    as the place where brave men once struggled.
        Currently, Morgan's Raid, which is the raid that resulted in the
    Battle of Buffington Island, is the most re-enacted part of the Civil
    War. There are no less than four different places in three states that
    re-enact portions of this battle thus proving its significance in Civil
    War history.
        We realize that other Civil War battlefields are in danger.
    However, Ohio furnished the 3rd largest number of soldiers to the Union
    in the Civil War. It furnished an equal amount of support in food and
    materials. Ohio also furnished the most successful Generals of the
    war--Grant, Sherman, Custer, and Sheridan. It would seem only fair that
    the single Civil War battlefield be entitled to be saved. The federal
    Government has already ranked it as one of the most endangered
    significant sites of the Civil War. Further, this battlefield is ranked
    by historians in Ohio as the Number One endangered historical site of
    any kind in Ohio.
        Though the historical research has not yet been concluded, it also
    appears that this same battlefield was involved in an 1862 part of the
    Civil War. Jenkins' Raid--the first raid onto northern soil during the
    Civil War--occurred on this same sight. A reference in historical
    materials refers to this site as ``Camp Scott''. Though no battle
    occurred during Jenkins' Raid, it is nonetheless very significant.
        When the federal Government is stressing higher educational
    standards, how do public school teachers of the nation's children prove
    that it is important to a well-rounded education to learn about
    American history when the Government stands by to allow an important
    battlefield like Buffington Island be forever destroyed by a mining
    company. There is no doubt that there are other sources of land that
    can provide sand and gravel for this company, but there is no way to
    replace a battlefield.
        The Shelly Company of Thornville, Ohio, has not been cooperative in
    providing the specifics on the value of the sand and gravel under their
    lands in order to make a specific value on the land. This has been done
    by the company in order to confound our ability to obtain the funds we
    need to purchase the property. We can only estimate that the legal
    costs, archeological costs, and land purchase may run up to $17
    million. However, there is currently a public school building located
    on the property that the school is hoping to vacate in favor of
    building a consolidated school at another location. This building can
    easily be used as an interpretive and historical center.
        I hope you will see the immediate need of the funds to save the
    Buffington Island Battlefield and grant full funding of the site. Meigs
    County currently has a nonprofit corporation set up to accept the
    monies and begin the process of acquiring property. All that is needed
    is federal funding.
        God save the Union and our battlefields.
                                     ______

                                     The Ohio State University,
                                       Columbus, OH, February 26, 1998.
    Mrs. Margaret A. Parker,
    President, Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Mrs. Parker: I am delighted to support your effort to secure
    federal funds for the preservationist work of the Meigs County
    Historical Society. I fully approve of your effort to preserve the
    Buffington Island Battlefield, Portland, Ohio as the centerpiece of
    your proposal, for the site is both significant and endangered.
        In my wide travels to historical sites in the United States and
    abroad, I have visited literally hundreds of battlefields. Some like
    Waterloo, Gettysburg, Omaha Beach, and Gallipoli have undeniable
    historical significance. Many do not, but they nevertheless draw
    thousands of visitors because they are part of public park systems and
    offer an excellent combination of education and recreation. Such sites
    are quite literally ``portals to history'' that encourage further study
    and contemplation on the part of people who might not otherwise have
    any curiosity or interest in, for example, the American Civil War. Thus
    the sites take on an importance that transcends their objective
    historical importance.
        Whether a site serves an educational role depends, of course, upon
    its facilities and presentation. Many sites I've visited began with
    private and local-public investment, but they need public funds to
    expand and reach their full potential. Three such sites that I have
    visited often are Tippicanoe (Indiana), Point Pleasant (West Virginia),
    and Fort Ligonier (Pennsylvania), all of which serve as ``portals'' for
    the trans-Appalachian migration and the conflict with the Native
    Americans. Only public funds (in the absence of some very wealthy
    philanthropist) can bring a site to an appropriate level of
    development.
        In the current absence of another site like it, Buffington Island
    could be Ohio's ``portal'' to the Civil War in the way Fort Ancient
    (Ohio) now is for the study of Native American culture. I would not
    argue that the battle of Buffington Island looms great in Civil War
    history since Morgan's Raid is only a diversion in a very big war,
    1861-1865. Nevertheless, the site of the battle would be an outstanding
    place for the citizens of the Ohio River valley and more distant
    visitors to sample the history of the mid-19th century through
    reenactments, festivals, presentations, exhibits, and study centers. I
    have seen such sites for 18th and 19th century activities at Caesar's
    Creek State Park (Ohio) and New Salem Village (Illinois), and both are
    popular weekend and vacation attractions. Buffington Island could play
    the same role for the Ohio Valley culture of 19th century, not just the
    Civil War.
        Knowing the enthusiasm and dedication the Meigs County Historical
    Society has shown in building your county museum and in supporting
    preservationist efforts along the Ohio River, I am confident that you
    and your members would see that the Buffington Island project is done
    correctly. I applaud your effort to save Buffington Island as a place
    where all Americans can gather to contemplate their common history.
        Best wishes as always.
                Sincerely,
                                            Allan R. Millett,
                               Maj. Gen. Raymond E. Mason, Jr.,
                                         Professor of Military History.
                                     ______

                              University of Rio Grande,
                                  Rio Grande Community College,
                                         Rio Grande, OH, March 6, 1998.
    Ms. Margaret A. Parker,
    President, Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Ms. Parker: University faculty write letters of support as
    part of the professional routine; the task is quite mechanical and
    mundane. Every once in a while, however, one can actually take pleasure
    in writing such a letter because the cause is so extraordinary. This is
    the case with Buffington Island. I support the preservation of this
    historic site with my strongest endorsement and unfeigned enthusiasm.
    Buffington Island can only be an asset to our state and community.
        At Antietam, Gettysburg, and countless other places across our
    land, there are monuments honoring the sacrifice of Ohio's soldiers
    during the Civil War. It would be a travesty to desecrate the only site
    in the state of Ohio where a Civil War battle took place. It is well
    known that two future presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William
    McKinley, participated in this conflagration. As the only Civil War
    battlefield in Ohio, Buffington Island has great historic and economic
    potential for our region and the state. Even the United States Congress
    has determined the significance of this site by declaring it a Class C
    principal battlefield. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has also
    determined that the battlefield is eligible for the National Register
    of Historic Sites. Consequently, it is thereby imperative that the
    pristine condition of this battlefield be maintained so future
    generations can know of its significance and the sacrifice a generation
    made to save the Union.
        It is difficult for me to believe that our society is willing to
    allow the destruction of a Civil War battlefield for something as
    insignificant as gravel. Certainly there are other areas where gravel
    could be mined. There is something terribly wrong with our values when
    we support the building of sports arenas in Cleveland, Columbus, and
    Cincinnati, but are unwilling to preserve our historic heritage. At
    present, an Ohio bicentennial conference is being planned at the
    University of Rio Grande which will focus on John Hunt Morgan's raid.
    It would be beneficial for us to take groups to view the site. Imagine
    their impressions and our embarrassment if what they saw were trucks
    mining gravel. Once destroyed, this site can never be saved.
        In conclusion, I strongly endorse the preservation of Buffington
    Island battlefield, and encourage you to give the utmost consideration
    to saving our historic heritage. Please do not hesitate to contact me
    (E-mail: SWILSON@URGRGCC.EDU) if I can be of any further assistance.
                Sincerely,
                                              Samuel J. Wilson,
                                        Associate Professor of History.
                                     ______

            prepared statement of the national woman's relief corps
        For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
    The Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
    save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
    the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
    took place at Portland, Lebanon township, Meigs county, Ohio on July
    19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
    leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
    Known to have participated in this battle were two future United States
    Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
        The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
    battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
    in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
    as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance. The
    site has been determined by the Ohio Historical Preservation Office to
    be eligible for the National Register of Historical Sites. However, a
    portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
    mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
    Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio, have applied to the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
    loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The area that
    Richards and Sons, Inc., owns for sand and gravel purposes is located
    on known portions of the battlefield. It is also historically known
    that Native Americans inhabited this land and artifacts are found
    periodically.
        The Buffington Island Battlefield is included as one of 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
    This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
    of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
    Historical Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
    historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
    identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation and
    visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
    national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
        This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
    important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
    compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
    vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
    to stimulate the local economy.
        The National Order of The Woman's Relief Corps, Auxiliary to The
    Grand Army of The Republic, goes on record at this time to further
    submit that this Buffington Island battlefield site should be given its
    proper due and be enshrined as a memorial to those men who fought and
    died there and not be developed into a gravel pit.
                                     ______

                       The American Legion, Department of Ohio,
                                                          8th District.
        As Commander of the 8th District of the American Legion I am
    writing this letter in support of the Meigs County Historical Society
    for request that allocations for funds for the preservation of the
    Buffington Island Civil War Battlefield.
        For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
    the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
    save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
    the Ohio River. The battle known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
    took place at Portland, Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July
    19, 1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the
    leadership of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops.
    Known to have participated in this battle were two future United States
    Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
        The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
    This Trail is a National preservation and heritage tourism initiative
    of the Civil War Trust in with the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private historic
    preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
    identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation, and
    visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
    national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
        Since the American Legion is a war time organization we feel that
    it is important to preserve Buffington Island for Meigs County and
    Ohio. Buffington Island in Meigs County is part of the 8th District. We
    ask your support in making this happen.
                                                 Mick Williams,
          Commander, 8th District, American Legion, Department of Ohio.
                                     ______

       prepared statement of the sons of union veterans of the civil war
        For the past several years, the Meigs County Historical Society and
    The Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
    save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio or north of
    the Ohio River. The battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island,
    took place a Portland, Lebanon township, Meigs County, Ohio on July 19,
    1863 and involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the leadership
    of General John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops. Known to
    have participated in this battle were two future United States
    Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
        The site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principal
    battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
    in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. It is ranked
    as a Class C principal battlefield for historical significance. The
    site has been determined by the Ohio Historical Preservation Office to
    be eligible for the National Register of Historical Sites. However, a
    portion of the battlefield at Portland may be lost to sand and gravel
    mining, unless public support for preservation of the site is raised.
    Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio, have applied to the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, for a permit to build a
    loading facility on the Ohio River at Portland and to the Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources for a mining permit. The area that
    Richards and Sons, Inc., owns for sand and gravel purposes is located
    on known portions of the battlefield. It is also historically known
    that Native Americans inhabited this land and artifacts are found
    periodically.
        The Buffington Island Battlefield is included as one of 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail.
    This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism initiative
    of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National Trust for
    Historical Preservation, the National Park Service, and many private
    historic preservation organizations. Its goals are to promote the
    identification, understanding, appreciation, preservation and
    visitation of important Civil War sites and to create a permanent
    national memorial to this defining event in our nation's history.
        This historical site is one of the region's and Ohio's most
    important historical assets. Further delay of the site's protection and
    compatible development for heritage tourism only increases the
    vulnerability of the site to inappropriate development and does nothing
    to stimulate the local economy.
        General William McLaughlin Camp 12, Sons of Union Veterans of The
    Civil War, descendants of The Grand Army of The Republic, goes on
    record at this time to further submit that this Buffington Island
    battlefield site should be given its proper due and be enshrined as a
    memorial to those men who fought and died there and not be developed
    into a gravel pit.
                                     ______

                                    Society of the War of 1812,
                                     Upper Sandusky, OH, March 6, 1998.
    Meigs County Historical Society,
    P.O. Box 145,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        I wish to say that I am in favor of preserving the Buffington
    Island Battlefield as it is the only Civil War Battlefield in the state
    of Ohio and deserves to be held in trust for future generations.
        Historical sites are not only for the memory of the event, but also
    honors those who participated in the battle and especially those who
    paid the supreme sacrifice as a result of the conflict. I am concerned
    that fifty-four graves of men who died at this battle are not accounted
    for and are presumed to be interned somewhere on the field of battle.
    Development of the land may destroy a cemetery.
        I would also like to point out that destruction of a battlefield or
    any site worthy of historical value cannot be undone.
        Thus I would like to see the Buffington Island Battlefield
    preserved as a National Park and support the request for allocation of
    funds to be used for purchase of the site.
                Sincerely yours,
                                       Harrison Scott Baker II,
                                   President, Ohio Society War of 1812.
                                     ______

                                      The Ohio Society,
                               Sons of the American Revolution,
                                         Cincinnati, OH, March 5, 1998.
    Margaret A. Parker,
    President, Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Ms. Parker: We have reviewed the situation of the Civil War
    Battle Field, known as the Buffington Island Battlefield at Portland,
    Ohio and with Executive Committee action, give our support to the
    preservation of this historical site. It is important to preserve
    historical sited, especially those where our soldiers have given their
    life to establish and preserve our Country.
        We should preserving the only Civil War Battle sites as a
    remembrance to those who made the ultimate sacrifice there and at the
    many other battlefields to preserve and maintain the United States of
    American. Preserving these sites also preserves history. It is
    necessary for us to know what has happened in the past in order to
    avoid repeating these same and similar happenings in the future.
        We strongly support your effort to preserve the Buffington Island
    Battlefield at Portland, Ohio because we feel it is necessary to
    remember those who participated in giving us and maintaining the United
    States of American and preserving history to prevent a repeat of the
    similar events in the future.
                With Best Regards,
                                                      Robert F. French.
                                     ______

        prepared statement of the ewings chapter, sons of the american
                                   revolution
        For the past several years the Meigs County Historical Society and
    the Ohio Historic Preservation Office have been heading a campaign to
    save the only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio. This battle
    known as the Battle of Buffington Island took place at Portland,
    Lebanon Township, Meigs County, Ohio on July 19, 1863. This battle
    involved about 2,000 Confederate troops under the leadership of General
    John Hunt Morgan and at least 8,000 Union troops. Known to have
    participated in this battle were two future United States Presidents,
    Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley.
        This site in Meigs County is on the critical list of 384 principle
    battlefields defined by Congress that should be preserved and is ranked
    in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed conflicts. This site has
    been determined by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to be eligible
    for the National Register of Historic Sites. However, a portion of this
    battlefield at Portland may be lost forever to sand and gravel mining
    unless additional public support for the preservation of this site is
    raised.
        The Buffington Island battlefield is included as one of the 242
    ``foundation sites'' in the Civil War Trust's, Civil War Heritage
    Trail. This trail is a national preservation and heritage tourism
    initiative of the Civil War Trust in partnership with the National
    Trust for Historic Preservation.
        Ewings Chapter, Sons of the American Revolution urges your
    consideration and support for an allocation of funds to be used for the
    preservation and purchase of the Buffington Island Civil War
    Battlefield.
                                     ______

     prepared statement of the sons of confederate veterans, ohio division
        In the summer of 1863, the famous Confederate cavalryman, Gen. John
    Hunt Morgan, led a daring raid across the Ohio River into the heart of
    Union territory, traveling hundreds of miles through enemy territory in
    Indiana and Ohio. His force of over 2,000 Confederates were harried and
    pursued by local militia and Federal units, culminating in the battle
    of Buffington Island on July 19th, 1863. Morgan's attempts to cross the
    Ohio river and escape back to Southern soil were thwarted by converging
    Union columns and gunboats. On that foggy Sunday morning roughly 2,000
    Confederates and 8,000 Union soldiers fought a pitched battle,
    resulting in the defeat and capture of a major portion of the
    Confederates engaged. Morgan, however, was able to escape with a
    contingent of about 1,100 men, but was ultimately captured one week
    later in Columbiana County after a grueling chase. Thus was to end the
    longest and one of the most fascinating of all cavalry operations of
    the Civil War.
        The Buffington Island battlesite, located in Meigs County, Ohio,
    near the small village of Portland, is now in imminent danger of being
    destroyed by plans to mine gravel deposits on significant portions of
    the site where the battle occurred. Richards and Sons, Inc., of Racine
    Ohio, owns battlefield land and have applied to the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers for a permit to construct loading facilities on the adjacent
    Ohio River. They have also applied to the Ohio Department of Natural
    Resources for a mining permit. To our knowledge, neither has been
    awarded at this time. However, the ODNR has no authority to deny
    applications based on a site's historical significance, so that it is
    likely such a permit will be granted. Even if the U.S. Corps of
    Engineers were to deny the loading facility to Richards and Sons, the
    company still has the option of mining and trucking out the gravel by
    road. Unfortunately, the thousands of letters written by concerned
    citizens to state officials have been largely met with at best only
    sympathy. There have been no real and concerted efforts on the part of
    Ohio's leadership to save Buffington Island. It is our feeling that
    unless funds are found to purchase the site, it will succumb to
    commercial ``development'' of the type which will forever ruin its
    historical worth. Gravel pit mining would leave a giant hole where men
    fought and died.
        Is it worth saving? Our membership believes without a doubt it is
    worthy of preservation for the following reasons:
        Buffington Island is Ohio's only battlefield and one of the very
    few major engagements to be fought on Northern soil. Proportionately,
    Ohio sent more men to serve the Union cause than any other state. It
    would be a blot on their memory if the only site in their mother state
    where Ohioans shed their blood were to be lost.
        The battlesite looks much the way it did in 1863. Its present
    pristine condition would be the envy of other battle sites as it has so
    far escaped the encroachment of development common to other Civil War
    sites. Visitors can now view the area much as it appeared when the
    battle occurred.
        Buffington Island was a major battle. The engagement involved
    roughly 10,000 participants, 2,000 Confederate and 8,000 Federal. It is
    listed by Congress as one of the 384 principal battlefields which
    should be preserved and ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all conflicts
    in the war. It is also one of the 242 ``foundation sites'' in the Civil
    War Trust's Civil War Heritage Trail, the organization's effort (in
    partnership with the National Park Service, the National Trust for
    Historic Preservation and other private historic preservation groups)
    to promote the identification, preservation, understanding and
    visitation of important sites by the public. The Ohio Historic
    Preservation Office has also determined that Buffington Island is
    eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Sites.
        Buffington Island was a unique battle. There was none like it. It
    was the climax of the longest raid of the entire war. Involved was
    cavalry, infantry, and naval forces in the form of Federal gunboats on
    the river. Two future U.S. presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes and William
    McKinley, were participants. As stated before, it was one of the very
    few engagements fought in the North.
        Soldiers rest in unmarked graves on the site. This has been
    documented. The Official Record of the Civil War records a letter from
    Gen. Hobson to Col. Lewis Richmond stating that local citizens buried
    47 rebels and a Dr. Scriven buried 7. Just as cemeteries cannot be
    wantonly destroyed, cannot the same respect be afforded to the remains
    of American soldiers who gave their lives to a cause they believed in?
    If the Richards and Sons Company proceed with their intentions, it will
    be a desecration to the memory of all the soldiers who fell there, both
    Union and Confederate.
        Mining the battlefield would achieve only short term economic
    benefits. From a purely economic standpoint, we believe mining the site
    contrary to the economic welfare of southeast Ohio. Although mining
    would provide jobs and income so desperately needed in this area of
    Appalachia, operations would be of a limited nature. Once available
    deposits were extracted, the result would for all time destroy the
    potential tourism benefits associated with the site's historical
    significance. Tourism has no limits, in terms of the numbers of people
    who might visit and for how long. We believe the site has great
    potential, depending on how it is ``developed'' for tourism. At the
    present time, efforts are underway by the newly formed Ohio Civil War
    Trails Commission to establish the Morgan Trail, a route following
    Morgan's raid through the state. Signage, audio and video tapes,
    brochures, web sites, etc., would provide impetus for the public to
    visit southern Ohio and enjoy the rich historical tradition of the
    state as well as the inherent natural beauty of the region. Kentucky
    and Indiana are well ahead of Ohio with similar plans. One of the goals
    of the Commission is to integrate the efforts of all the neighboring
    states. If done well, this could provide a continual infusion of
    revenue to the existing businesses of the area, as well as the growth
    of new enterprises which would surely arise to meet the demand of new
    visitors. Buffington Island would be the crown jewel of the Trail. That
    is, provided visitors have a pristine battlefield to view rather than a
    gravel pit.
        In short, as members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and more
    importantly, as citizens who place great importance on our nation's
    history and the sacrifices made by our ancestors, we urge you to do all
    in your power to save the Buffington Island battlesite. If federal
    funds are available for the purchase of Civil War sites, Buffington
    Island must be considered. Unless measures are taken now, it's loss
    will be lamented by many future generations.
                                     ______

                                                Civil War Days,
                                           Somerset, OH, March 7, 1998.
    Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Ms. Parker: The Civil War Days Committee of Somerset, Ohio is
    fully and firmly committed to Civil War Battlefield preservation in
    general and the Buffington Island Battlefield in particular. All of the
    proceeds from our September event id earmarked for Buffington Island.
        We have many Civil War era projects in our area but have forsaken
    them, at least temporarily, while the second Battle of Buffington
    Island, as we call it, rages. Our maintenance projects can be deferred,
    but we only get one chance to save an endangered battlefield.
        We are all aware of the importance of Buffington. It is an
    excellent example of U.S. naval activity in coordination with infantry,
    cavalry and militia. It is also the only battle where three future
    presidents (Garfield, Hayes, McKinley) were engaged. Buffington is a
    hallowed symbol of Ohio's unparalleled contribution to the conflict. No
    state produced more men, more regiments and more generals per capita
    than Ohio. The offspring of those 250,000 Buckeyes who served their
    country, now spread to the ends of the earth should now step forward
    and honor them in a dignified and perpetual manner. We can think of no
    more fitting way to show our respect than to permanently remove the
    property from harm's way.
        If the Land and Water Conservation Fund is indeed planning to
    acquire new properties, with certain uncommitted funds, we believe
    Buffington is an appropriate site for such an acquisition.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Robert Snider,
                                                              Director.
                                     ______

                      30th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Association,
                                           Columbus, OH, March 5, 1998.
    Margaret Parker,
    Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Misses Parker: Our Civil War Reenacting Association is fully
    committed to the Historical Society's efforts regarding the Buffington
    Island Battlefield. We are acutely aware of the importance of the site.
    Ohio contributed more men and more regiments per capita than any other
    state in the Union, north or south and yet somehow we are unable or
    unwilling to save a site within our own boundaries.
        It is a great shame on the current inhabitants of this greatest of
    all states, that this issue cannot be resolved, that posterity may know
    what happened there. Scores of men struggled died and are buried there.
    Indeed the burial sites are yet unknown. It is our duty to continue the
    struggle to save the property and protect the integrity of this most
    hallowed of state ground. It is more than just an Ohio treasure that
    remains in jeopardy. It is also a national calamity. What will future
    generations and historians say of the culture that refused to save
    property, hallowed by their grandfathers, when the means was at hand?
        We believe that the uncommitted monies yet available in the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund could do much to salvage this important
    shrine. We hope that the Senator Slade Gorton chaired Committee will
    fully consider the acquisition of the most vulnerable components of the
    battlefield as a first step in satisfying the legacy of our
    grandfathers' sacrifice.
        We have financially and emotionally supported your good efforts in
    the past and will continue to do so.
                Your ob't. serv't.
                                                  David Snider,
                                                 Association Historian.
                                     ______

                               Perry County Historical Society,
                                           Somerset, OH, March 3, 1998.
    Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Margaret Parker: The Perry County Historical Society is very
    much interested in the preservation of Buffington Island Battlefield.
    We sponsor a reenactment here in Somerset every September and the net
    proceeds of the event go to the Buffington Island Battlefield
    Preservation Association.
        We believe there are several worthy battlefield sites throughout
    the nation that are currently vulnerable, which merit significant
    preservation efforts, but we believe there are several things about the
    Buffington Site which move it to the top of the list.
        Foremost is the fact that the Buffington site is the only Ohio site
    of Civil War vintage. To save that battlesite is to save 100 percent of
    the battlesites in the state. Ohio's commitment, giving 250,000 men to
    the cause and not less than sixty generals, including: the legendary
    Grant, Sheridan, Sherman and Custer warrants our full measure of
    devotion.
        The Battlesite is a great resource for all of the United States in
    ways we are only now coming to understand. Educators say that you can
    teach absolutely any subject in the world if you can somehow use
    dinosaurs, space travel or the American Civil War as the vehicle of
    delivery. Saving this battlefield not only pays homage to the
    generation that fought and died there it also provides promise for our
    future young scholars. It is indeed a rare opportunity when generations
    long dead and those yet born can be served by the current inhabitants.
    Let us all recognize and seize this opportunity for what it really is.
        Please forward our concerns to Senate Chairman Slade Gorton
    regarding is wonderful opportunity.
                Sincerely,
                                                Douglas Miller,
                                                        PCHS President.
                                     ______

                                    1st Ohio Volunteer Cavalry,
                                           Somerset, OH, March 3, 1998.
    Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, OH.
        Dear Margaret Parker: The 1st Ohio Volunteer Cavalry is a Civil War
    Reenactment unit centered in central Ohio that is very much concerned
    about the future of our states only battlefield at Buffington Island
    near Portland, Ohio.
        The importance of Ohio's contribution in the Civil War in
    particular and nation building and preserving in general has long been
    overlooked in the broad survey that the study of our nation's history
    has become. The state contributed more men than any state in the
    nation, except the old states of New York and Pennsylvania, to the
    great struggle. It seems a terrible shame than those men who struggled,
    died and are buried there should be forgotten by there offspring. It
    reflects very badly on all of us as a society that the preservation of
    this hallowed ground is not a priority for all of the individuals who
    have enjoyed the fruits of the liberty this struggle salvaged.
        If the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies is indeed
    exploring potential land acquisitions with yet to be committed funds,
    we can think of no better place to begin than at Buffington Island. It
    should be this generation of citizens and lawmakers that saves this
    hallowed property for posterity. Future generations will not have the
    luxury nor the solemn duty we have been blessed with.
        We have supported the Buffington Island preservation movement on
    the reenacting battlefield, in the classroom and anywhere the story can
    be told and we will continue to do so.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Captain Steve Reincke.
                                     ______

         The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the
                                         United States,
                                            Commandery of Ohio,
                                         Massillon, OH, March 14, 1998.
    Margaret A. Parker,
    President, Meigs County Historical Society,
    Pomeroy, Ohio.
        Dear Ms. Parker: I have been appraised that Senator Slade Gorton is
    accepting written outside testimony regarding a special $699 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land
    acquisitions of which $362 million at this time is not earmarked for
    specific projects.
        It is well known that your organization is most concerned about the
    Buffington Island Battlefield being destroyed by a gravel mining
    company. This travesty greatly concerns our Military Order that was
    founded the day that our beloved 16th President, Abraham Lincoln died--
    April 15, 1865.
        Our 19th President, Brevet Major General Rutherford B. Hayes of
    Ohio was a participant at the ``historic Ohio battlefield site''. R.B.
    Hayes was our ``MOLLUS'' Commander in Chief from 1888-1893. He also
    served as the Commander of the Ohio Commandery from February 7, 1883
    through May 5, 1886. He was followed by General William T. Sherman who
    served a one year term.
        ``The Military Order of The Loyal Legion of the United States''
    objectives were many. The number one objective was to honor the memory
    of Abraham Lincoln and to cherish the memories and associations of the
    war waged in defense of the unity and indivisibility of the Republic.
    Translated that also means, the preservation of the countless
    monuments, memorials and battlefields honoring those men who fought and
    died in the Civil War.
        A gravel pit is not a memorial to our fallen comrades and with the
    grace of God, we will win this battle and secure the monies needed to
    preserve this sacred battlefield site.
        As a further testimony on saving the Buffington Island Battlefield,
    I'm listing the following reasons:
        It is Ohio's only Civil War battlefield and Ohio deserves part of
    this national funding having furnished the third most men in the Union.
        It is located in an Appalachian Ohio county of 22,000 population
    that is the poorest in the state where half of the residents receive a
    government transfer payment of some kind.
        There were 8,000 Union and 2,000 Confederates in the battle.
        The battle is unique in that it involved infantry, artillery,
    cavalry, navy and local militia.
        Future President, William McKinley of Ohio also participated.
        The ``Official Records'' of the U.S. government indicate at least
    54 graves of soldiers whose location are currently unknown. These
    graves may end up as paving material by the sand and gravel company
    that owns part of the land.
        Had the Confederates won this battle, it may have prolonged the war
    by encouraging further raids into the north.
        This battle is one of three on northern soil. The others are the
    Battle of Corydon (Indiana) and Gettysburg (Pennsylvania).
        Destroying a battlefield cannot be undone once occurred.
        Destroying an important historical site like this teaches children
    that learning history in school is unimportant.
        Destroying a battlefield cheapens the sacrifice made by those who
    fought there.
        Morgan's Raid is the most re-enacted and celebrated item of the
    Civil War with currently four separate re-enactments occurring
    annually.
        No adequate archeological study has been conducted on the site
    concerning the Civil War.
        In terms of fair play, preserving our Ohio Civil War military
    heritage and history and saving our only battlefield site, hopefully we
    will receive the necessary funding from the ``Committee on
    Appropriations''.
                Loyally yours,
                                             Karl F. Schaeffer,
                                                             Commander.
                                     ______

              prepared statement of the meigs county tourism board
        The Meigs County Tourism Board respectfully submits the following
    testimony in support of the request for an allocation of funds to be
    used for the preservation and purchase of land at the Buffington Island
    Civil War Battlefield.
        On July 19, 1863 a battle took place in Meigs County, Ohio. The
    battle, known as the Battle of Buffington Island involved 10,000
    American men, and was a significant and defining battle of the American
    Civil War. Currently, another battle rages on the same hallowed ground,
    a battle of preservation.
        The Meigs County Historical Society in accordance with the Ohio
    Historic Preservation Office is spearheading a campaign to save the
    only Civil War battlefield in the State of Ohio. This site is defined
    by Congress as one of the 384 principal battlefields that should be
    preserved, and is ranked in the top 2.6 percent of all Civil War armed
    conflicts. In addition, the battlefield is eligible to be listed on the
    National Register of Historic Sites.
        Unfortunately, a portion of this critical site is in imminent
    danger of being lost forever to the destruction of sand and gravel
    mining. Richard and Sons, Inc., of Racine, Ohio have applied to the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for a permit to build a loading facility
    on the Ohio River and to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a
    mining permit. The land that Richard and Sons has acquired for the
    expressed purpose of sand and gravel mining is located on portions of
    this battlefield site.
        This historical site is unlike any other in the entire state of
    Ohio. It is one of the southeastern region's most important historical
    assets. To rob future generations of a part of their heritage is a
    decision that should not be made for profit.
        This battlefield is undeniably an asset to Meigs County as a
    tourism attraction and as a living history lesson for visitors to
    enjoy. This site is part of the Civil War Heritage Trail, which is a
    heritage tourism initiative of the Civil War Trust in partnership with
    the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park
    Service. To not protect this site for preservation and for future
    appropriate heritage tourism development in ludicrous, and only
    increases the risk of inappropriate development and eventual
    extinction.
        Our forbears were willing to give up their lives in the Battle of
    Buffington Island for the freedom of all men, and for the continuation
    of liberties for all generations to come. The Official War Records
    state that 54 soldiers were buried on this battlefield. We owe it to
    their memory to preserve this site as a testament of their bravery and
    their honor. Thank you for your sincere consideration of this matter,
    and for any help you can extend to our county in finding an amicable
    solution to this situation.
                                     ______

                             Ohio Historic Preservation Office,
                                         Columbus, Ohio, March 5, 1998.
    The Honorable Slade Gorton,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the Meigs County Historical
    Society, I am writing in response to your request for assistance in
    identifying opportunities to use a portion of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund appropriation to preserve important Civil War battle
    sites. One candidate for your consideration is the site of the Battle
    of Buffington Island, the only Civil War battlefield in Ohio or north
    of the Ohio River.
        The Battle of Buffington Island marked the effective end of the
    Great Ohio Raid, a 17 day, 1,000 mile running skirmish across four
    states between Confederate cavalry troops led by the flamboyant General
    John Hunt Morgan and local militia and Union troops. It was to be the
    longest sustained raid of the Civil War. The battle itself occurred
    near a low point in the Ohio River where General Morgan hoped to escape
    into West Virginia with 2,000 troops. High water, 8,000 Union troops,
    and gunboats stopped him. Two future United States Presidents,
    Rutherford B. Hayes and William McKinley, took part in the engagement.
    Bone weary from weeks in the saddle, Morgan was forced to abandon 700
    men but managed to escape, his raid ending 7 days later less than 100
    miles from the shores of Lake Erie.
        The battle site is marked by a State Memorial within a four acre
    park near Portland in Meigs County, Ohio. Listed in the National
    Register of Historic Places since 1970, the memorial is part of the
    larger battlefield occupying the terraces between the Ohio River and
    the foothills of the Appalachians. Local efforts are underway to mark
    the route of Morgan's raid, and an invitation has been extended by the
    States of Kentucky and Illinois to join and expand their National Park
    Service-funded effort to mark Morgan's route through their states,
    culminating in a marked, multi-state General John Hunt Morgan trail.
    The Battle of Buffington Island is a key site in this Civil War
    heritage trail.
        The secluded agricultural land upon which this site is located is
    now the subject of a proposed gravel mining operation that would
    destroy core features of the battlefield, including an area known
    locally as the ``Bloody Ground.'' Our office is undertaking a review of
    the proposed project under Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act. Working with the developers, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, and interested parties, we are identifying the significant
    elements within the area, determining the effects of the project, and
    seeking means of mitigating any adverse effects.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation to which you
    refer would be an ideal source of funding to secure and preserve this
    significant Civil War battlefield site. Strong local and inter-state
    interest (over 3,000 letters of concern have been received to date) has
    been expressed, and the developer is sensitive to the significance of
    the site. I urge your Committee's consideration of the Buffington
    Island Battlefield site as a candidate for acquisition with the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions or supply any additional
    information you may need. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
    your efforts to acquire and preserve important Civil War battle sites.
                Respectfully submitted,
                                          Amos J. Loveday, Jr.,
                                   State Historic Preservation Officer.
                                     ______

                                         State of Ohio,
                             Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
                                          Columbus, OH, March 17, 1998.
    The Honorable Slade Gorton,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Gorton: I am writing in support of the Meigs County
    Historical Society's request for funding from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        If approved, this money would be used for a land acquisition (or
    exchange) that would preserve the Buffington Island Battlefield at
    Portland, Ohio, which is Ohio's only Civil War battlefield. The
    battlefield site, which is located in Meigs County, is in danger of
    being destroyed by a pending gravel mining operation.
        As a native of southeastern Ohio, I can personally testify to the
    historical and economic importance of this site.
        The Battle of Buffington Island was part of the infamous ``Morgan's
    Raid,'' the longest, sustained raid of the Civil War. Fought just north
    of the Ohio River, this bloody confrontation involved over 10,000 Union
    and Confederate troops. It was the last major engagement between the
    two forces before General John Hunt Morgan and his raiders surrendered
    in northeastern Ohio seven days later. The battle, along with many of
    the stories and ``legends'' surrounding it, are integral part of our
    unique heritage.
        Many parts of Appalachia have focused on tourism as part of their
    economic development strategies. It is important to note that a multi-
    state effort in underway to mark the trail Morgan's Raiders traveled
    through Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. When completed, the trail will
    attract much welcomed visitors and attention to southeastern Ohio, as
    American history enthusiasts and tourists retrace the events that took
    place there. It is only fitting that the Buffington Island Battlefield
    be preserved as a part of this new trail.
        Given the importance of preserving our country's historic landmarks
    and sites, I believe that the Buffington Island Battlefield would be an
    excellent choice for funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    Therefore, I urge you and your committee to give favorable
    consideration to the Meigs County Historical Society's request.
        If you need any additional information regarding his letter or my
    support for this important historic preservation project, please do not
    hesitate to contact me at (614) 466-3396.
        Thank you.
                Sincerely,
                                            Nancy P. Hollister,
                                                   Lieutenant Governor.
                                     ______

        Letter From Helen Hooper, Director of Public Policy, Land Trust
                                    Alliance
                                                        April 15, 1998.
    The Honorable Slade Gorton,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
            Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Gorton: The Land Trust Alliance (LTA), the national
    organization serving the country's more than 1,100 land trusts, is
    pleased to submit this letter to the Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies for the record of testimony regarding the fiscal year
    1999 appropriations to two federal programs that foster private,
    voluntary land conservation. Specifically, I urge the committee to
    provide adequate funding to the Forest Legacy Program of the Forest
    Service and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), especially the
    state grants programs administered by the National Park Service.
    Forest Legacy Program
        Recommendation.--LTA supports a substantial increase to a $50
    million appropriation for the Forest Legacy Program.
        The Forest Legacy Program should be increased to $50 million
    annually in order to function as an effective national program. Funding
    at $50 million annually will enable this chronically underfunded
    program to complete projects more rapidly, expand the program to more
    states, respond effectively to the needs of timberland owners, and,
    most importantly, conserve a significant amount of threatened
    timberland. We thank you for your leadership in appropriating an
    increase for this program for the current fiscal year, and urge that
    you make the further increases needed.
        The Forest Legacy Program supports the purchase of interests
    (primarily permanent conservation easements) in environmentally-
    sensitive timberland that is threatened with conversion to nonforest
    uses. It is a voluntary, private, non-regulatory means for preserving
    the nation's forests and improving water quality, air quality,
    sensitive habitat, and sustainable economic resources.
        Forest Legacy provides willing landowners with a viable alternative
    to selling their timberland for development; conserves timberland for
    traditional uses; and fosters partnerships between landowners, local,
    state, and federal agencies, and interested nonprofit organizations
    such as land trusts.
                Providing voluntary options to landowners
        The Forest Legacy Program offers willing landowners a viable
    economic alternative to selling their timberland for development. By
    purchasing development rights at fair market value, but leaving the
    ownership in private hands, Forest Legacy allows landowners to retain
    ownership of their land. Landowners can also continue to engage in
    traditional economic activities on timberland such as sustainable tree
    harvesting and maple sugar production. Finally, landowners can be
    secure in the knowledge that their timberland will be protected for
    future generations and that such traditional activities on the land can
    be sustained.
        Example: In Massachusetts, Ted and Beverly Hutchinson, with the
    assistance of the Forest Legacy Program, were able to protect
    permanently approximately 490 acres of their woodland from encroaching
    development. The sale of the development rights for $616,000 removes
    the threat of development from the property and allows the Hutchinsons
    to continue managing their land for forest products as they have for
    the past 60 years. ``I've put a lot of time and energy into this land
    planting trees and harvesting timber. I'd hate to see houses built all
    over the property,'' said Hutchinson.
                Conserving timberland for traditional uses
        Forest Legacy makes possible the sale of conservation easements by
    timberland owners wishing to continue the forest uses on their
    property. In doing so, Forest Legacy protects the quality of life in
    communities and ensures continued traditional uses of the timberland.
    Sustainable timber harvesting, outdoor recreational activities such a
    hunting, fishing, and hiking, are all permitted on property enrolled in
    the Forest Legacy Program. Moreover, conserving existing timberland
    checks sprawl, and protects wildlife habitat and the other open space
    and rural characteristics of many forested areas.
        Example: In Vermont, a $342,000 Forest Legacy grant made possible a
    conservation easement on 2,281 acres of timberland from Wagner
    Woodlands-Atlas Timber. The land will continue to be owned and managed
    by the landowner as productive timberland while accessible to the
    public for traditional recreational activities such as hunting,
    fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. According to
    Hank Swan, general partner of Atlas Timber, ``I see this purchase to be
    a win-win situation. Atlas is able to continue its primary mission of
    sustained yield management and harvest of forest products, while at the
    same time public use is insured.''
                Fostering partnerships
        Forest Legacy fosters partnerships between willing landowners,
    interested non-profit organizations such as land trusts, and local,
    state, and federal governments. These partnerships help cultivate the
    mutual understanding that is key to successful long-term agreements. By
    encouraging the involvement of community-based conservation
    organizations such land trusts, the program also ensures a board range
    of community involvement and investment, another factor essential for a
    successful agreement.
        Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Forest Legacy is a highly
    leveraged program that stretches federal dollars farther. The program
    requires states to contribute at least a 25 percent match. This means
    that a significant amount of nonfederal money is raised for each
    project.
        Example: The Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust worked with the Forest
    Legacy Program to protect 1,272 acres of pristine Maine forestland. As
    a result of the $840,000 the Forest Service supplied for the
    acquisition of a conservation easement on the property, the trust was
    able to raise over $400,000 to cover the remaining amount needed to
    purchase and protect the tract. The result was the protection of 3.4
    miles of lakefront that represented a critical link in 12 miles of
    continuous undeveloped lakeshore. It also contributed to more than 40
    miles of protected shorefront in the Rangeley Lakes chain, which
    encompasses over 33,000 acres of public access conservation lands.
                The Problem: Underfunding
        Since its inception under the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Legacy
    Program has been plagued by underfunding. This has hampered severely
    its ability to work with willing timberland owners to help prevent
    their land from being converted to nonforest uses. Demand for the
    program has increased dramatically, with over $50 million in projects
    currently awaiting funding. The resources of the program are not
    adequate to meet this demand. In fiscal year 1998 it received only $4
    million--not enough for even a marginal national program, even though
    it was an increase over the previous year's level.
        Currently, 15 states are eligible to receive Forest Legacy funds.
    Lack of adequate funding is one of the primary reasons that more states
    with an identifiable need for the program do not participate in it. A
    number of states considering qualifying for the program have chosen not
    to devote the administrative time to doing so because of the scarcity
    of funds. Consequently, timberland that might have been conserved with
    Forest Legacy funds is lost to development.
        Increasing the Forest Legacy appropriation to $50 million annually
    would expand the number of states participating, result in more
    projects being completed, and, ultimately, more threatened timberland
    being protected from development.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants Program
        Recommendation.--LTA encourages the committee to increase the
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We strongly
    urge the committee to include funding for the state grants program as
    well as funding for federal projects.
        Since its inception, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    has been a crucial element in the conservation of the land and water
    resources of the nation. LTA applauds the Committee for its efforts to
    provide increased funding from the LWCF in fiscal year 1998, especially
    the $699 million supplemental appropriation enacted for priority
    federal land acquisitions. We also support the administration's
    requested $270 million fiscal year 1999 level.
        While making its appropriations decisions, Congress should look
    again at the benefits of providing matching state grants from the LWCF.
    State LWCF grants leverage federal dollars and reflect community
    priorities in land conservation and recreational facility enhancement.
    Unfortunately, state-side LWCF funding has suffered a dramatic
    reduction over the past five years: at this point, the program is all
    but shut down. There is no fiscal year 1998 money for state grants, nor
    does the administration propose any for fiscal year 1999. This program,
    historically very successful in promoting community and nonprofit
    involvement in conservation activities, deserves your support.
        Example: LWCF grants to the state of Idaho have allowed the Idaho
    Foundation for Parks and Lands (IFPL) to facilitate successfully a
    number of projects of importance to communities around the state. For
    example, the Foundation went into action when 1.8 acres and 560 linear
    feet of waterfront became available on Payette Lake. Working hand in
    hand with the local community, IFPL was able to raise $269,000, and,
    combined with LWCF matching funds, was able to acquire the property for
    $560,000. The land was then transferred to the City of McCall and
    turned into McCall Mill Park for the enjoyment of all the local
    citizens.
    Conclusion
        The Land Trust Alliance requests that the committee take a
    leadership role in the rejuvenation of these two important programs
    that promote voluntary land conservation across the country.
        We urge you to appropriate $50 million in fiscal year 1999 for the
    Forest Legacy Program to allow greater state participation in the
    program and more key working timberland to be conserved.
        In addition, we urge you to allocate a substantial amount of funds
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the state grants program.
    These grants will provide states and localities with much needed funds
    in their pursuit of open space preservation and recreational
    opportunities for their citizens.
        On behalf of the nation's more than 1,100 land trusts, thank you
    for considering the views of the Land Trust Alliance as you make your
    funding decisions for the coming fiscal year.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Helen Hooper,
                                             Director of Public Policy.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Jose Marques, Executive Director, Children's
                               Forest Association
        The Children's Forest Association is working with the San
    Bernardino National Forest and the local community to plan and develop
    projects that will provide forest visitors and residents, both youth
    and adult, with high quality opportunities for recreation and learning
    about the forest and their role in its protection.
        The pressures on the San Bernardino National Forest continue to
    grow due to 20 million people who live in southern California, rely on
    these public lands for recreation, solitude, and learning. The Forest
    faces the threat of greater fragmentation as private inholdings are
    developed into subdivisions, effectively reducing the available land
    for recreation and forest ecosystem health. In addition to recreation,
    the National Forest provides a place for an important ecosystem to
    thrive. In order to ensure that the ecosystem, including its human
    community, is healthy in the future we need to ensure there is enough
    open space. For these reasons, the protection afforded by the $15
    million from the LWCF will represent an especially sound investment in
    the future of this extremely popular National Forest.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank
    you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
    describe issues relating to food production and the environmental
    situation on Enewetak Atoll. We would also like to give you an update
    on the initiatives we have taken these past few years to improve not
    only food production but also the health and education of our people.
    These initiatives include the continued implementation of a more
    intensive agriculture program; the continuation of a nutrition
    education program; the continued implementation of a more effective
    education program; and, attempts at the economic development of our
    atoll to permit fishing and/or tourist activity.
        Mr. Chairman, at the outset we wish to express our gratitude to the
    United States Congress for the appropriation of funds these past twelve
    years to provide food to our people through a program which has become
    known as the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. We are particularly
    grateful to you Mr. Chairman and to the members of this Subcommittee
    for the increase of $100,000 of the program's funding (to $1.191
    million) for fiscal year 1998.
        This program is funded pursuant to Section 103(h)(2) of Public Law
    99-239 (Compact of Free Association Act of 1985). We are also grateful
    that the Congress has amended Section 103(h)(2) of Public Law 99-239 to
    authorize funding for the program through fiscal year 2001. We now
    request that funding for the program be appropriated for fiscal year
    1999. We note that Congress anticipated the necessity for continued
    funding of the program when it stated in Section 103(h)(3) of Public
    Law 99-239: ``Payments under this subsection shall be provided to such
    extent or in such amounts as are necessary for services and other
    assistance provided pursuant to this subsection. It is the sense of
    Congress that after the periods of time specified is paragraphs (1) and
    (2) of this subsection, consideration will be given to such additional
    funding for these programs as may be necessary.''
        Of equal significance is the language of Senate Concurrent
    Resolution 171-2 in which the Congress stated: ``It is the sense of the
    Congress that the special medical care and logistical support program
    for Rongelap and Utrik and for the agriculture and food programs for
    Enewetak and Bikini described in section 103(h) of Public Law 99-239
    represent special and continuing moral commitments of the United States
    and will be funded to the extent of the need of the populations of such
    atolls for such assistance.''
        The Administration has included funding in the amount of
    approximately $1.091 million for the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
    Program in its fiscal year 1999 Budget. However, we must note that the
    $1.091 million in the Administration's budget is the same amount as the
    amount appropriated in fiscal year 1987. That is, the funding for the
    program has substantially declined these past 12 years in real dollars.
    Applying a 3 percent average annual inflation factor, the $1.091
    million appropriated in 1987 now has the purchasing power of
    approximately $700,000. In short, the program over the years has
    experienced over a 35 percent cut in funding. At the same time our
    population has increased at a rate of over 4 percent per year. In
    addition, it has been suggested that the agriculture rehabilitation
    component of the program needs to be accelerated. Agriculture
    equipment, such as backhoes and trucks, and additional manpower are
    required for such acceleration. The cost of such equipment and manpower
    is as follows:

    3 backhoes plus shipping to Enewetak ($70,000 each)...........  $210,000
    2 flat bed trucks plus shipping to Enewetak ($50,000 each)....   100,000
    Manpower (21 additional workers)..............................   150,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   460,000

        Consequently, we ask that the amount requested by the
    Administration ($1.091 million) be increased by $460,000 to $1,551,000.
    It most be noted that such increase does not take into consideration
    the impact of inflation on the funds as described above. As an
    alternative to such increase in the program's funds, we ask that the
    Department of Interior's technical assistance funds be increased by the
    amount of $460,000 and such amount be specifically earmarked for the
    $460,000 cost of the additional equipment and manpower required by the
    Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
        Below, we briefly describe why the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
    Program is necessary, and report to you efforts made by us to put these
    funds to the best possible use.
    Background
        Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 66 nuclear tests conducted
    by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1948 and 1958. One
    of the tests was especially significant as it was the first test of a
    experimental thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb). This test occurred
    on October 31, 1952 and was known as the ``Mike'' test. The test had a
    yield of 10.4 megatons (750 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb). The
    Mike test vaporized a number of islands, leaving a crater a mile in
    diameter and 200 feet deep.
        The 43 nuclear tests conducted at Enewetak were detonated in the
    air, on towers, on the surface of islands and reefs, on barges, and
    underwater. Some of the ``ground zeros,'' or surface level explosions,
    were on the islands themselves, some were on the reef, some were in the
    lagoon, and one was in the ocean nearby. In addition, two plutonium
    experiments were conducted on the island of Runit in which the devices
    did not fully detonate but instead sprayed chunks of plutonium across
    the island. Nuclear testing on Enewetak ended with the last Operation
    Hardtack test on August 18, 1958.
        The Nuclear Testing Program inflicted serious damage to Enewetak
    Atoll. Five islands in the atoll were completely or partially vaporized
    by the nuclear tests. The remaining islands on the northern half of the
    atoll, including the major residential and agricultural island of
    Enjebi, were heavily contaminated with radioactivity, as was the island
    of Runit. Debris and wreckage--radioactive and nonradioactive--littered
    many of the islands. The atoll's lagoon was seriously damaged. Large
    bomb craters covered many of the islands. The southern islands of
    Enewetak and Medren were mostly covered by concrete and asphalt since
    they were used for various facilities required by the Nuclear Testing
    Program, including concrete foundations, roads, airstrips, and an
    airport. As a result, the entire atoll was devastated--vegetation was
    completely stripped from many of the islands, and nearly all plants of
    agricultural and economic value on the atoll were totally destroyed.
        In December of 1947, prior to the testing program, the United
    States relocated us to a small and remote atoll 125 miles southwest of
    Enewetak. That atoll is named Ujelang. Ujelang atoll has a land area
    less than one-fourth that of Enewetak, and a lagoon less than one-
    sixteenth that of Enewetak. The suffering and hardship we experienced
    between 1947 and 1980 at Ujelang is well documented and ultimately
    resulted in a commitment by the United States to resettle us at our
    home atoll of Enewetak.
        In order to permit us to return to our ancestral homeland, the
    United States, between 1977 and 1980, undertook a resettlement program
    which included revegetation of the atoll. Crops of coconut, pandanus,
    breadfruit, taro, bananas and lime were planted beginning in 1979 and
    the plantings continue as part of the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
    Program. The crops have never produced the projected quantity of food
    and do not now provide sufficient food for our population. The problem
    is significant since less than one-third of the land of the atoll can
    be used for food production. We cannot harvest the food crops of the
    northern islands of the atoll due to the relatively high level of
    radiation in these foods and some land remains unavailable to us for
    agriculture use because it remains covered by concrete and asphalt.
    Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program
        The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program enables us to live on
    Enewetak. It provides funding for imported food, continued agriculture
    rehabilitation, operation of a motor vessel which brings us the
    imported food, a nutrition education program, and an operation and
    maintenance component conducted out of a facility on Enewetak known as
    the field station.
        Efforts made to increase food production.--As we previously
    explained to this committee, we were unhappy with the state of the
    agriculture rehabilitation program when we inherited the program from
    the Department of Energy. Accordingly, in 1993 we had an assessment of
    our agriculture situation conducted. The purpose of such assessment was
    to determine the then current agriculture situation and to develop
    recommendations for increased food production. The recommendations
    included the hiring of a part time on-site agriculture consultant. The
    agriculture consultant began his work in 1993 and modified the
    recommendations somewhat. The most significant aspects of the
    agriculture rehabilitation program are the infusion of nutrients into
    the soil and the planting of buffer plants along the island's shore to
    protect the interior plants from salt spray. The infusion of nutrients
    into the soil is accomplished by digging trenches and placing organic
    material in the trenches along with a compost mixture of copra cake and
    chicken manure. This activity is extremely labor intensive and required
    the importation of copra cake and chicken manure. Although the work is
    progressing, additional funding is required to provide greater manpower
    and the necessary equipment, materials and supplies. Additional funding
    in the amount of $460,000 as requested in this statement would greatly
    assist in accelerating the agriculture rehabilitation of the atoll.
        Importation of food.--Imported food is required because of the poor
    soil condition of the land available to us and the radiation
    contamination of other lands. Since we have taken over the program we
    have increased the quantity of imported food by 35 percent without any
    increase in the overall program budget. We have accomplished this by
    utilizing bidding procedures for food purchases; elimination of
    transportation charges by use of our motor sailer (Wetak II);
    elimination of import tax on food; and reduction of other program
    expenses.
        Nutrition education program.--Since our people cannot rely on
    traditional foods we must import food, the nutritional value of which
    is unfamiliar to us. Several years ago we became aware that some of our
    people, particularly our children, suffered from malnutrition.
    Accordingly, we instituted a nutrition education program. We are
    pleased to report that we have been apprised by physicians that
    malnutrition among our children has been greatly reduced.
        Wetak II (waterborne transportation).--The Wetak II, a fifty foot
    motor sailer, is used to primarily transport our imported food
    purchases and agriculture material from the region to Enewetak. Food
    and agriculture material is transported from Majuro, a distance of 600
    miles from Enewetak. We are extremely proud of the hard work and
    perseverance of our local crew and local captain in carrying out this
    assignment. Transportation in this manner permits us to save
    substantial shipping costs.
        Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program is
    conducted out of a facility referred to as the Field Station. The
    machinery and equipment required by the agriculture, food and
    transportation components of the program are kept at the Field Station.
    Field Station personnel provide all the required agricultural work;
    maintain, service, and operate the equipment required by the various
    components of the program; make payments and maintain books of
    accounts; and coordinate the procurement of food, material and
    equipment. The overall manager of the program is Johnson Hernest. Other
    management personnel include Samson Yoshitaro and Mathan David. The
    program employs 40 members of our community.
    Review of Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program
        In 1997, the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies, asked the Department of Interior to
    review the program and submit a report. We understand that a report
    concerning such review has recently been completed. We were given a
    copy of a draft of the report and noticed that there were some
    inaccuracies relating to the nature of the program and some
    misinterpretations of data which resulted in several erroneous
    assumptions and conclusions. We commented on such inaccuracies and
    misinterpretations in our comments to the report. We understand that
    our comments will be made a part of the report. Notwithstanding the
    foregoing, the report does conclude that the continuation of the
    program is necessary, that continued funding is necessary, and that the
    agriculture rehabilitation component of the program needs to be
    accelerated. We have been told by our agriculture consultant that the
    program can be accelerated so long as we obtain additional equipment
    and manpower. The additional equipment consists of three backhoes and
    two flat bed trucks. The additional manpower consists of twenty-one
    additional workers. Cost figures for such equipment and manpower are
    provided above.
    Conclusion
        In closing, we thank the Congress for its past funding of the
    Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program and trust that it will provide
    funding for fiscal year 1999 (at least $1.091 million) and increase
    such funding with the additional amount of $460,000 for fiscal year
    1999 either directly to the program or to technical assistance
    specifically for the Enewetak program.
                                     ______

                             U.S. Geological Survey
    Prepared Statement of Henry Dean, Chairman, Interstate Council on Water
                                     Policy
        The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) represents state,
    interstate, intrastate, and regional water agencies; academic
    institutions; professional and business firms; and individuals
    committed to the conservation, use, development and wise management of
    water. Established in 1959, ICWP is the national voice for water-
    related interests both on quantity and quality issues. The Interstate
    Council on Water Policy has taken keen interest in the federal budget
    as it pertains to data collection and analysis from the nation's water
    resources. In the recent past, we have commented numerous times on the
    budget of the U.S. Geological Survey, particularly over the demise of
    the stream gaging program brought about by budgetary cutbacks.
        In reviewing the President's Budget for the USGS in Federal fiscal
    year 1999, we are pleased that increases are recommended for the
    Hydrologic Networks and Analysis and Federal-State Cooperative Program
    line-items. These two activities comprise the National Stream Gaging
    Network. We are particularly pleased that base adjustments to these two
    programs are provided as well as new initiative funding. Base
    adjustments are recommended at $730,000 and $1.72 million,
    respectively, for the Hydrologic Networks and the Coop Programs. We
    view these adjustments as more important than the new initiatives
    because they help retard the erosive effects of inflation on current
    service levels within those programs. At a minimum, ICWP recommends
    that these base adjustments be approved, bringing the fiscal year 1999
    base for the Hydrologic Networks to $24.8 million and the Coop Program
    base to $68 million.
        There is also $14.3 million in enhancements proposed for incentives
    under the Water Resources Division of the USGS in fiscal year 1999.
    Many of these incentives can be classed under the Administration's
    Clean Water Action Plan or its theme of the Citizen's Right to Know
    with water quality as the centerpiece of that information. ICWP
    acknowledges the benefit of many of the efforts proposed under the
    Clean Water Action Plan and supports the open access of water data and
    information to citizens and decisions makers on a real time basis.
        However, our review of the budget leaves an impression that the
    basic collection of these data is subservient to the efforts to
    showcase such information and promote water quality as the premier
    water resource issue. Left out of the budget are efforts to enhance the
    acquisition of streamflow data. For example, the enhancement of
    $787,000 for Hydrologic Networks and Analysis is dominated by $3.5
    million (offset by reduction in other program components) for water
    quality collection in National Park Service watersheds and enhanced
    availability and dissemination of water quality data. The $4 million
    enhancement of the Coop Program is linked to the water quality
    conditions and processes present in the nation's watersheds and
    additional dissemination of water quality data.
        Neither enhancement mentions expansion of the nationwide gaging
    station network as part of these endeavors. ICWP views this as ironic
    since one of the major water quality tasks facing the nation will be
    the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads for polluted runoff and
    baseflow. These loads require a flow value in order to be calculated.
    In fact, flow, as the delivery mechanism of many of the pollutants
    impairing the nation's waterways, is probably a more important factor
    than the concentration of the pollutant itself. Yet, the budget
    neglects to direct resources toward increasing the information base on
    streamflows as part of these initiatives.
        On the matter of Right-to-Know, ICWP notes that up to $7 million of
    the enhancement funding is directed toward water quality information
    and water information delivery within the line items of Hydrologic
    Networks and Analysis, Water Information Delivery and the Federal-State
    Cooperative Water Program. Once again, while the efforts to increase
    the access of water data are laudable, we are left with the impression
    that the Administration is more concerned with access than acquisition.
    We believe that the Citizen's Right to Know is tied to Government's
    Duty to Show, that is, access is irrelevant if the rudimentary tasks of
    data collection are neglected. We would encourage the Subcommittee to
    direct a portion of the proposed enhancements into efforts to expand
    the ability to monitor streamflow conditions. The benefits of
    expansions in stream gaging may not be as obvious as providing Internet
    access to water information, but the management of extreme hydrologic
    events, such as flood and drought, are deeply dependent upon adequate
    coverage of data networks as well as the access to the data those
    networks provide.
        ICWP wishes to advise the subcommittee on one matter which is
    tangential to the USGS budget. In recent years, cooperative efforts by
    the USGS and ICWP have been successful in stemming the loss of stream
    gages across the nation. However, the subcommittee needs to be aware
    that other Federal agencies, notably the Corps of Engineers, have
    helped fund these stations. Budgetary constraints within the Corps is
    inducing certain District offices to withdraw their support of gaging
    stations traditionally used by the Corps and States in the management
    of water resources. Numerous members of ICWP are facing circumstances
    of losing gages which they have historically relied upon for certain
    needs because of Water Control operations within Corps Districts are
    cutting out support.
        Additionally, there are efforts by other Federal agencies in water
    management which utilize stream gaging stations but do not provide
    financial backing to the operation of those gages. Specifically, the
    National Weather Service is recommended to receive enhanced funding for
    Advanced Hydrologic Prediction and Forecasting capabilities integrating
    data into predictive forecast models to predict medium term hydrologic
    conditions. However, the ground truth of such modeling endeavors, the
    gaging stations on the major streams and tributaries were not
    coincidentally enhanced, placing the models in a precarious situation
    of having to rely on assumptions rather than data for calibration,
    verification and prediction.
        Similarly, the Clean Water Action Plan, with the Environmental
    Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture in lead, places a
    great deal of emphasis on reducing polluted runoff and enhancing
    monitoring efforts. Left unsaid is the fact that the gaging stations of
    USGS will play a key role in assessing the relationship between flow
    conditions and pollutant loads, the relative geographic contribution of
    pollution on a watershed scale and ultimate evaluation of state and
    federal program activity to reduce water quality impairment.
        These three examples point out the need for the Subcommittee to
    provide for adequate support of stream gaging in concert with other
    agency activities, either by providing sufficient funding and
    flexibility in those agencies to utilize the USGS or to provide
    increased funding in the USGS to fulfill that support mission in
    concert with those agencies.
        The interaction of agency budgets for data collection and
    (acquisition is long overdue and further neglect in recognizing this
    interplay among agency missions and the basic resources needed to
    fulfill those missions will compromise water management, be it ongoing
    programs or new initiatives.
        The ICWP encourages the Subcommittee examine these issues and
    provide sufficient direction and support to the basic functions of USGS
    in continuing to provide streamflow information of the highest quality
    to water managers across the nation. As we have said in the past,
    regardless of the expertise housed within USGS, without the ongoing
    collection of basic data, the states have little need for interpretive
    analysis of water resources.
        The ICWP thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide
    these comments regarding the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey.
                                     ______

                            Bureau of Indian Affairs
     Prepared Statement of Julia A. Davis, Chair, Northwest Portland Area
                              Indian Health Board
        It is an honor to present testimony on behalf of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, a tribal organization which
    represents 40 Federally-recognized tribes in Oregon, Washington, and
    Idaho on health-related issues.
        This organization is charged each year with reviewing the
    President's budget for the Indian Health Service and analyzing its
    impact on Indian health programs. We are submitting that analysis as
    our written testimony, and I am here today to share with you a brief
    summary of our concerns about this budget.
        This Board is very familiar with the details of the Balanced Budget
    Agreement, which calls for large cuts in discretionary program spending
    over the next four years. But beginning in late fall as talk of a
    ``budget surplus'' surfaced and rumors were heard that some of this
    ``surplus'' might be directed towards discretionary health programs, we
    became hopeful that the President would propose reasonable increases
    for the Indian Health Service budget. And when we listened to the State
    of the Union address in which the President spoke of extending health
    care to children of working poor families and to more senior citizens,
    and to addressing health disparity among America's racial minorities,
    we became downright optimistic. Surely the President intended Indian
    people, who continue to have excess morbidity and mortality to share in
    these initiatives. But when we finally saw the budget and read
    Secretary Shalala's joyous budget announcements on the Department's
    website and e-mail, our hope turned to dismay as we painfully realized
    that American Indian people were excluded.
        There is nothing joyful for us in a budget which proposed an
    increase of 8.5 percent for the National Institutes of Health, 17.7
    percent for the Food and Drug Administration, 17 percent for the Agency
    for Health Care Policy Research, but just 1.8 percent for the Indian
    Health Services--and less than one percent (0.9 percent) if new
    facility construction is excluded.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten about the commitments
    made in treaties and Executive Orders in which Indian tribes ceded land
    and resources in exchange for health care and other assistance. But we
    have not forgotten.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that Indian health
    programs are a success story that demonstrates what the Federal
    government at its best can accomplish. But we have not forgotten that
    from 1972 to 1992, infant mortality rates for American Indians
    decreased by 60 percent that the life expectancy for American Indians
    went from 63.5 years in 1972 to 73.2 years in 1992.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that American Indian
    people still have considerably higher mortality rates than the general
    population for diabetes, tuberculosis, alcoholism, accidents, pneumonia
    and influenza, suicide and homicide. But we have not forgotten because
    we deal with the reality of these statistics on a daily basis.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that after many failed
    policies, the most successful policy this nation has ever had in its
    200-year relationship with Indian tribes is the policy of Indian Self-
    Determination. And perhaps it has forgotten about the commitment made
    by the President for consultation with tribal governments. But we have
    not forgotten. This budget has effectively ended the opportunity for
    self-determination by not providing new contract support cost funding,
    one of the highest budget priorities identified by tribes in
    consultation with IHS.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that the Indian Health
    Service has already contributed more than its share to balancing the
    Federal budget, having absorbed over a billion dollars in unfunded
    mandatory costs since 1993. But those of us trying to operate health
    clinics have not forgotten.
        Perhaps this Administration has forgotten that since 1995 the
    Interior Appropriation has increased only 3.4 percent while Labor, HHS,
    and Education has increased by 22.3 percent. But we have not forgotten
    and are not so naive as to understand that for Congress to find
    additional money for IHS, funds must come from another agency in an
    already strapped appropriation.
        Perhaps the Administration has forgotten that in 1993 it proposed
    unrealistic Medicaid collections to justify an inadequate and unfair
    budget for the Indian Health Service and Congress recognized this and
    restored funding. But we have not forgotten. We know that the
    Children's Health Initiative Program (CHIPS) program will produce very
    little new collections in our area, and that negotiations between HCFA
    and IHS for a reimbursement rate increase have stalled. We know budget
    gimmickry when we see it.
        And finally, perhaps what this Administration has forgotten is what
    Indian health programs are doing. Indian health programs are on the
    front lines relieving the pain and suffering of real people and
    preventing future pain and suffering. This is not an agency that can
    simply give out a few less grants to make up a budget reduction. We are
    delivering health care.
        Northwest tribes ask this Committee to restore the funding that is
    proposed to be cut in hospitals and clinics, sanitation construction,
    and maintenance and improvement. Additional funds must be found to fund
    the mandatory costs that every program must pay. This is particularly
    critical for the Contract Health Service Program. The Indian Self-
    Determination Fund must be restored and at a level so that those tribes
    waiting to take responsibility for the health status of their people
    can do so in a reasonable period of time.
        New ways must be found to address facility construction needs.
    Congress should provide opportunities for IHS and tribes to join forces
    in Joint Venture Construction Projects. The facility needs of small
    tribes should be addressed through the small grants program and through
    the ability to utilize Maintenance and Improvement funds.
        We have asked this Administration to propose a budget amendment
    that allows IHS to share in the 8.4 percent average budget increase
    proposed for the other discretionary health programs in the Department
    of Health and Human Services. If the Administration does not propose
    such an amendment it is our hope that this Committee can identify
    resources so that Indian health programs share in this commitment to
    improve the health of the American people.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits the following
    recommendations regarding the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and Indian Health Services budgets and those agencies data-gathering
    efforts as they relate to child welfare.
      --Support the Administration's BIA fiscal year 1999 Budget Request
            relating to Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
            Grant Program ($5 Million) under the Tribal Priority
            Allocations (TPA) budget category.
      --Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
            II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2 Million) which was funded
            through fiscal year 1996 under Special Projects and Pooled
            Overhead portion of the BIA budget, but is not identified in
            the Administration's request for fiscal year 1999.
      --Require the BIA and IHS to provide more detailed information on
            programs that provide funding/services for children. This
            information is needed to accurately identify the need for these
            programs and how BIA and IHS budget requests respond to that
            need. The recommendations pertain to the Tribal ICWA, Title II
            grant programs under TPA and the IHS Mental Health and Social
            Services and Contract Health Services budget categories
            (specific recommendations described below and in Conclusion
            section of testimony.)
        Organization Profile.--The National Indian Child Welfare
    Association is based in Portland, Oregon and provides a broad range of
    services including, (1) training and technical assistance for tribal
    and urban Indian child welfare professionals, (2) consultation on
    mental health and child welfare program development, (3) by request,
    facilitation of child abuse and neglect community prevention activities
    and (4) analysis and dissemination of public policy information that
    impacts Indian children and families. Our constituents are tribal
    governments and urban Indian child welfare programs throughout the
    United States. Our organization works closely with the Affiliated
    Tribes of Northwest Indians and National Congress of American Indians
    as well as having members on the Indian Child Welfare Committees of
    both organizations. This will be our sixth year in providing written
    testimony to this Subcommittee.
        Measuring Need.--Under TPA tribes are essentially provided a block
    grant from which they must fund a broad variety of services. Under this
    system tribes must make decisions about which services they can fund
    and at what level. However, many tribes encounter situations when they
    must transfer funding from one financially strapped services to
    another, even though both services are overwhelmed by the human need
    they face. The BIA looks at this transfer as a measure of decreased
    need, which they use when developing their budget requests. This
    provides only an artificial measurement of need. Using this method,
    Congress and the Administration will never know what the actual need
    for any program under TPA is and how well appropriated funds are doing
    in trying to meet that need.
        Data provided to Congress should accurately describe human need,
    not just budget priorities. Amazingly, the BIA has been allowed to
    provide only superficial data to justify budget requests. For example,
    it is virtually impossible to know how many clients received child
    welfare services, what kind of services are provided and how need for
    child welfare compares to the level of services being funded.
        Another important factor in determining the need for child welfare
    funding is tribal access to other program services and funding. Of the
    top four federal sources of child welfare funding guaranteed to states
    under the Social Security Act (Title IV-B subparts 1 and 2, Title IV-E
    and Title XX) tribes only have guaranteed access to one, Title IV-B
    subpart 1 Child Welfare Services, and the amounts of funding available
    from this source for tribes are extremely limited (approximately $5
    Million projected for fiscal year 1998).
        This situation combined with dwindling state resources, lack of
    state expertise in serving Indian families, and states reluctance to
    provide services in Indian communities based on financial and
    jurisdictional issues, has created a serious crisis for tribes in their
    efforts to protect their children and establish permanency and
    stability for those children who need help.
        Tribal Child Welfare Programs.--Until fiscal year 1993 tribes had
    been forced to compete for child welfare funding from year to year.
    This competitive process was extremely disruptive and in most years
    only allowed approximately 50 percent of the tribes nationwide to
    receive any child welfare funding. Improvements in the grant process
    and small increases to ICWA and Title IV-B funding have enhanced tribal
    access to child welfare funding, but there is still a need to continue
    efforts to make more funds available to address child abuse and
    neglect. One such effort is provided by the Administration's proposal
    to fund the Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention grant
    program ($5 million). Other efforts should include a more careful and
    accurate analysis of the child welfare needs of tribes by the BIA for
    purposes of budgetary recommendation. This analysis should be based on
    more than just population figures and how tribes are able to prioritize
    their limited TPA funds. It should include data on types of services
    provided, how many children and families receive these services, number
    of out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
    placement, length of time in out-of-home care, and numbers of children
    who are able to secure permanence though reunification, guardianship,
    kinship/relative care or adoption.
        Other factors that deserve careful analysis include tribal access
    to other child welfare funding or services and the relative costs of
    providing basic child welfare services on tribal lands. This is
    meaningful data that can provide Congress with an accurate definition
    of need.
        The most recent research on risk assessment of child abuse for
    Indian children indicates that 34.4 percent of Indian children are at
    risk for abuse or neglect (1993 National Indian Justice Center Study on
    Indian child maltreatment funded by the Indian Health Service). Many
    other documented indicators of the need for these services are also
    highly visible in many Indian communities such as extreme poverty and
    high rates of substance abuse.
        Off-Reservation ICWA, Title II Grants.--Off-reservation programs
    can provide a number of important services to both tribes, states, and
    individual Indian children and families. The ICWA does not make a
    distinction between who should benefit from the Act, and is designed to
    protect Indian children and families everywhere. Arguably, Indian
    children living outside of their tribal community are some of the most
    vulnerable Indian children to stressors that are linked to risk for
    abuse and neglect. These off-reservation programs, where they have been
    able to exist, can provide key linkages to tribes when their members
    become involved in state child welfare systems--all of which are
    designed to meet the purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Some
    common services that these programs can provide include:
      --At the request of tribes, provide case advocacy or other services
            such as foster care to tribal children who do not live on the
            reservation and whose tribe may not even be in the state.
      --Act as a resource to state agencies, courts and private agencies by
            providing training on how to provide more cost-effective
            services.
      --Recruiting and licensing Indian foster and adoptive families, an
            activity that states often do not have resources for and are
            not successful at.
        Off-reservation programs have suffered from the instability of
    inadequate funds and a competitive grants process. Historically,
    funding levels for off-reservation ICWA programs have been between $1.5
    to $2 million. This has enabled the BIA minimally fund about 40
    programs a year serve the 65 percent of the Indian population that
    lives in primarily urban settings. These programs have also tried to
    access private foundation funding and state contracts to supplement
    ICWA grants. However, these funds have been increasingly difficult to
    secure, especially in light of increased competition for these
    resources due to reductions in state and federal funding.
        We also know that many of these children may be served by state
    child welfare agencies at some point. Because of the small number of
    off-reservation ICWA programs operating in the United States, many of
    these children in urban areas are at great risk for not receiving
    needed services or protections. This seems especially relevant when you
    consider the budgetary problems that states are experiencing that
    result in minimal resources for staff training and services in general.
        Mental Health Services.--One of the best assessments of the current
    status of mental health services for Indian children is contained in a
    report that NICWA published in 1996 entitled, ``American Indian
    Children's Mental Health Services: An Assessment of Tribal Access to
    Children's Mental Health Funding and a Review of Tribal Mental Health
    Programs.'' We have provided a complimentary copy for the Subcommittee
    to review. The report details issues affecting access to mental health
    services, current funding sources, an original survey of tribal mental
    health providers, profiles of the four tribal mental health service
    systems, barriers to access of mental health services and compilation
    of recommendations for improving access to services.
        Three issues we believe are of great importance to the Committee's
    consideration of our request are: (1) The IHS system of mental health
    service delivery is primarily geared to adults (see statistics on page
    4 and 15-17 of the above-mentioned report); (2) it is difficult, if not
    impossible, to identify how much of the IHS funding under the Mental
    Health and Social Services and Contract health Services budget
    categories go to mental health service, particularly mental health
    services to children; and (3) IHS admits in their own budget request
    that they are not able to meet the current need with available
    resources (see Page IHS-48). Our best sense, based on findings in our
    report, is that children receive a few mental health services funded by
    IHS. We therefore recommend that the Committee require IHS to provide
    data detailing the level of funding from Mental Health and Social
    Services and Contract Health Services that supports mental services for
    Indian children.
        Conclusion.--Tribal child welfare programs are a valuable resource
    shown to be extremely effective in protecting Indian children and
    strengthening Indian families. A study in 1988 commissioned by the
    Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Interior
    entitled, ``Indian Child Welfare: A Status Report'', revealed that
    tribal programs outperformed the BIA and state child welfare programs,
    notwithstanding the limited funding available to tribes. Specifically,
    Indian children in substitute care had shorter stays in foster care and
    higher rates of permanency when served by tribal programs. In 1994 the
    Office of Inspector General issued a report entitled, ``Opportunities
    for ACF to Improve Child Welfare Services and Protection for Native
    American Children'', which clearly showed that most states were either
    not willing or able to share federal funds for child welfare services
    with tribes. This clearly demonstrates that tribes, when provided
    opportunity, are able providers of child welfare services, while
    currently not being able to depend on state funding sources or
    services.
        We must also take into consideration other factors which impact the
    ability of tribes and off-reservation programs to protect their
    children and give them a sense of permanence. Because of welfare reform
    and recent child welfare reform, states have additional pressures to
    target their resources carefully. This will most likely mean that
    states historic reluctance to provide services on tribal lands will
    continue and possibly get worse. If tribes are not given the adequate
    resources, then Indian children will likely continue to be the most
    unprotected class of children in this country with the least access to
    services that help provide permanency.
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association request that the
    Subcommittee recommend the requests we have made in our testimony. They
    are as follows:
      --Support the Administration's BIA fiscal year 1999 budget request
            relating to Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
            Grant Program ($5 Million) under the Tribal Priority
            Allocations (TPA) budget category.
      --Restore historic funding of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Title
            II Off-Reservation grant programs ($2 Million) which was funded
            through fiscal year 1996 under the Special Projects and Pooled
            Overhead portion of the BIA budget, but is not identified in
            the Administration's request for fiscal year 1999.
      --Require the BIA to provide adequate child welfare data to Congress.
            Some examples of this data are types of services provided, how
            many children and families received these services, number of
            out-of-home placements of Indian children, type of out-of-home
            placement, length of time in out-of-home care and number of
            children who are able to secure permanence through family
            reunification, guardianship, relative/kinship care or adoption.
      --Require the IHS to provide data detailing the level of funding from
            Mental Health and Social Services and Contract Health Services
            budget categories that supports mental health services for
            Indian children.
        Please consider these requests carefully and help tribal
    governments and off-reservation ICWA programs continue to offer proven,
    effective programs for Indian children and families.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
    Summary
        Elwha River Restoration (BIA), Treaty Rights Protection, $464,112.
        Shellfish Add-on, BIA Fisheries, $97,500.
        Support the Administration request for a general increase in TPA,
    $34 million.
        Support the Administration's request for an increase in BIA law
    enforcement of $25 million, including detention facilities.
        Provide additional funds for General Assistance (BIA); and start up
    funds for tribes taking over welfare reform (TANF).
        Support the Congress increasing the IHS appropriation over the
    Administration's request.
    Elwha River Restoration
        In 1992 a unique coalition of interests came together to seek a
    comprehensive legislative resolution of conflicts concerning the Elwha
    River in Washington State. This coalition worked closely with a
    bipartisan group of Washington State congressional members to secure
    the passage and enactment of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries
    Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495).
        Every activity involved in Elwha River restoration, from dam
    removal to water supply protection, and every phase of restoration,
    from preliminary design to post-construction monitoring, will directly
    affect the governmental interests of the Elwha Klallam Tribe. Our
    people consider that the effects of Elwha River Restoration need to be
    carried out with the highest priority being paid to treaty rights
    protection.
        How the dams are removed and sediment is released from the
    reservoirs will directly affect traditional cultural properties
    throughout the watershed, as well as treaty fisheries, water quality,
    and flood safety on the Lower Elwha Reservation. The same is true of
    levee upgrades and other floodplain mitigation on the reservation.
        The negotiation, design, construction, and operation of a new
    facility to protect municipal water supplies will directly affect
    tribal water rights, reservation water quality, treaty fisheries and
    intergovernmental relations with neighboring communities.
        In order to protect its legal interests and carry out essential
    governmental functions during the design phase, the Tribe must retain
    core administrative and technical staff. It must also have funding for
    access to engineering, legal, and other technical expertise to assist
    core staff in identifying and negotiating design alternatives that
    protect the Tribe's political integrity, economic security, health and
    safety.
        The Tribe's existing fiscal year 1998 Funding Request, as yet not
    approved, sets out realistic funding needs. At a minimum, core
    administrative staff should be funded at the levels expressed there at
    approximately $214,112. Contractual funding should provide at least one
    engineering FTE and legal, policy and miscellaneous technical
    consultants, totaling another $250,000. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
    is respectfully requesting funding for fiscal year 1999 at a level of
    $464,112, since we have not been funded in the current year.
    Shellfish Add-on
        The Western Washington tribes in the Case Area of U.S. v.
    Washington are now tasked with additional responsibilities under the
    latest rulings with respect to shellfish rights. The request of the
    twenty tribes so affected is for a total of $1.95 million, providing
    for a biologist and an enforcement officer for each tribe to address
    issues of public health protection and illegal harvest activity. We
    respectfully request $97,500 within this amount for the Lower Elwha
    Klallam Tribe which supports this Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
    initiative.
    TPA Increase
        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the Administration's request
    for an increase in TPA of $34 million, with earmarks for specific
    programs. The Tribe is a self-governance Tribe, and as other tribes who
    take advantage of their authorities under the Indian Self-Determination
    Act, the TPA fund is our life's blood for Tribal programs. We agree
    that small and needy tribes deserve the additional funds requested; and
    we also support the increase in the Indian Self-Determination Fund.
    BIA Law Enforcement
        We have been closely following discussions sponsored by the
    Administration on the possibility of moving Indian country law
    enforcement to the Department of Justice. We support the current
    arrangement, but we feel that funding is inadequate. We therefore
    support the Administration's request for an additional $25 million in
    BIA Law Enforcement. We support the Administration's request for
    detention facilities.
    Social Services, GA, and TANF
        Due to the vastly increased demand for General Assistance (GA)
    benefits on most of the reservations in America, funds for many smaller
    tribes for GA have been significantly reduced. The Lower Elwha Klallam
    Tribe has taken a substantial reduction in our GA funding; it is only
    through very tight management that these funds last throughout the
    entire year. We respectfully request that the Congress look closely at
    documented need in this program.
        As the Congress is well aware, domestic crime in Indian country is
    on the increase. Because Indian communities are so at risk, we request
    additional funds be made available for our Social Services and Indian
    Child Welfare Programs. In addition to these responsibilities, the
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is actively pursuing negotiations with the
    State of Washington to assume the responsibility for TANF for our
    people. This is such a great change that we request start-up funds to
    make our assumption of this welfare program a success.
    Indian Health
        Finally, as the Congress is well aware, the health status of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives is the lowest of any group in
    America. The Administration has requested a minuscule increase in
    fiscal year 1999 funding for IHS. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
    respectfully requests that funding for IHS be increased sufficiently to
    include funds for mandatory increases, at a minimum.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Merv George, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe of
                                   California
        On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I respectfully
    submit our comments regarding the fiscal year 1999 proposed budgets of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    Office of the Special Trustee. A summary of my testimony follows:
        Request $200,000 from the BIA Forestry budget for NEPA, ARPA, and
    the National Indian Forest Management Act activities.
        Request $150,000 from the BIA Forestry budget for resource
    protection activities to reduce timber theft.
        Support increase to the BIA Forest Development budget.
        Request $140,000 from the BIA ESA budget for tribal costs
    associated with ESA implementation.
        Request $2.6 million from the Office of Special Trustee budget for
    the California Trust Reform Demonstration Project.
        Support increase of $2.5 million for the USFWS Klamath River
    Fishery Restoration Program and an additional amount of $1.5 million
    for the Yurok and Karuk Tribes and USFWS.
        Request that the USFWS be directed to work with tribes prior to
    transferring Klamath and Trinity River issues to the proposed Pacific
    Southwest Regional Office.
        The Tribe supports funding increases for the BIA Waste Management
    and Environmental Cleanup Programs.
        The Tribe supports funding for BIA Indian Land Consolidation
    activities.
        The Tribe supports funding for the BIA Office of Self-Governance
    and for Self-Governance Tribal Grants.
    Narrative of budget requests
        BIA--Forestry.--The Tribe has identified insufficient funding as a
    major deficiency within the Forest Planning Branch which implements the
    federal requirements under NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
    Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). In fiscal year 1997,
    the BIA provided no funds for planning (NEPA) purposes. While some
    funds are provided by the BIA for wildlife ESA work, it is insufficient
    to cover the costs of the program, particularly for botanical surveys
    for ESA T&E plants.
        Finally, the BIA provides no funds to complete ARPA required
    surveys for archaeological resources. While the Tribe has funded these
    activities in the past, we will not be able to in the future because
    our administrative fees budget cannot withstand the current spending
    levels or anticipated future costs. Most of the Tribe's forestry
    funding is committed to paying for other legal requirements associated
    with ESA T&E plants, archaeology (ARPA) and NEPA.
        We request funding of $200,000 from the BIA Forestry budget in
    order to meet federal legal requirements for NEPA, ARPA, and the
    National Indian Forest Management Act.
        BIA--Forest protection.--The Tribe has numerous federally-
    constructed roads on the Reservation which are open to the public. As a
    result, the Tribe experiences timber theft, principally from illegally
    cutting of firewood. Most often, this timber theft is taken from
    standing old growth Douglas-fir trees. At current rates of theft, which
    in 1986 were measured at 1,000 MBF/year, the value of the lost timber
    resources is $500,000/year.
        We request that the Subcommittee provide $150,000 in the BIA
    Forestry budget for a resource protection officer and two resource
    protection technicians to reduce timber theft on the Reservation.
        BIA--Forest development funds.--Forest Development funds provide
    critical funding to Indian tribes and the BIA to address required
    forest treatment activities and to address backlogs in pre-commercial
    thinning of Indian commercial timber lands. Since 1989, the Tribe has
    worked hard to prevent any additional backlog by striving to include
    these costs in our existing federal and tribal budgets. This effort,
    for the most part, has been successful. However, the pre-1989 backlog,
    which was generated when the BIA managed the Reservation forestry
    programs, remains to be a problem. The annual costs for addressing the
    Forest Development backlogs for the Hoopa Reservation is estimated to
    be $1,099,000.
        Therefore, we support an increase to the Forest development budget
    of the BIA and an increase in the Tribe's Forest Development funds.
        BIA--Road maintenance program.--Adequate transportation systems for
    Indian reservations are critical components for developing and
    maintaining tribal economies and local infrastructures. However, each
    year, the BIA Road Maintenance Program continues to be drastically
    underfunded. At Hoopa, the Tribe has had to incorporated the BIA Road
    Maintenance Program with Federal Highway Administration funds and
    tribal timber roads in order to deliver even minimal services to the
    Reservation residence. However, it is unlikely that the Tribe will be
    financially capable of continuing our level of funding for this program
    in future years. Additionally, there is a major capitalization need for
    new road maintenance equipment since none of the Federal roads
    equipment has not replaced since 1977. The annual estimated cost for
    the BIA Hoopa Road Maintenance Program is $350,000-$450,000.
        The Tribe supports an increase in the BIA's Road Maintenance
    Program and requests an increase to the Hoopa Reservation Road
    Maintenance Program of $100,000.
        BIA--Endangered species funds.--The ESA has profound implications
    for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. On the one hand, the Act potentially
    provides the necessary leverage to alter poor land management practices
    contributing to species decline; on the other, restrictions applied to
    Tribal resource use, threaten the economy and rights of the Tribe.
        It is well established that cultural, subsistence and threatened
    and endangered wildlife and fish species that are important to tribes
    are a Trust Resource with which the United States must protect. In
    order to accomplish this, the Tribe's level of funding must be
    increased to address both ESA species as well as other wildlife
    management activities related to all wildlife species of concern to the
    Tribe.
        On April 25, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    declared the coho salmon of the southern Oregon and northern California
    Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) ``threatened'' as defined by ESA.
    This action has a direct impact on the Tribe's access to the trust
    fishery resources of the Trinity Basin. At the very least, this action
    by NMFS will cause the Tribe to engage in a cumbersome bureaucratic and
    technical process to legitimize harvest of coho.
        This new burden to Tribal resource managers will require increased
    budgets in order to fulfill our new legal requirements. Moreover,
    immediate demands placed upon Tribal natural resources staff because of
    the regulatory requirements of the ESA will ultimately impair the
    ability of the Tribe to utilize trust resources. Long-term recovery of
    ESA listed fish and wildlife species will necessitate development of
    Tribal Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) and will require additional
    staff.
        Therefore, in order to meet the minimum survey level for marbled
    murrelets, spotted owl monitoring effort, and address the new
    requirements caused by the listing of coho salmon, the Tribe requests
    $140,000 from the BIA ESA budget to pay for the increased obligations
    to the Tribal Fisheries and Forestry Departments.
        DOI--Office of the Special Trustee.--The Office of the Special
    Trustee was established as a result of enactment of the American Indian
    Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. As part of his task, in 1997,
    the Special Trustee developed a Strategic Plan, in which he proposed
    reform in the BIA's management of financial and trust assets held for
    tribes and individual Indians.
        The Tribe participated in many of the Special Trustee's
    consultation meetings and made numerous recommended changes to the
    proposed Strategic Plan with respect to trust resource management. None
    of our recommendations have yet been incorporated into any revisions to
    the Strategic Plan.
        The Tribe believes that a key part of addressing the Federal
    Government's trust management concerns is for tribes and the BIA to
    formally establish management standards for trust resources that
    incorporate the Tribe's interests and priorities along with the
    responsibilities of the Federal Government. An important part of the
    implementation of the trust management standards is to restructure the
    BIA in a manner that would create a more responsive and effective
    federal structure so as to promote cooperative partnerships with Indian
    tribes.
        Beginning in 1997, seven California Indian tribes, including Hoopa,
    Yurok, Big Lagoon, Redding Rancheria, Cabazon, Karuk and Cahuilla and
    the BIA Sacramento Area Office, agreed to participate in a California
    Trust Reform Demonstration Project to implement the plan. The plan
    includes developing agreements between the BIA and participating tribes
    for management of trust resources, formally establishing mutually
    acceptable trust management standards, streamlining the BIA
    organizational and decision process for trust resources issues, and
    conducting annual trust management evaluations to evaluate
    implementation of the plan. The Special Trustee's Strategic Plan was
    used as a guide for developing the components for the California Trust
    Reform Demonstration Project.
        The project approved by California Tribes as part of a California-
    wide BIA restructuring plan. The seven tribes then submitted a ``638''
    contract request to the Office of the Special Trustee for implementing
    the plan. The funding amount for developing both tribal and Sacramento
    Area Office capabilities for implementing the plan was $2.6 million.
    However, despite language contained in the Special Trustee's Budget
    Justification which suggested support for working with tribes and
    entering into tribal self-determination agreements, on March 16, 1998,
    the Special Trustee arbitrarily denied the contract.
        The California Trust Reform Demonstration Project contains
    effective methods for addressing most of the problems raised by the
    Special Trustee with respect to the BIA's management of trust
    resources. However, the Special Trustee denied our contract request
    without comment, negotiation or consultation with our tribes.
    Therefore, we request that the Subcommittee to designate $2.6 million
    from the Special Trustee's budget for implementation of the California
    Trust Reform Demonstration Project.
    USFWS--Klamath River Fishery Restoration Program
        The Klamath River is the second largest river system in California.
    Like the Trinity River, its largest tributary, the Klamath River
    fishery populations have undergone drastic reductions during the past
    few decades. In recognition of the significance of the Klamath River
    fishery stocks to the Pacific Westcoast economies, in the mid-1980's,
    government agencies and fishery interests initiated an historic
    negotiation process for allocated of the Klamath River fishery
    resources among the fishery interests and spawning escapement needs.
    The negotiations resulted in the development of an allocation agreement
    which establish many of the management principles that are still
    utilized today. In 1987, Congress formally enacted the Klamath River
    Fishery Management Council, Task Force and Fishery Restoration Program
    (Program). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was designated as
    the agency responsible for its implementation. However, the USFWS has
    only funded the Program at an amount of $1 million annually, which is
    distributed between administrative and restoration activities. The
    amount of annual funds appropriated for the Program has clearly been
    determined to be inadequate to achieve even the most minimal fishery
    restoration efforts.
        The Tribe supports an increase of $2.5 million for the Klamath
    River Fishery Restoration Program, and an additional $1.5 million for
    the Yurok and Karuk Tribes and USFWS for administration and fulfillment
    of the Federal Government trust responsibilities to the Klamath and
    Trinity River Indian tribes.
        USFWS--Proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office.--The Tribe has
    become aware of the proposal to create the Pacific Southwest Regional
    Office in Sacramento, California. While we understand the rationale for
    a Pacific Southwest Office for central and southern California and
    Nevada issues, we do not support the transfer of Klamath and Trinity
    River issues to this office. The Klamath and Trinity Rivers have a
    distinctive relationship with the timber, fisheries and water issues of
    the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, the proposed use of the California
    border as the northerly jurisdictional boundary for the Pacific
    Southwest Regional Office will severely handicap the managers of the
    Klamath and Trinity Rivers by eliminating the ``basin-wide''
    comprehensive management programs that we have worked for decades to
    establish.
        The USFWS has made not efforts to consult with the Klamath and
    Trinity River tribes to determine how the Pacific Southwest Regional
    Office will impact our water and fishery management efforts. We are
    very concerned that the transfer of Klamath and Trinity River issues to
    the proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office will set back management
    efforts on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers by several years. Therefore,
    we request that the USFWS be directed to work with the Klamath and
    Trinity River Indian tribes and address our concerns prior to moving
    forward with the proposed transfer of Klamath and Trinity River issues
    to the proposed Pacific Southwest Regional Office.
        I would be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam
    Tribe, Lummi Indian Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Quinault
                     Indian Nation, and Sac and Fox Nation
        On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe,
    Lummi Indian Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Quinault Indian
    Nation and Sac and Fox Nation, we appreciate the opportunity to submit
    the following testimony on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
    Health Service fiscal year 1999 Budgets:
    Summary of testimony
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services;
        Provide $900,000 to DOI Office of Self-Governance (OSG) for
    planning and negotiation grants; and, $500,000 respectively to the DOI
    and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's and operations
    expenses for field offices as appropriate;
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project;
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs and $1.5 million for the
    Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology;
        Support for BIA and IHS Tribal Self-Governance Stable Recurring
    Base Budgets;
        Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
    Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
    Secretary;
        Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
    BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
    Albuquerque, NM; and,
        Support the funding transfer of IHS Facilities Improvements and
    Maintenance from Seattle/Houston to IHS Area Offices.
    Narrative for self-governance considerations
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls.--Despite the
    fact that contract support has been one of the very highest Tribal
    priorities nationally, the Administration's budget fails to include
    adequate funding for CSC. Current CSC shortfalls are estimated at $25
    million in BIA and $137 million in unfunded CSC for fiscal year 1999,
    alone.
        The Self-Determination Policy has been effective in ending federal
    domination of Indian communities and transferring governing
    responsibilities and resources to local Tribal governments. CSC is an
    important part of the federal resources transferred to Tribes under
    self-determination and self-governance and supports vital and increased
    managerial and administration functions essential to any government or
    business.
        Additional CSC appropriations are needed to implement the self-
    determination and self-governance policy as supported by Congress
    within the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
    Tribal interest in self-determination contracting and self-governance
    compacting has escalated substantially since 1988, when the CSC funding
    provisions were included in the Act. Based on an updated analysis on
    ``Determining the True Cost of Contracting Federal Programs for Indian
    Tribes'' published in May 1997, findings support that Tribal indirect
    cost rates have not increased significantly and are not the major cause
    of CSC increases. The increases in CSC requirements are directly
    related and reflective of this increase in new contracts/compacts.
    Absent adequate CSC funds, there is little incentive for Tribal
    governments to assume programs and services from the BIA or IHS if it
    means immediately reducing services or being forced to use limited
    Tribal funds.
        As a secondary issue, we believe that for those Tribes that are
    interested in negotiating and agreeing to a fixed contract support
    amount, the BIA and IHS should support that Tribe's request. Obviously,
    the inability to adequately predict in advance the amount of contract
    support funds that are needed is the primary reason for deficits in the
    contract support cost budgets. Therefore, it would be a major step
    toward resolving this problem and toward achieving the Committee's goal
    of addressing contract support funding shortfalls if stable contract
    support agreements were to be agreed to between the BIA, IHS and
    Tribes. Unfortunately, even though some of our Tribes have developed
    fixed amount contract support agreements with either the BIA or IHS,
    there has been some indication that some Federal officials may be
    attempting to nullify these agreements and force Tribes back into the
    deficit budget situation. We firmly stand behind our negotiated
    agreements and expect the BIA and IHS to do the same.
        It was a difficult and controversial process to obtain these
    agreements in the first place. It would be unfortunate if a short-
    sighted agenda of some Federal officials was allowed to undermine the
    few contract support success stories that has been achieved between
    Tribes and Federal agencies. Therefore, we request that the Committee
    provide language that protects the fixed-amount contract support
    agreements that presently exists between Indian Tribes and the BIA or
    IHS and encourage the agencies to enter into similar agreements with
    other Tribes.
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--
    Mandatory costs should be the first consideration in the budget
    formulation process. These costs are unavoidable and include medical
    and general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently construction
    facilities. IHS and Tribal programs have been forced to absorb these
    costs over the past seven years. In an analysis conducted by the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the compounding affect of
    multi-year funding shortfalls from (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999)
    have resulted in $1.2 billion in real resources lost. These costs
    increases will result in further service reductions in health care if
    not addressed.
        Provide $900,000 to DOI Office of Self-Governance (OSG) for
    planning and negotiation grants; and, $500,000 to DOI and IHS Self-
    Governance offices for additional FTE's and operations expenses for
    field offices as appropriate.--Both DOI and IHS have experienced
    significant growth in tribes choosing to participate in Self-
    Governance. The offices provide a critical role for the annual
    negotiation of funding as well as the ongoing demonstration and
    implementation efforts by Tribes. For BIA, 206 Tribes are now
    participating in Self-Governance and for IHS, 239 Tribes. Funding is
    needed to support the expanding responsibilities of these offices. In
    addition, the fiscal year 1999 DOI budget does not provide for planning
    or negotiation grants which are essential to Tribes' preliminary and
    intermediate planning and actual negotiation requirements for Self-
    Governance.
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project.--This project provides
    essential educational and information sharing opportunities for all
    Tribes participating in Self-Governance, Self-Governance Planning
    Grants, Negotiation Grants, as well as for Tribes who choose not to
    participate in Self-Governance. Funding supports communications and
    information exchange between the Tribes, BIA and IHS, provides
    coordination and logistical support for BIA and IHS workshops, training
    for federal and tribal employees, and specific federal and Tribal
    requests for information. The Project has played a major role in
    providing for greater acceptance and understanding of Self-Governance
    among Tribes and Federal agencies. We ask that the Committee provide
    language that acknowledges the need to continue funding this project at
    these levels for fiscal year 1999.
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes.--We request for
    the transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
    efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
    present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
    eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
    and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
    consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
    methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
    should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
    provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
    Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
    participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
    language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs and $1.5 million for the
    Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology.--Although the
    Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes a $34
    million increase over fiscal year 1998, the request does not include
    costs for a general increase for TPA. The majority of Tribal services
    are provided under TPA which fund a variety of social, welfare,
    housing, education, economic development, law enforcement and natural
    resource management, along with essential tribal governmental services.
    TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility to prioritize their funding to
    meet their individual goals and objectives within each respective
    Indian community. In 1994, the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force
    recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a first priority. At a
    minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will provide for a 3
    percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services.
    The increase is a small step in the direction of providing adequate
    funding for critically needed Tribal programs. While there have been
    small increases since TPA was drastically cut in fiscal year 1996, it
    has yet to be restored to the fiscal year 1995 level. Additionally, we
    are supportive of the establishment of a Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group
    in its efforts to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs and
    funding shortfall.
        Support for BIA and IHS Tribal Self-Governance Stable Recurring
    Base Budgets.--A major goal of the Self-Governance initiative is to
    achieve stable base budgets for Tribes in order to maintain effective
    and efficient Tribal governments. Tribal stable base budgets should
    also include a proportional share of the Congressionally approved
    inflationary and other adjustments to the BIA and IHS budgets. We are
    concerned that Federal downsizing efforts of both the BIA and IHS may
    result in attempts by these agencies to use inflationary and other
    adjustments approved by Congress as a means of protecting their
    internal operations by redirecting these funds away from Tribal
    contracts and compacts.
        Stable base budgets are one of the primary methods for Indian
    Tribes to achieve economic self-sufficiency and maintain professional
    staffs. It is important that the Congress send a clear message that
    both the BIA and the IHS that one of their primary goals the priority
    to provide Tribes with stable budgets upon which we can build strong
    governmental structures. Therefore, we request that the Committee
    include language in the BIA and the IHS budgets supporting the
    establishment of Tribal stable based budget and to prohibit the BIA and
    IHS from attempting to use Congressionally-approved inflationary and
    other adjustment for their own internal purposes.
        Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
    Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
    Secretary.--Indian health is under represented within the Department of
    Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
    established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
    be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
    Indian health needs at the Department level. The fiscal year 1999 IHS
    Budget clearly indicates that Indian health concerns have received low
    priority in comparison to all other areas of the Department's budget.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Secretary implemented a Tribal consultation
    policy. The IHS Director fulfilled this policy by fully involving
    Tribes in a consultative process regarding the fiscal year 1999 Budget.
    However, the Director's and Tribes' health priorities were ignored at
    the Departmental level. As a result, critical health needs were reduced
    to fund Departmental initiatives that were not identified as a priority
    by the Indian Health Service, Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee
    or the National Indian Health Board. Such representation is vital to
    ensuring appropriate Indian health advocacy among senior officials of
    the Department.
        Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
    BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
    Albuquerque, N.M.--The BIA proposes to transfer funding for Operations
    and Maintenance line item to the Facilities Management and Construction
    Center (FMCC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This effort does not diminish
    the bureaucracy, but simply transfers it to another location. Funding
    should be transferred to the Area offices for a more equitable
    distribution for all of the federal and tribal facilities maintained by
    BIA and compacting/contracting Tribes.
        Support the funding transfer of IHS Facilities Improvements and
    Maintenance from Seattle/Houston to IHS Area Offices.--Presently, IHS
    maintains an office in Seattle, Washington, and Dallas, Texas, to
    provide engineering support for IHS facilities. IHS proposes to
    transfer these functions and funding to Area offices. We support this
    initiative.
        In closing, we ask the Committee to give full consideration to our
    requests. The six Tribes represented in this written testimony have
    committed countless hours to promoting and enhancing the Tribal Self-
    Governance initiative since its inception in 1988 because we believe in
    Self-Governance and Self-Determination for Indian Tribes. We seek your
    continued support for our efforts as well as the additional efforts put
    forth by many other Tribal governments that have embraced the
    principles and philosophy of Self-Governance and its importance towards
    the sustainment of Tribal governmental authorities and
    responsibilities.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman and Executive
                      Director, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I thank
    you for the opportunity to express our concerns and requests regarding
    the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
    budgets. The following document presents the Jamestown S'Klallam
    Tribe's funding priorities, as well as other regional and national
    concerns and recommendations for your consideration.
    Overall Recommendation
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe strongly recommends that the
    Subcommittee not consider any provisions or legislative riders which
    undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
    governmental capacity based on long-standing Federal/Tribal relations
    and Federal Indian law and policy.
    Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
        $165,000 increase in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) plus full
    funding of related contract support costs for restoration of the
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe BIA Self-Governance base budget (total of
    $1,828,000);
        $45,000 increase in IHS Services appropriations plus full funding
    of related contract support costs for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe IHS
    Self-Governance base budget (total of $920,000); and,
        $600,000 one-time funding for the purchase of land adjacent to our
    existing reservation.
    Regional Requests and Recommendations
        Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
    Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
    treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
        Support technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    funding shortfall;
        Support BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation of
    the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the Woods''
    Initiative and the designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
    Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative;
        Support BIA request of $1,000,000 for Forest Development,
    Endangered Species Act initiative; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
    of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    Self-Governance and Other National Considerations
        Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
    planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 to both DOI and IHS Self-
    Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices as
    appropriate;
        Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
        Provide $150,000 from BIA and $150,000 from IHS for Self-Governance
    Communication and Education Project;
        Provide increase for BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) funds
    to address documented Tribal needs;
        Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment and $1.5 million for
    the Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology; and,
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
    Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
                Increase In BIA--TPA For Jamestown S'Klallam Self-
                        Governance Base +$165,000
        We are now in our eighth year of BIA Self-Governance implementation
    and have successfully demonstrated that the concept of re-directing
    resources based on local priorities and needs has resulted in more
    effective use of those resources. At the Tribal level, these measurable
    improvements include recorded increase in services to Tribal members
    for education, housing, social and cultural resources and are
    consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
    objectives which focus on program outcomes and budget justification. As
    a result of Self-Governance, the Tribe re-prioritized funding to expand
    economic development and address natural resources priorities.
    Additionally, we have established our own Tribal Policies and
    Procedures for implementation of the Welfare Assistance and Housing
    Improvement programs.
        The flexibilities afforded under Self-Governance and the
    establishment of a formal Tribal budget process have allowed us to re-
    prioritize and re-address our program needs and priorities. However,
    since initiation of our first Self-Governance funding agreement in
    1990, limited or no general increases to TPA funds have been added to
    our Tribal base. In fact--in fiscal year 1996, TPA was drastically cut
    and critical programs and services were severely impacted at the Tribal
    level. Further, in fiscal year 1998, our proposed TPA general increase
    negotiated by the Tribe was reduced by 67 percent ($73,000) as a result
    of the final report and recommendations of the Federal/Tribal TPA Task
    Force which was formed to address and develop recommendations for a
    revised TPA distribution methodology. These reductions have severely
    impacted our existing Tribal programs such as housing, social and
    cultural services, education and other key governmental operations
    which undermine the successes we have achieved to date through this
    historic initiative.
        Funding levels to TPA have yet to be restored to the fiscal year
    1995 level. The small increases to TPA over the past several years have
    not been adequate to keep pace with inflation, pay costs and increases
    for population growth. The failure of the Administration to include a
    general increase in overall TPA for fiscal year 1999, continues to
    hinder our governments' ability to provide for the essential needs of
    our Tribal communities. While we are supportive of the efforts that are
    underway to address funding inequities, unmet Tribal needs and funding
    shortfall; protection of existing Tribal base budgets and adjustments
    for inflation are essential to preserve the purchasing power of overall
    funding base amount and must remain a priority to promote strong and
    stable Tribal governments.
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe requests the Subcommittee to direct
    the BIA to increase our Self-Governance base budget to restore funding
    levels to no less than the fiscal year 1995 enacted amounts. The base
    amount for our Tribe includes an increase of $165,000 in TPA-Self-
    Governance to our Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) amounts (including
    associated increase in contract support costs) as originally negotiated
    prior to the adjustment for actual Congressional reductions. Since
    1993, we have negotiated a lump sum amount for contract support costs.
    However, this lump sum amount has only been partially funded each year.
    The inclusion of a negotiated lump sum amount for contract support
    costs establishes a base amount for indirect costs associated with
    those programs included in our AFA and provides protection and
    stability for these funds. Our total base amount of $1,828,000 includes
    full funding of contract support costs ($628,000) and represents the
    level of funding needed to maintain our base for future stability.
                Increase In IHS Services For Jamestown S'Klallam Self-
                        Governance Base +$45,000
        We are now in our fifth year of implementation of Self-Governance
    with the Indian Health Service. During that time, we have negotiated
    for a majority of the IHS programs and services and have re-designed
    our Tribal health services into a comprehensive Tribal managed care
    program. As a small Tribe managing a new and innovative program, it is
    critical that we maintain stable base funding levels to ensure
    successful implementation of our managed care program and to provide
    critical health care services to our members.
        In fiscal year 1996, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe was one of only
    two Self-Governance Tribes selected by the IHS to participate in a 3-
    year ``pilot project'' allowing for the establishment of base funding
    under Self-Governance. In fiscal year 1998, we successfully re-
    confirmed our Annual Funding Agreement negotiations with the IHS on the
    amounts, terms, and conditions for our Tribal base funding under this
    pilot project. While the terms of our Tribal base amounts allow for us
    to share equally in any inflationary cost increases and other
    mandatories, the fiscal year 1999 IHS Services Appropriations budget
    request by the Administration again fails to include adequate funding
    for mandatories and inflation costs needed to maintain existing health
    services. For fiscal year 1999, a total of $120 million is estimated in
    ``unfunded'' mandatory costs.
        The Tribe requests the Subcommittee to direct IHS to restore
    mandatories in order to address the rising cost of providing health
    care services and to increase our Self-Governance base budget by
    $45,000 to provide for adequate medical and general inflationary costs
    needed to maintain our current Tribal health program. Consistent with
    GPRA goals and objectives, we are currently in the process of
    developing a 5-year plan for our Tribal Managed Care program including
    financial projections and recommendations for improvements which are
    results-oriented. Inflation is a real factor which negatively impacts
    our Tribal budgets and service delivery capabilities. Based on our
    analysis, inadequate IHS funding for mandatory costs will force the
    Tribe to reduce benefits and/or limit eligibility for health services.
        We are greatly alarmed regarding the failure of the Administration
    to provide for additional funding for CSC in the IHS budget. The total
    CSC shortfall for IHS is estimated at $137 million. This amount
    includes shortfall for existing Tribal contracts and compacts. While
    the Administration says that it is committed to the policy of Tribal
    self-determination and self-governance, it's failure to provide any
    increase for CSC essentially halts further progress or opportunity for
    Tribes to assume and manage these programs. Our requested increase and
    total base amount represents the level of funding needed to maintain
    existing programs and services and includes full funding of contract
    support.
                Establishment of Tribal Land Base +$600,000
        For the past 7 years, the Tribe has requested the Subcommittee's
    assistance in securing additional land to add to our existing
    reservation. This request has yet to be funded and we again appeal to
    the Subcommittee for your consideration of funding for this land
    acquisition. In the 1870's, Tribal members rejected a relocation policy
    (urged on by white settlers) to move them from their historical lands
    to another Tribe's reservation. In 1981, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
    achieved federal recognition. Since that time, we have been attempting
    to undo the effects of this injustice, which had devastating social,
    economic, and cultural impacts for on the Tribe. We strongly believe
    the United States government has an obligation to assist the Tribe in
    correcting these negative impacts. One way this situation can be
    addressed is for the Congress to assist us to increase on our meager
    reservation land base; a base that would have been substantially larger
    had it not been for the 100-year wait for our recognition.
        A contiguous ten (10) acre site still remains available for
    purchase at approximately $600,000. This land acquisition would allow
    us to expand our facilities to meet the steadily increasing demand for
    services by our Tribal members. Our Tribe is now at a critical juncture
    in this rapidly evolving situation. Any further development of the
    current Tribal facilities to meet expansion needs would be both
    environmentally and practically unsound. Based on some projections
    provided us by a local consultant, it will cost approximately
    $3,000,000 to construct the facilities that will be needed for the
    foreseeable future, given our rate of growth since our Federal
    restoration. The Tribe is confident it can obtain the resources to
    develop the facilities on the proposed site from a combination of
    sources; i.e. donations, seeking philanthropic support, and Tribal
    business revenues. We need Congressional assistance to purchase the
    adjacent property which is essential for logical and efficient growth
    management of the Tribal operations.
        If the Tribe does not acquire the tract and a third party purchases
    and develops the land, we will obviously be blocked from any further
    practical expansion of our reservation base due to the geographic
    conditions of this area. In addition, the likelihood of a price
    escalation for this acreage exists. The seller's price has sharply
    increased since 1985 due to the attractive conditions of our area and
    population growth. The Tribe needs to act quickly to secure this
    opportunity before it is lost to development or realty investment
    speculation.
    Regional Requests and Recommendations
        Support request of additional $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington
    Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) for Tribal
    shellfish harvest management, enforcement and enhancement to implement
    Tribal treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish
    operations. This amount will help Tribes prepare for future shellfish
    enhancement and harvest activities as well as implement established
    Tribal/state agreements and other future cooperative management
    considerations requiring additional tribal shellfish management
    capabilities.
        Support for technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    funding to levels consistent with the previously identified levels as
    directed by Subcommittee. During this past fiscal year, the BIA and the
    Office of Self-Governance failed to fully restore these funds when
    these were re-programmed from the TPA line. This error is a direct loss
    of funding to the NWIFC.
        Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
    of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
    Woods'' Initiative and designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
    Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative. We request that the
    Subcommittee continue to provide $400,000 for the Washington Wild Stock
    Restoration. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will allow
    Tribes to conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration within
    their usual and accustomed areas.
        Support for BIA Resources Management request of $1,000,000 for
    Endangered Species Act initiative. The ESA process has resulted in
    significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices and has
    placed new obligations upon us. This amount will be used to enhance
    Northwest Tribal capacity to respond and meet these ESA process
    obligations.
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes is a direct beneficiary of the
    collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission.
    Self-Governance And Other National Considerations
        Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
    planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 respectively to both DOI
    and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices
    as appropriate. The DOI and IHS Self-Governance offices are responsible
    for the facilitation of the annual negotiation process and
    implementation of the Self-Governance initiative within each of their
    respective Departments. In fiscal year 1998, a total of $182 million in
    funding has been obligated and transferred from the BIA to 206 Tribes
    and $423 million in funding has been transferred from IHS to 239 Tribal
    governments under Self-Governance. This funding is essential for the
    management and administrative staff to facilitate this increase and
    handle the addition in existing work load.
        Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for implementation of approval, payment and award of all
    Self-Governance funding to participating Tribes. The current system for
    payment and approval of Self-Governance funds to participating Tribes
    is unnecessarily bureaucratic, expensive and time-consuming. We,
    therefore, request the Subcommittee to consider language in the
    appropriations bill which would direct the IHS to identify and report
    to Congress the total funding for Self-Governance Tribes and to
    transfer such funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance, with
    this Office being hereby granted full authority of distribution of all
    funds provided by the IHS that are funded through Self-Governance
    funding agreements.
        Provide $300,000 as a base funding amount for the Self-Governance
    Communication and Education Project. The purpose of this Project has
    been to provide technical assistance and factual information about
    Self-Governance. The Project is vital to ensure that Self-Governance
    and its purposes are clearly understood and consistently developed by
    participating Tribal governments, federal agency officials and non-
    participating Tribes.
        Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
    documented need. Despite the fact that contract support has been one of
    the very highest Tribal priorities nationally, the Administration's
    budget fails to include adequate funding for CSC. Additional CSC
    appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
    governance policy as supported by Congress. Absent adequate CSC funds,
    there is little incentive for Tribal governments to assume programs and
    services from the BIA or IHS if it means immediately reducing services
    or being forced to use limited Tribal funds.
        Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments and $1.5 million
    for the Joint BIA/Tribal Working Group on TPA Methodology. Although the
    Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes a $34
    million increase over fiscal year 1998, the request contains no general
    increase for TPA. This activity includes the majority of the funds used
    to support on-going services at the local Tribal level including such
    programs as housing, education, natural resources management and Tribal
    government services. At a minimum, the requested amount will provide
    for a modest 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
    programs and services.
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services. These
    costs are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay
    costs and staff for recently constructed facilities. IHS and Tribal
    programs have been forced to absorb these costs over the past 7 years.
    In an analysis conducted by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
    Board, the compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls from
    (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999) have resulted in $1.2 billion in
    real resources lost. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in
    further health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
        In conclusion, we strongly recommend increased funding levels
    within the BIA and IHS budgets for critically-needed existing programs.
    It is truly unconscionable and outrageous for Tribal governments who
    have struggled to secure decent housing, health care, and other
    programs for its people to suffer further reductions in funding. This
    funding is an obligation stemming from solemn commitments of the U.S.
    to Indian people to provide basic health, safety, education and
    economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support
    and urge that Tribal government operations be afforded the highest
    priority in your appropriation decisions.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Bennie J. Armstrong, Tribal Chairman,
                                Suquamish Tribe
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Bennie J.
    Armstrong, and I am the appointed Chairman of the Squamish Indian
    Tribe. As an appointee of only seven weeks, but a past elected Chairman
    of the Tribe, I am honored to present oral testimony before you today.
    And, if I do a good job, maybe next year I will be back to present,
    once again, as the elected Leader of my Tribe.
    Tribal priority requests
        $200,000 for higher and adult education added to the Tribal
    Priority Allocation Account;
        $150,000 increase for Tribal Courts added to BIA/TPA Tribal Courts
    account; and,
        $1.8 million for the Suquamish Tribe to reacquire our ancestral
    home at ``D'SUQ'WUB'' (place of clear salt water) added to the BIA Non-
    recurring programs, Wildlife and Parks, Tribal/Agency Budget.
    Regional priority requests
        $185,000 Washington-Boldt Pacific Salmon Implementation and Pacific
    Salmon Treaty Funding shortfall;
        $1.95 million for Boldt case Tribes funding of shellfish operations
    and maintenance of shellfish hatcheries;
        $1 million for BIA resource management--Endangered Species Act
    Initiative; and,
        $3.1 million for Tribal Ecosystems management initiative to
    establish a cooperative and coordinated monitoring and evaluation
    program.
    National priority requests
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
        Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
    million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
    estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
    funded schools;
        Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs;
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs;
        Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
    programs;
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project; and,
        Elevate the Director of IHS within HHS to an Assistant Secretary
    Level.
        The Suquamish Tribe is one of two Indian Reservations located in
    Puget Sound, Northeastern Kitsap County, Washington. Established by the
    Treaty of Point Elliott on January 22, 1855, the Suquamish Tribe is
    situated on a large peninsula extending into Puget Sound that has been
    affirmed by a Supreme Court ruling as ``Indian Country''.
    Tribal priorities
        $200,000: Higher and Adult Education added to the Tribal Priority
    Allocation Account.--Requests by Suquamish tribal members for education
    services of all types and employment counseling and services has
    dramatically increased. In response, the Tribe has provided additional
    services in a variety of areas. First, by providing daily
    transportation of high risk students to a local alternative high
    school. Second, by working with Northwest Indian College to provide an
    on reservation GED program which has served over 45 community residents
    this year. Third, by renovating old tribal and donated computers and
    making them available to tribal member students. Fourth, by increasing
    the tribal higher education budget by 200 percent from 1995 to 1997.
        Assistance in the work and training area has doubled in the past
    year from eight trainees in 1997 to a projected sixteen or more in
    1998. In addition, the Tribe has provided training to 18 tribal members
    to become divers to harvest shellfish. One tribal member was trained to
    be an underwater welder and was immediately employed. In fact, the
    current tribal coordinator for these programs started as a trainee in
    the fall of 1996 and has progressed to the point of being able to
    capably administer these programs. Funding from the BIA will train only
    one or two individuals per year. More funds are needed to fulfill
    requests from tribal members with employment training goals.
        Higher education is of great concern to the Suquamish Tribal
    Council. The number of students requesting higher education assistance
    has nearly doubled in the past 18 months. In the Fall of 1996 there
    were 16 students receiving assistance. In the Fall of 1997, 31 students
    received assistance. It is anticipated that between 35 and 45 students
    will request assistance in the fall of 1998. The BIA higher education
    funding is sufficient to provide an average of $1,113 per year per
    student based upon 31 students attending college. Obviously, this is a
    totally inadequate amount for any student. Need is considered and
    averages over $5,000 per student. To meet the projected need in fiscal
    year 1999 would require at least $175,000 in additional funds. The
    Tribe has increased the amount of tribal funds going into higher
    education from $20,000 in 1996 to over $60,000 in 1997. Together with
    the BIA funding, the amount available per student is approximately
    $3,050; well short of the average need of $5,000 per student. The Tribe
    does not have the resources to increase higher education funding beyond
    the $60,000 level from tribal funds.
        The Tribe will continue to support all education programs but
    additional funds are needed to meet the needs of tribal members for
    GED, higher education and job training services.
        $150,000: Tribal Courts to BIA/TPA Account.--The Suquamish Tribal
    Council has faced substantial increased costs in operation of both the
    Tribal Court and Tribal Police Services. In addition, the Tribe and
    Kitsap County have been working cooperatively on a number of issues and
    have established a working relationship to assist one another in a
    variety of law enforcement activities. For example, the Juvenile
    Departments of the County and Tribe are working closely together in
    diversion and probation activities for Indian youth and adults. The
    Tribal Diversion/Probation Officer is now supervising County referred
    offenders.
        Another area of cooperation is in general law enforcement. County
    and Tribal Officers assist each other in responding to a wide variety
    of incidents. Jurisdiction of the County and Tribe on the Port Madison
    Reservation, is very intricate and cooperation between the law
    enforcement agencies is critical. In January of 1998, the Suquamish
    Tribe hosted an historic government-to-government summit with Kitsap
    County elected officials and law enforcement personnel.
        There has been an increase in arrests and incidents reported by the
    Tribal Police which has resulted in a substantial increase in the
    Tribal Court caseload. Tribal Court cases increased from 150 in 1996 to
    315 in 1997, or an increase of 110 percent in one year. Police calls on
    the Suquamish Reservation for non-traffic offenses increased 21 percent
    from 1996 to 1997 at a time when the rate of increase in Kitsap County
    was 3.5 percent. Many of these calls involved non-native residents of
    the reservation. Cooperation with the County Sheriff is critical to
    effective law enforcement on the reservation because of the complicated
    trust land ownership pattern and consequent jurisdiction issues
    following therefrom.
        Costs of providing law enforcement services has increased
    considerably, doubling in the past five years. The Tribe has had to
    increase salary of officers to retain properly trained commissioned
    officers. The standards for officers hired by the Tribe is on a par
    with the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office. All officers are academy
    trained. Tribal officers are trained to know not only tribal laws, but
    also Federal, State and County laws. Joint training with the County is
    occurring as are meetings between supervisory staff and legal staff to
    ensure a good working relationship.
        Of great concern to the Tribe are incarceration costs. These costs
    have increased from a few thousand dollars per year to over $50,000
    annually. It is anticipated these costs will continue to increase and
    the Tribe is considering building a jail since the nearest facility
    available to take prisoners is over 65 miles away in Puyallup
    Reservation. Just transporting a prisoner to jail takes nearly one
    whole shift for an officer.
        The Suquamish Tribe has found itself in a position of having to
    take desperately needed tribal funds to support the Public Safety and
    Tribal Court budgets. The funds received from the BIA are no longer
    adequate to provide the minimum services needed to ensure community
    safety.
        $1.8 Million: Reacquire Ancestral Home ``D'SUB'WUB'' added to BIA
    Wildlife and Parks, Tribes/Agency Budget.--Sometime between the years
    1866 (the year Chief Sealth passed away) and 1872 under orders from the
    government, William DeShaw, agent in charge of the Port Madison Indian
    Reservation, moved the remaining families out of Old Man House and then
    to ensure no further inhabitancy, dismantled and burned it. But since
    this site was unalloted lands some tribal members built small homes on
    the site and continued to live here until 1904 when the U.S. War
    Department purchased the site for a fort to guard the watery entrance
    to Port Orchard Bay, where the new Bremerton Navy Yard was located.
    Many of the members opposed the sale, but the Army pressured the
    Indians to sign, claiming that if the property was not used for
    military purposes, it would be returned to the Tribe. On May 28, 1904,
    an agreement was signed by the adult members of the Tribe, D'Suq'Wub
    was vacated, and the Suquamish Tribe never returned.
        We are requesting $700,000 in 1999 to fund the purchase of two
    lots, that along with the state park make up the former site of Old Man
    House, and $400,000 in 2000 to conduct an archaeological dig on this
    site that was home to the Suquamish Tribe for Two Thousand Years. and
    $700,000 in 2001 to construct a smaller replica of Old Man House to be
    used as a interpretive center for the Tribal Members and the general
    public, and as a gathering place for the tribe to relearn about their
    culture and traditional ways of life.
    Regional requests
        Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
    shortfall. In fiscal year 1998, the BIA and OSG failed to restore
    $185,000 to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) as a
    result of reprogramming trust resources to the TPA line item. The NWIFC
    must be able to recoup the funds to perform ongoing trust resources on
    behalf of Tribes for the Western Washington-Boldt case and U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
    Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
    treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations.
    Additional funding to tribal programs are necessary to address these
    needs. Western Washington tribes request an additional $1,950,000 be
    added to tribal fisheries management contracts as permanent base
    funding. This would provide basic infrastructure for each tribe of
    $97,500. This would cover only the basic level of management and
    enforcement needs.
        Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
    Species initiative. As Tribes that are potentially impacted by the
    proposed listing of pacific salmon under the terms of ESA, funds are
    needed for biological review, listing decisions, conferencing,
    consultation and recovery planning to prepare for the changes in
    harvest, hatchery and habitat practices in response to the ESA process.
        Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
    Management initiative. This amount is needed to support the
    coordination and cooperative monitoring effort by the Tribal co-
    managers for the protection and restoration of salmon populations,
    consistent with ESA, Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
    Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
    obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
    National requests
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls. Contract
    support continues to be a concern. The BIA still does not do an
    adequate job of identifying the need for inclusion in the
    Administration Budget. These funds are vital to Tribes to enable us to
    continue to maintain our core government functions. We request that the
    Committee require a report from the BIA which fully identifies the
    need, and recognize the Intent of the Self-Determination Act and fully
    fund Contract support.
        Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
    million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
    estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
    funded schools. While we support the Administration's significant
    investment of $86.6 million for school construction for BIA, even with
    the proposed increase, there is an estimated need of more than $800
    million in BIA school facilities and repair. For Adult Education,
    funding levels continue to be extremely low and is considered the most
    poorly funded of all Indian education programs. Since DOE has
    eliminated Adult Education, BIA must be funded at $4 million. For
    Johnson O'Malley, we support the proposed increase in the fiscal year
    1999 budget, however, the true need is $54 million and is especially
    critical since there continues to be an annual increase in the number
    of eligible Indian students attending public schools. The Indian
    Student Equalization Program (ISEP) is far below the national average
    per pupil expenditure of $7,371 for academic instruction in School Year
    1998-99. $348 million is required to provide quality education to
    Indian students on an even par basis with the national population.
        Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs.
    To date, no funds have been appropriated by Congress in support of the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176) for enhancement and
    improvement of tribal judicial systems. For fiscal year 1999, $11.2
    million is requested for tribal courts in BIA and $10 million for the
    Department of Justice. However, these amounts are not in keeping with
    the $54 million authorized under the law.
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs. It is extremely
    important that we, at least, keep pace with inflation. Even with this
    request, tribes are left underfunded when compared to other
    jurisdictions. Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal
    year 1999 includes a $34 million increase over fiscal year 1998, the
    request does not include costs for a general increase for TPA. The
    majority of Tribal services are provided under TPA which fund a variety
    of social, welfare, housing, education, economic development, law
    enforcement and natural resource management, along with essential
    tribal governmental services. TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility
    to prioritize their funding to meet their individual goals and
    objectives within each respective Indian community. In 1994, the Joint
    Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a
    first priority. At a minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will
    provide for a 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
    programs and services.
        Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
    programs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
    (Public Law 101-601), was to ensure Native American human remains and
    sacred objected retained by federal, state, and local governments,
    universities, and the museum community are returned to the appropriate
    tribes and/or descendants. The law also provided for protection of
    burial sites on tribal and federal lands. Despite a continual tribal
    request of $10 million from fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1998, Congress
    has appropriated only $2.6 million to date. The National Historic
    Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) is another law tribes rely on for
    the protection of cultural and historic resources. Under the 1992
    Amendments, Tribes could assume the responsibilities of State Historic
    Preservation Offices. The Administration has requested $3 million,
    however additional funding and resources are necessary to protect and
    preserve Tribal culture.
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes. We request the
    transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
    efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
    present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
    eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
    and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
    consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
    methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
    should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
    provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
    Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
    participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
    language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project. We support the
    continued funding of the Self-Governance Communication and Education
    Project. This project has been a valuable tool for promoting the
    utilization of the Self-Governance model which has provided meaningful
    improvements in Indian country without building or maintaining
    bureaucracies.
        Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
    Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
    Secretary. Indian health is under represented within the Department of
    Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
    established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
    be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
    Indian health needs at the Department level.
        In conclusion, I thank you for your consideration of our requests
    and your continued support for Tribal governments.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dave W. Whitener, Chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    Squaxin Island Tribe, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
    testimony on the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
    Health Service. The following concerns and recommendations of the
    Squaxin Island Tribe are common, not only to us, but to Tribes both in
    our region and throughout the nation.
                       summary of appropriation requests
    Tribal Specific
        Support for $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management.
    Regional
        Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
    shortfall;
        Support for $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal shellfish harvest
    management, enforcement and enhancement to implement Tribal treaty
    rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
        Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
    Species initiative;
        Support for $3 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
    Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
    from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
    Restoration initiative; and,
        Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
    Management initiative.
    Self-Governance and Other National Issues
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls;
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services;
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project;
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs;
        Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
    Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
    Secretary;
        Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
    BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
    Albuquerque, NM;
        Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
    million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
    estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
    funded schools;
        Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs;
    and,
        Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
    programs.
                         narrative summary of requests
    Tribal specific
        Support $97,500 for the Squaxin Island Shellfish Management. The
    Squaxin Island Tribe was a plaintiff in the recent court case which
    reaffirmed the Treaty rights of the Tribes in Washington State to
    harvest 50 percent of the shellfish product, and to act as co-managers
    of the shellfish resources. This involves management of both inter-
    tidal and sub-tidal species of shellfish.
        For the past two years, we have been expanding our management of
    this very important resource to the Squaxin Island Tribe. Currently we
    manage the resource for about 150 Tribal harvesters who harvest
    shellfish for subsistence and commerce as has been the case since the
    Treaty was signed in 1854. To date our expanded enhancement and
    management efforts have been directly funded by Tribal dollars.
        Once again, the appellate court has upheld the District Court's
    decision, and strengthened the tribal claims. Our experience has shown
    that in order to be an effective co-manager of this resource, we need
    to be able to participate in management, enhancement, and enforcement
    activities. As managers of this resource, we will need to continue to
    expand our management capacity. This will involve specialized training
    and equipment for our harvesters, our management staff, and our
    enforcement staff.
    Regional
        Provide $185,000 for a technical correction of the Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding
    shortfall. In fiscal year 1998, the BIA and OSG failed to restore
    $185,000 to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) as a
    result of reprogramming trust resources to the TPA line item. The NWIFC
    must be able to recoup the funds to perform ongoing trust resources on
    behalf of Tribes for the Western Washington-Boldt case and U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
    Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
    treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations.
    Additional funding to tribal programs are necessary to address these
    needs. Western Washington tribes request an additional $1,950,000 be
    added to tribal fisheries management contracts as permanent base
    funding. This would provide basic infrastructure for each tribe of
    $97,500. This would cover only the basic level of management and
    enforcement needs.
        Support for $1 million BIA, Resources Management, Endangered
    Species initiative. As Tribes that are potentially impacted by the
    proposed listing of pacific salmon under the terms of ESA, funds are
    needed for biological review, listing decisions, conferencing,
    consultation and recovery planning to prepare for the changes in
    harvest, hatchery and habitat practices in response to the ESA process.
        Support for $3 million BIA, Forest Development, Woodland
    Management, Northwest Forest Plan, ``Jobs in the Woods'' initiative and
    from this amount a designation of $400,000 for the Wild Stock
    Restoration initiative. We support the BIA request of $3,000,000 for
    continued implementation of the President's Northwest Forest
    Development Plan, ``Job in the Woods'' Initiative and the designation
    of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of Washington Wild Stock Restoration
    Initiative (WSRI). WSRI is essential to developing a habitat inventory
    base from which restorations projects can begin. This work will extend
    the effectiveness of the limited funds for restoration by providing an
    effective tool for prioritization and design of projects.
        Support for $3.1 million for the Northwest Tribal Ecosystem
    Management initiative. This amount is needed to support the
    coordination and cooperative monitoring effort by the Tribal co-
    managers for the protection and restoration of salmon populations,
    consistent with ESA, Clean Water Act, Natural Resource Conservation
    Service's obligation for salmon recovery, and the Forest Service
    obligations under the Northwest Forest Plan.
        We support the requests and recommendations of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission, and the Northwest Intertribal Court System. These consortia
    assist us in an efficient and cost effective manner, thus insuring the
    tribes and the federal government that scarce funds are wisely managed.
    Please consider their requests as you consider our individual
    submissions.
                   self-governance and other national issues
        Provide full funding for IHS and BIA Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    to address documented Tribal needs and current shortfalls. Contract
    support continues to be a concern. For the past several years the
    Squaxin Island Tribe has offered testimony of the need to fund the full
    amount of Contract Support needed in Indian Country. The BIA still does
    not do an adequate job of identifying the need for inclusion in the
    Administration Budget. These funds are vital to Tribes to enable us to
    continue to maintain our core government functions. We request that the
    Committee require a report from the BIA which fully identifies the
    need, and recognize the Intent of the Self-Determination Act and fully
    fund Contract support.
        Contract Support Costs is one of the highest priorities of Tribes.
    Current CSC shortfalls are estimated at $25 million for BIA and $137
    million for IHS, excluding past years shortfalls. CSC is an important
    part of the federal sources transferred to Tribes under self-
    determination and self-governance which supports vital managerial and
    administration functions essential to any government or business.
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
    Mandatory costs should be the first consideration in the budget
    formulation process. These costs are unavoidable and include medical
    and general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently construction
    facilities. IHS and Tribal programs have been forced to absorb these
    costs over the past seven years. In an analysis conducted by the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the compounding affect of
    multi-year funding shortfalls from (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1999)
    have resulted in $1.2 billion in real resources lost. These costs
    increases will result in further service reductions in health care if
    not addressed.
        We have since opened a new health facility, and are providing
    expanded primary care to Tribal members. We are also providing dental
    care, and contract health services from one very modern and accessible
    facility. Our patient count has tripled, and continues to grow with new
    and expanded outreach and educational programs. We were able to
    accomplish this by creatively leveraging our funding to secure
    financing with a long term loan. Even with this great report, we still
    have concerns. The Indian Health Service has never been and is not now
    funded at a level to meet the majority of the need in Indian Country.
    Although the current budget includes an increase over the prior year,
    if you examine the numbers more carefully, you will see that we are
    losing ground. The percentage of increase does not take into account
    that a conservative estimate of the medical inflation rate is about 5
    percent and the average population increase in Indian Country is about
    2.3 percent. Using these figures, it is estimated that an additional
    $85 million would be needed in fiscal year 1999 to keep pace with
    fiscal year 1998. We ask that the Committee take a serious look at the
    dollars actually spent to address the medical needs of Indian people
    today and as we move towards the next millennium. The quality of health
    care in Indian Country, is at a minimum, an embarrassment when compared
    to that received by others in this Country.
        Provide $150,000 for DOI and $150,000 for IHS to maintain the Self-
    Governance Communication and Education Project. We support the
    continued funding of the Self-Governance Communication and Education
    Project. This project has been a valuable tool for promoting the
    utilization of the Self-Governance model which has provided meaningful
    improvements in Indian country without building or maintaining
    bureaucracies.
        Transfer budget authority to IHS Office of Self-Governance (OTSG)
    for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes. We request the
    transfer of funding authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for approval and payments processes to effect a more
    efficient distribution of funding to Self-Governance Tribes. Under the
    present financial system of IHS, there are nine steps for approval,
    eight steps for apportionment for payment, and eighteen steps to amend
    and existing Annual Funding Agreement (AFA). Such an expensive and time
    consuming bureaucratic system is not warranted when other streamlining
    methods can be implemented. The Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
    should be provided full authority for distribution of all funds
    provided by IHS, including grants made under authority of the Balanced
    Budget Act, that are made a part of and funded through the AFA to
    participating Title III Tribes. We ask the Committee to consider
    language which supports the transfer of authority to OTSG.
        Provide no less than $23,000,000 for BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflationary costs. It is extremely
    important that we, at least, keep pace with inflation. Even with this
    request, tribes are left underfunded when compared to other
    jurisdictions. Although the Administration's budget request for fiscal
    year 1999 includes a $34 million increase over fiscal year 1998, the
    request does not include costs for a general increase for TPA. The
    majority of Tribal services are provided under TPA which fund a variety
    of social, welfare, housing, education, economic development, law
    enforcement and natural resource management, along with essential
    tribal governmental services. TPA also provides Tribes the flexibility
    to prioritize their funding to meet their individual goals and
    objectives within each respective Indian community. In 1994, the Joint
    Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force recommended TPA inflationary adjustments as a
    first priority. At a minimum, the requested amount of $23 million will
    provide for a 3 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal
    programs and services.
        We ask that this Subcommittee not be swayed by the few notable
    success stories and not make decisions based on accounts by the media
    of Indian gaming. When the discussions are drawn to need based funding,
    we ask that you consider the needs of all Tribes, and recognize that
    for the majority, we have historically been, and continue to be, in the
    under-funded column of the equation. Reports show that while the
    overall Federal spending has increased, actual spending for Tribal
    programs has decreased when inflation and population growth is factored
    into the total numbers.
        Provide funding necessary to support the restructuring of IHS as an
    Agency of the Department and to elevate the IHS Director to Assistant
    Secretary. Indian health is under represented within the Department of
    Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service should be
    established as an Agency of the Department and the Director, IHS should
    be elevated to Assistant Secretary in order to provide parity for
    Indian health needs at the Department level.
        Oppose funding transfer of BIA Operations and Maintenance to the
    BIA's Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC). The BIA
    proposes to transfer funding for Operations and Maintenance line item
    to the Facilities Management and Construction Center (FMCC) in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico. This effort does not diminish the bureaucracy,
    but simply transfers it to another location. Funding should be
    transferred to the Area offices for a more equitable distribution for
    all of the federal and tribal facilities maintained by BIA and
    compacting/contracting Tribes.
        Provide $800 million to support School Facilities Construction; $4
    million for Adult Education, $54 million for Johnson O'Malley; and, an
    estimated $348 million to improve the quality of education for BIA
    funded schools. While we support the Administration's significant
    investment of $86.6 million for school construction for BIA, even with
    the proposed increase, there is an estimated need of more than $800
    million in BIA school facilities and repair. For Adult Education,
    funding levels continue to be extremely low and is considered the most
    poorly funded of all Indian education programs. Since DOE has
    eliminated Adult Education, BIA must be funded at $4 million. For
    Johnson O'Malley, we support the proposed increase in the fiscal year
    1999 budget, however, the true need is $54 million and is especially
    critical since there continues to be an annual increase in the number
    of eligible Indian students attending public schools. The Indian
    Student Equalization Program (ISEP) is far below the national average
    per pupil expenditure of $7,371 for academic instruction in School Year
    1998-99. $348 million is required to provide quality education to
    Indian students on an even par basis with the national population.
        Provide $58.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs.
    To date, no funds have been appropriated by Congress in support of the
    Indian Tribal Justice Act (Public Law 103-176) for enhancement and
    improvement of tribal judicial systems. For fiscal year 1999, $11.2
    million is requested for tribal courts in BIA and $10 million for the
    Department of Justice. However, these amounts are not in keeping with
    the $54 million authorized under the law.
        Provide $10 million for BIA Cultural and Historical Preservation
    programs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
    (Public Law 101-601), was to ensure Native American human remains and
    sacred objected retained by federal, state, and local governments,
    universities, and the museum community are returned to the appropriate
    tribes and/or descendants. The law also provided for protection of
    burial sites on tribal and federal lands. Despite a continual tribal
    request of $10 million from fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1998, Congress
    has appropriated only $2.6 million to date. The National Historic
    Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) is another law tribes rely on for
    the protection of cultural and historic resources. Under the 1992
    Amendments, Tribes could assume the responsibilities of State Historic
    Preservation Offices. The Administration has requested $3 million,
    however additional funding and resources are necessary to protect and
    preserve Tribal culture.
        In closing, the Squaxin Island would like to emphasize the long
    list of unmet needs that are evident throughout Indian country We are
    doing everything we can to work with the limited resources available to
    us. The health care of Indian people cannot remain at such a deplorable
    level. We are entering the next millennium, yet Indian people remain as
    the highest risk population in the Nation. On February 20, 1998, the
    U.S. President announced a ``New Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
    Initiative''. Unfortunately, the Administration's initiative is
    inconsistent with the priorities presented by Indian country under the
    Secretary's consultation policy. Funding was removed from our hospitals
    and clinics line items to provide funding for Departmental initiatives.
    Thus, we look to this Committee to correct the gross negligence of our
    consultative input on the part of the Administration.
        The Committee's support for our requests is much appreciated and on
    behalf of the Squaxin Island people, I thank you for your continued
    efforts.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Henry Cagey, Chairman, Lummi Nation
        My name is Henry Cagey, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. The Lummi
    Nation, located on the northwest coastline of Washington State. The
    Lummi Nation is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a
    population of over 5,200. On behalf of the Lummi Nation I want to thank
    you and the members of the Committee for the opportunity to express our
    concerns and requests regarding the fiscal year 1999 Bureau of Indian
    Affairs ad Indian Health Service budgets. The following document
    presents the Lummi Nation's funding priorities, as well as regional and
    national concerns and recommendations for your consideration. Further,
    Lummi Nation strongly opposes any Bill, language or legislative riders
    which undermine Tribal sovereignty and our ability to advance our
    governmental responsibilities based on long-standing the government to
    government relationship without consultation or formal hearings.
    Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities
        +$14.6 million Emergency Replacement School Funding.--Provide BIA
    FI&R Funding for Replacement School Construction funding to replace the
    permanent school facility, earmarked for Lummi Nation students
    consistent with Bureau of Indian Affairs Safety and Health standards,
    for a population of 650 students.
        +$1,300,000 To Support Water Agreement in Principle.--Provide the
    Lummi Nation with funding sufficient to support the final on-
    reservation water agreement The Lummi Nation does not receive any BIA
    Water Resource funds through its Self-Governance Annual Funding
    Agreement on a recurring basis.
        +$750,000. Water and Sewer Infrastructure Planning.--Provide the
    IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program with funds earmarked to
    support the planning of water delivery and sewage extraction system
    projects and roads system development to enable the continuing orderly
    development of the Lummi Indian Reservation.
        +$350,000. Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery Recurring Program.--
    Base to support the on-going operation of the Tribal Shellfish Hatchery
    consistent with the expansion of the Boldt Decision to shellfish.
    Tribal-specific Appropriation Summaries, Justification and
            Recommendations
        Emergency Need Lummi Students Need for a Replacement Tribal School:
    +$14.6 million.--There are 254 Tribal students now attending Tribal
    school at a temporary facility that was designed to accommodate 120
    students. We will have 59 students next year at the high school level
    without a facility. This situation has escalated from an emergency
    problem to a crisis situation through the in-action of the Bureau to
    address the need for permanent facilities. Since 1989, our Tribal
    student enrollment has increased by 66 percent from 120 to 211 with a
    projected future enrollment of 650 in 2000. There are nearly 1,600
    Lummi youth of school age, most of whom have expressed an interest in
    attending Lummi Nation Schools. Approximately 70 percent of Lummi youth
    still drop out of public school prior to graduation. A 1997 facility
    review by the Bureau, discovered numerous structural deficiencies which
    impact the safety and health status of students.
      --Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Restore Priority Listing of
            Lummi Nation Replacement School.--Bureau Educational Staff have
            persistently denied the request of Lummi Nation to treat its
            replacement school request as an emergency school replacement
            under the Facilities Improvement and Repair Program and not as
            a request for new school construction funding. We ask the
            Committee to direct the Bureau Education Staff to restore the
            priority listing of the Lummi Nation on the National Facilities
            Improvement and Repair and swiftly proceed to process this long
            over due project.
      --Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Work with Tribes to Develop
            Alternative School Construction Financing Methods.--The Lummi
            Nation is willing to explore alternatives school construction
            which involves more State, local and private financial
            resources in the financing of Tribal school facilities. Other
            Tribal governments effectively locked out of the Bureau School
            Finance System would be willing to join in this effort. We ask
            the Committee to direct the Office of Indian Education Programs
            to enter such a planning process leading to the development of
            school construction financing process which maximizes the
            benefits to Indian children. For the Lummi Nation, a relatively
            small amount of Bureau funds, could provide critical gap
            financing which would enable the Lummi Nation to fund the
            construction of a much needed school facility with State local
            and private financial resources.
        Funding to Support Water Agreement in Principle: +$1.3 million.--
    The Lummi Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal
    Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This
    agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of on-
    Reservation water rights conflicts resulting through disregard of
    treaty-reserved water and fishing rights in the Nooksack River
    Watershed. Many difficult issues remain to be resolved which will
    require significant technical studies and legal consultation before a
    final agreement can be signed. To complete this work the Lummi Nation
    has determined, based on its considerable experience in this area, that
    it will need $1.3 million during fiscal 1999. $300,000 to defray legal
    consultation costs, $400,000. For on-Reservation technical studies,
    $600,000 for technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin.
      --Recommendation: Direct the Bureau to Fund Lummi Nation Water
            Agreement Technical Studies.--The Lummi Nation requests an
            increase of $1.3 million in BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Trust
            Services, Water Rights, Negotiation/Litigation earmarked for
            the Lummi Nation.
        Increase to Lummi Nation Hatchery Recurring Program Base:
    +$350,000.--To support the on-going operation of the Lummi Nation
    Tribal Shellfish Hatchery consistent with the expansion of the Boldt
    Decision to shellfish. In order to include the Lummi Nation Shellfish
    Hatchery. The development of this hatchery was accomplished by the
    Lummi Nation and a variety of funding agencies. The Hatchery is fully
    operational and supplies oyster and clam seed to most northwest
    Washington Tribes. The funding received from annual sales of $80,000
    reduces the annual operating costs of the Hatchery.
      --Recommendation: Provide Lummi Shellfish Hatchery with Recurring
            Base Operational Funding.--The Lummi Nation is seeking on-going
            operational funds from the Bureau's Hatchery Operation Program
            and inclusion of the Shellfish Hatchery in the Bureau's
            Hatchery Maintenance and Repair Program for on-going and
            scheduled maintenance and repair. In order to secure this
            funding the Lummi Nation is requesting that the Bureau receive
            an increase in this line item, earmarked for the Lummi Nation
            Shellfish Hatchery.
        Water and Sewer Infrastructure Development Planning: +$750,000.--
    The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 7,000 persons
    which has pushed water and sewer systems capacities to their limit.
    Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
    population. In the short term water and sewer systems re-design and
    upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long term solution must
    include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
    development. Substantial investments like these require substantial
    planning. The Lummi Nation is not ale to undertake this level of
    planning without the assistance requested herein.
      --Recommendation: Direct HIS/OEHE to Fund Lummi Nation Need for Water
            and Sewer System Planning.--Provide the IHS Sanitation
            Facilities Construction Program with funds earmarked to support
            the planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system
            infrastructure for the existing and projected population of the
            Lummi Indian Reservation.
    Regional Requests and Recommendations
        Support request of $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington Tribes and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal Shellfish
    Management, Enhancement and Enforcement funding to implement Tribal
    treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish operations;
        Support technical correction of $185,000 for BIA Western
    Washington-Boldt Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    funding shortfall;
        Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
    of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
    Woods'' Initiative and the designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State
    of Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative;
        Support for BIA Forest Development, Endangered Species Act
    initiative of $1,000,000; and,
        Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
    of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    Regional Request Summaries and Recommendations
        Support request of additional $1,950,000 for 20 Western Washington
    Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for Tribal
    shellfish harvest management, enforcement and enhancement to implement
    Tribal treaty rights through the establishment of base shellfish
    operations. As Tribal shellfish programs continue to develop and
    expand, other issues affecting shellfish resources have been
    identified, such as the need for additional data and technical
    information. The Western Washington Tribes need financial support to
    establish basic shellfish management capabilities that compliment their
    existing management programs. This additional amount will help Tribes
    prepare for future shellfish enhancement and harvest activities as well
    as implement established tribal/state agreements and other future
    cooperative management considerations requiring additional tribal
    shellfish management capabilities.
        Support for technical correction of BIA Western Washington-Boldt
    Implementation and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty funding to levels
    consistent with the previously identified levels as directed by
    Subcommittee. During this past fiscal year, the BIA and the Office of
    Self-Governance failed to fully restore these funds when these were re-
    programmed from the TPA line. This error is a direct loss of funding to
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) at a time when we can
    ill afford further budget reductions. For the past three years, we have
    witnessed a direct attack on Tribal Self-Governance; and in the
    process, Indian natural resource management has been unfairly affected.
    While the NWIFC has shared in funding shortfalls, they are unwilling to
    be disproportionately affected. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
    maintain Trust, TPA and Self-Governance program funding.
        Support for BIA request of $3,000,000 for continued implementation
    of the President's Northwest Forest Development Plan, ``Job in the
    Woods'' Initiative and designation of $400,000 for the Tribal-State of
    Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative. We request that the
    Subcommittee continue to provide $400,000 joint Tribal-State of
    Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland Management; Northwest Forest Plan
    ``Jobs in the Woods'' Initiative, requested by the Administration at $3
    million. This program is essential for development of a habitat
    inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. This approach
    would be identical to that taken last year which the Subcommittee
    supported. The remaining $2.6 million from this initiative will allow
    Tribes to conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration in
    watersheds within their usual and accustomed areas. These funds will
    help restore critical salmon streams.
        Support for BIA Resources Management request of $1,000,000 for
    Endangered Species Act initiative. Tribes have worked very hard over
    the years to bring about positive and effective change in resource
    management. However, the ESA process has resulted in significant
    changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices and has placed new
    obligations upon us. This amount will be used to enhance Tribal
    capacity to respond and meet these ESA process obligations.
        We continue to support the requests and recommendations of the
    Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    Self-Governance and Other National Considerations
        Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
    planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 to both DOI and IHS Self-
    Governance offices for additional Ft.'s for Field Offices as
    appropriate;
        Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for approval and payments to Self-Governance Tribes;
        Support for Increased Funding for Bureau Real Estate and Trust
    Function;
        Provide $150,000 from BIA and $150,000 from IHS for Self-Governance
    Communication and Education Project;
        Provide increase for BIA and IHS Contract Support funds to address
    documented Tribal needs;
        Provide a minimum of $23,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
    (TPA) General Increase for inflation; and,
        Provide $120,000,000 for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.
    Summaries Self-governance and Other National Considerations
        Provide $900,000 increase to the DOI Office of Self-Governance for
    planning and negotiation grants and $500,000 respectively to both DOI
    and IHS Self-Governance offices for additional FTE's for Field Offices
    as appropriate. The DOI and IHS Self-Governance offices are responsible
    for the facilitation of the annual negotiation process and
    implementation of the Self-Governance initiative within the Department.
    In fiscal year 1998, a total of $182 million in funding has been
    obligated and transferred from the BIA to 206 Tribes and $423 million
    in funding has been transferred from IHS to 239 Tribal governments
    under Self-Governance.
        Support for Increased Funding for Bureau Real Estate and Trust
    Services; Land The Lummi Nation Supports increased funding for Bureau
    Land Records Improvement Program and Probate Backlog and its efforts to
    address the fractionated heirship. We hold real estate services as a
    sacred trust to our people. Therefore the Lummi Nation has assumed the
    management of the Bureau Real Estate Services under the Self-Governance
    Initiative.
        Transfer budget authority to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance for implementation of approval, payment and award of all
    Self-Governance funding to participating Tribes.
        Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Funds to address documented
    need. We request that the Subcommittee directs the BIA and IHS to begin
    the process to identify actual need in future budgets and accurately
    report shortfall amounts. Despite the fact that contract support has
    been one of the very highest priorities nationally, the BIA has
    historically failed to adequately identify, measure and report the need
    and justification for these funds. Because the BIA has never fully
    funded contract support costs, Tribes are forced to absorb these costs
    within existing programs thus reducing direct services. The Tribes only
    other option is to use very limited Tribal funds. For the Lummi Nation
    the lack of full funding for Contract Support has meant the loss of in
    excess of $554,704 annually for the past 8 years. We are, therefore,
    greatly alarmed regarding the failure of the Administration to provide
    for additional funding for CSC in the IHS budget. The total CSC
    shortfall for IHS is estimated at $137 million. This amount includes
    CSC shortfall for existing Tribal contracts and compacts. While the
    Administration says that it is committed to the policy of Tribal self-
    determination and self-governance, it's failure to provide any increase
    for CSC essentially halts further progress or opportunity for Tribes to
    assume and manage these programs.
        Provide $300,000 as a base funding amount for the Self-Governance
    Communication and Education Project. The purpose of this Project has
    been to provide technical assistance and factual information about
    Self-Governance and to create an open atmosphere where this concept can
    be discussed, debated and developed by Tribal and Federal officials.
    The Project is vital to ensure that Self-Governance and its purposes
    are clearly understood and consistently developed by participating
    Tribal governments, federal agency officials and non-participating
    Tribes. With the anticipated increase in participating Tribes and
    expansion of Self-Governance to other federal agencies and program,
    continued funding is needed to provide these communication and
    education efforts.
        Finally, we strongly recommend restoration of funding levels within
    the Bureau budget for critically-needed existing programs. We have
    faced generations of paternalism, yet we remain at the bottom of the
    list in almost every measurable economic category and we have been
    enduring some of the worst living conditions in the United States. This
    funding is an obligation which stems from solemn commitments of the
    United States to Indian people to provide basic health, safety,
    education and economic security. We appreciate this Subcommittee's
    continued support and urge that Tribal government operations be
    afforded the highest priority in your appropriation decisions.
        The Lummi Nation, as one of the first tribe involved the
    development of the Self-Governance Initiative, would like to remind the
    Sub-Committee members that 1998 marks the 10th year of successful
    implementation of the Self-Governance Initiative. However, a decade of
    increasing success is not enough. We want to continue on this path
    towards empowerment into the new millennium. This Sub-Committee's
    continued support and understanding of the Self-governance initiative
    is critical to Tribal successes. Self-governance is a permanent part of
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Shortly, the Congress will be considering
    legislation to make Self-Governance a permanent part of the Department
    of Health and Human Services. We urge your support for this
    legislation. While every Tribal government is not ready for Self-
    governance at this time, it is the goal of all Tribes to become more
    self-governing as their capabilities increase consistent with the needs
    of their people. The Self-governance initiative is designed to provide
    this option to Tribes when and if the people through their governments
    determine it is appropriate.
        I appreciate your consideration of the fiscal year 1999 requests
    and recommendation of appropriations for the BIA/IHS, on behalf of the
    Lummi Nation. Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Stephanie Rainwater, President, Ketchikan Indian
                                     Corp.
        Introduction.--Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
    on the fiscal year 1999 budget request for both the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) and for the Indian Health Service (IHS). Ketchikan Indian
    Corporation is a federally-recognized tribal government organized under
    an Indian Reorganization Act (I.R.A.) constitution approved by the
    Secretary of the Interior in 1940. We have more than 3,900 members. In
    1976, we were one of the first Indian tribes to assume, under the newly
    enacted Public Law 93-638, the tribal operation of programs run by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1993 Ketchikan joined with several other
    Indian tribes in Alaska to be the first to participate in the BIA
    Tribal Self-Governance demonstration program. Since then we have
    managed our BIA-funded programs under self-governance authority for a
    total of approximately $1.7 million each year.
        With the increased flexibility and accountability accorded Indian
    tribes under Tribal Self-Governance, Ketchikan has been able to
    maximize the beneficial impact of these federal dollars at the local,
    community level. As a result of Tribal Self-Governance, we have
    strengthened our tribal administrative and management control systems.
    Our Tribe is poised to assume more program and service
    responsibilities. Our tribal members are excited about this new chapter
    in our Tribe's history. We are experiencing a renaissance of our tribal
    culture and a restoration of our self-sustaining tribal economy,
    including the growth of tribal enterprises that provide employment
    opportunities for tribal members and revenue for tribal governmental
    programs. This increased tribal economic activity also has a direct and
    positive impact on our neighboring non-Native communities in the
    Ketchikan Borough because we are attracting dollars from outside our
    area and are churning them in our local economy.
        Supporting Local Tribal Health Self-Governance Authority.--We ask
    this Subcommittee to ensure that nothing in the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations act be allowed to inhibit our right as a relatively
    large tribe to continue to run our own health programs under Pub. L.
    93-638 (Self-Determination; Self-Governance). There are three reasons
    for our request. First, the local control authorized by Pub. L. 93-638
    permits greater cost efficiencies and maximizes the benefit of each
    appropriated dollar. Second, the self-determination and self-
    sufficiency fostered by Pub. L. 93-638 is the key to our future
    survival as an Indian tribe. Third, any further disruption of our
    health delivery will have negative impacts on the health of our patient
    population.
        Let me explain why these three concepts are so critical for KIC.
    KIC began 1997 with two main objectives: (A) to build a new health
    clinic facility in Ketchikan; and (B) to administer, under Public Law
    93-638 authority, the delivery of federally-funded health care services
    to KIC tribal members and other eligible Indians in the Ketchikan area.
    KIC's initiative was opposed by the Southeast Alaska Regional Health
    Corporation (SEARHC), a large non-profit health organization which has
    administered these and other federal health care funds on behalf of
    more than eighteen (18) Tribes in Southeast Alaska in previous years.
        In October, 1997, after months of extremely difficult negotiations,
    KIC ended up with an IHS Self-Governance agreement by which KIC
    operates the Ketchikan clinic under a 12-month, $2.7 million annual
    funding agreement to provide health clinic services. Our tribally
    operated KIC health clinic now employs 40 professional, technical, and
    clerical staff in support of acute and chronic medical, and dental
    services. It also provides social services for our clients who need
    counseling and referral services. In addition to providing acute
    medical services, our clinic provides essential preventive services,
    such as cancer screening, TB screening, prenatal care, and health
    education. Our patients include those Indians and Alaska Native
    residing in the Ketchikan area; our active user population is
    approximately 5,500.
        Last October, the Congress adopted a provision which required IHS
    to have only one tribal contract or compact in effect within the
    Ketchikan Gateway Borough in the future.\1\ To comply with this new
    law, KIC recently submitted a competitive application to IHS to be the
    one compact or contract in the Borough for fiscal year 1999. At the
    same time, KIC has also been the subject of a GAO review of our health
    operations. The GAO conducted a site visit at our clinic less than
    three months after we started running our clinic under strenuous start-
    up conditions. We asked the GAO to return after we had a few more
    months of patient data on hand to show how efficient is our operation.
    The GAO declined. Despite the challenges posed by our sudden start-up,
    we believe any fair review of our performance will show that we are
    delivering quality health care in a cost-efficient manner. Local
    control over program decision-making in our vast region of Alaska leads
    to greater cost efficiencies. In this case, local or tribal control
    means our patient population gets more bang for the buck. We believe
    our proposal, now pending with the IHS, will be awarded on the merits
    of our performance thus far in fiscal year 1998. If we are awarded the
    single contract by IHS, the Organized Village of Saxman, a tribe of
    several hundred members also located in the Ketchikan Borough, has
    indicated it will support KIC's application to serve Saxman members.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``* * * in awarding the contract or compact, the Secretary
    shall take into consideration--(1) the ability and experience of the
    applicant; (2) the potential for the applicant to acquire and develop
    the necessary ability; and (3) the potential for growth in the health
    care needs of the covered borough.'' Section 203(b), Pub. L. 105-143.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Replacing Our Health Clinic Facility.--We are not asking the
    Subcommittee to provide construction funding for our new clinic
    facility. We have arranged separate financing. With the new clinic in
    mind, our congressional delegation assisted KIC in gaining title to a
    closed Coast Guard facility site within the city of Ketchikan. We may
    now either sell or swap that site in exchange for another clinic site.
    We have commissioned the development of plans for the construction of a
    new health clinic. Our health service delivery needs have outgrown our
    antiquated health facility. We will keep the Subcommittee apprised of
    our developing plans which should have no impact on Federal
    construction obligations.
        Why We Have Assumed Local Self-Governance Control of Our Clinic.--
    As we were developing plans for a new facility, our Tribal Council
    began to hear growing complaints from our membership about the
    difficulties they had receiving dependable and quality services from
    SEARHC, a relatively large non-profit health organization that has
    operated our Ketchikan clinic under contract with IHS for a number
    years. The non-responsive inefficiencies of a decision-making process
    of SEARHC's large organization located far from the field of service
    began to draw increasing criticism from clinic patients. Our tribal
    leadership tried to sensitize SEARHC to the problems, but with little
    success. Finally, in July, 1996 our Tribal Council heeded the call of
    its membership and submitted a Public Law 93-638 application to the IHS
    to assume the management of KIC's portion of the clinic. Our rationale?
    To improve the quantity and quality of health care by assuming local
    control and responsibility for the operation of local programs.
        On April 24, 1997, the IHS approved a proposal for dividing up the
    funds between KIC and SEARHC, and a plan for some joint management by
    KIC and SEARHC of the Ketchikan clinic. In the self-governance
    agreement signed by IHS in May, 1997, KIC's assumption of clinic
    operations was to begin on October 1, 1997. SEARHC subsequently wrote
    IHS on June 17, 1997 to announce it had decided to abandon the
    agreement for joint management with KIC and instead proposed to divide
    the old program into two clinics, one managed by KIC to serve KIC
    members, and one managed by SEARHC to serve Saxman and other small
    Tribes in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Consequently, KIC was forced
    to endure painful negotiations with SEARHC throughout the summer of
    1997 over the question of how to divide up one clinic into two
    operations, one large KIC clinic and one smaller SEARHC clinic.
        During these negotiations, appropriations rider language was
    proposed in the Senate which attempted to nullify our contract or
    compact despite the fact that it had been signed and transition efforts
    had begun. The proposed rider, which went through various changes and
    was not finalized until the very beginning of the new fiscal year,
    caused us great uncertainty. We did not know whether or not the United
    States would uphold the agreement it had signed with us in June. We did
    not know whether we should carry out preparations to operate a clinic,
    hire professional medical staff, purchase supplies, and so forth. This
    was a very difficult period for KIC. We got the final word that our
    agreement would be honored just a few days before we had to open the
    clinic in mid-October. We are proud of the fact that our clinic
    operations opened smoothly. We are grateful for the clinic staff who
    braved uncertainties to ensure that health services were delivered with
    only minimal disruption throughout the period of transition.
        For the first months of operation of the KIC Tribal Health Clinic,
    our doctors and support staff worked very efficiently together,
    managing to see a very high number of patients in comparison to the
    number of patients seen in the clinic the previous year for the same
    month. In dividing up the clinic operational funding, KIC was allocated
    58 percent of the prior year's funding to provide health care for
    Ketchikan residents, and SEARHC was allocated 42 percent of the funding
    to serve other Indians, yet in November 1997 the KIC Tribal Health
    Clinic saw 70 percent of the number of patients seen in November 1996.
    In December 1997 the KIC Tribal Health Clinic saw 64 percent of the
    number of patients seen in December 1996, and in the first five days of
    January 1998 the KIC Tribal Health Clinic saw 82 percent of the number
    of patients seen in the first five days of January 1997. KIC was aware
    that our clinic would most likely be required to provide health care
    for more than 58 percent of the total population but chose to take on
    that great task to keep our health care services close to our community
    and to be able to tailor our health programs to local needs.
        Our pharmacist has performed well beyond the call of duty to
    provide services to the Ketchikan patients. Due to the uncertainty
    caused by the legislation, KIC has not been able to hire a second
    pharmacist. During an eighteen day test period in December and January
    the KIC Tribal Health Clinic pharmacist filled 60 percent of the number
    of prescriptions filled in the same time period the previous year by
    three pharmacists. The KIC Tribal Health Clinic pharmacist experienced
    1,481 compared to 818 patient encounters per pharmacist the previous
    year.
        Health Objectives for Fiscal Year 1999.--We seek early assurance
    that our continued operation of our health clinic is not disrupted or
    made uncertain by changes in the law. We hope to remove, as soon as
    possible, the uncertain, temporary nature of KIC's health service
    delivery so that quality health services are not disrupted, so that
    funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998 are not wasted on startup and
    shut down, and so that KIC can attract and retain qualified long-term
    personnel to our clinic operations. We want quickly to turn to devoting
    our full energies and focus to financing and constructing our new
    clinic facility as soon as possible and to securing a fairer share of
    the available IHS services dollars on a per patient basis.
        IHS Services Funding.--KIC endorses the testimony of other Tribes
    which decries the Clinton Administration's flat-line spending request
    for Indian health services for fiscal year 1999. We cannot maintain the
    same level of services next year with the same amount of service
    dollars we received in fiscal year 1998. Inflationary and other cost
    increases will make today's dollar worth less next year and we will, as
    a result, have to cut back our health services to our members. We
    implore this Subcommittee to add funds to the Administration's request
    for health services.
        BIA Contract Support Funds.--We share the concern of other Tribes
    that settlement of the Ramah Navajo class action suit will result in a
    court judgment that is hollow. As you know, KIC was part of the class
    of plaintiffs who were joined by the Court in the case seeking damages
    for administrative costs that the BIA unlawfully refused to pay during
    the years 1989 through 1993. We are alarmed by reports that the Justice
    Department, acting as the lawyers for the Interior Department, has
    indicated it will seek to have the Judgment Fund reimbursed by Interior
    appropriations for any damages paid to the Tribes. This would be
    completely unfair to us. It would mean that the United States settles a
    case, agrees to pay damages approved by a judge, and then later offsets
    that payment of damages to Tribes with a reduction in other funds due
    the Tribes. KIC requests that the Subcommittee instruct the Interior
    Department in fiscal year 1999 bill language to not permit any
    reduction in its discretionary funding to be made in order to satisfy
    any judgment duly entered in a court of law regarding the Ramah case.
        Conclusion.--We thank you for this opportunity to provide
    testimony. Please do not hesitate to let me or my staff know if we can
    provide any further information of value to the Subcommittee in its
    deliberations
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Curtis Zunigha, Chief, Tribal Council, Delaware
                                Tribe of Indians
        The Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribal
    government located in eastern Oklahoma, appreciates this opportunity to
    provide written testimony to this Subcommittee on the President's
    budget request for fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of the
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
        We wish to address two main points. First, we want, in the
    strongest terms, to urge the Subcommittee to adopt bill language which
    would remove confusion created by an overly-broad fiscal year 1992
    appropriations proviso that has placed our Tribe's authority to fully
    administer federally-funded programs in some jeopardy. And second, we
    want to thank this Subcommittee and the Congress for fully funding the
    ``new tribes'' account in fiscal year 1998. Your actions have had a
    direct and positive impact on our Tribe. We have begun to accomplish
    many things with our first year funding and ask that you fund the full
    amount requested for the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes'' account which
    will provide us with our second of three years of funding.
                  background on the delaware tribe of indians
        The Delaware Tribe of Indians has had a long and rich history of
    relations with the United States. In 1778, the Delaware became the
    first tribe to be granted recognition by the United States. By 1866,
    most of the Delawares had moved from the northeastern U.S. to Kansas.
    In 1866 our ancestors signed a treaty providing for their removal to
    Oklahoma. Since 1866, the Delaware Tribe of Indians have continuously
    maintained an elected tribal government in Bartlesville, Oklahoma and
    engaged in direct, government-to-government relations with the United
    States.
        In the early 1970's, the Delaware became one of the first tribes to
    contract with the BIA and the Indian Health Service, assuming tribal
    administration of programs previously run by Federal bureaucrats. This
    tribal initiative was in direct response to President Nixon's call for
    Indian self-determination.
        In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court expressly affirmed that the Delaware
    Tribe of Indians of eastern Oklahoma has ``* * * maintained a distinct
    group identity, and they are today, a federally recognized tribe.''
    Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73, 77 (1977). In
    the Ford Administration's brief, Interior Secretary Kleppe likewise
    declared that the Delaware Tribe of Indians of eastern Oklahoma was a
    ``federally-recognized'' tribe.
        Nevertheless, in 1979, an acting BIA Deputy Commissioner in the
    Carter Administration issued a letter on behalf of the Cherokee Nation
    of Oklahoma purporting to end the Delaware Tribe of Indians'
    relationship with the United States. For the next 16 years, the BIA
    refused to resolve the confusion it had caused about the Delaware Tribe
    of Indians' status as a tribe.
        That uncertainty has now ended. We are relieved to report that in
    1996, after careful legal review by its Office of the Solicitor, the
    Interior Department finally resolved the matter by expressly
    reaffirming the Delaware Tribe of Indians (Eastern Oklahoma) as a
    federally-recognized Indian tribe.
        Nevertheless, some uncertainty lingers about the Delaware's
    authority to administer some federally-funded programs because of an
    overly-broad proviso added in 1991 by the conference committee to the
    fiscal year 1992 Interior appropriations Act.
                             bill proviso language
        In its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Administration has
    proposed bill language governing the BIA which would replace the
    ambiguous proviso to the fiscal year 1992 appropriations Act. The
    Department of the Interior's position is that the 1992 proviso was
    never intended to affect the Delaware. In addition, the Delaware Tribe
    contends that the proviso should have been considered to be effective
    only for fiscal year 1992. The ambiguity created by the 1992 proviso,
    however, continues to raise questions and cause unnecessary delays in
    the Delaware Tribe's efforts to administer our programs.
        The fiscal year 1992 proviso said that-- ``* * * until such time as
    legislation is enacted to the contrary, none of the funds appropriated
    in this or any other Act for the benefit of Indians residing within the
    jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shall be
    expended by other than the Cherokee Nation, nor shall any funds be used
    to take land into trust within the boundaries of the original Cherokee
    territory in Oklahoma without the consent of the Cherokee Nation.''
        Many Delaware members reside within the Delaware Tribe's service
    area which overlaps that of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. This is
    not unusual throughout Indian Country.
        In its proposed fiscal year 1993 bill, the Department recommended
    that Congress not include the fiscal year 1992 proviso. Congress
    agreed, and the proviso has not been reenacted in any of the
    appropriations Acts since 1992. As far as the Delaware Tribe is
    concerned, this should have ended the matter.
        Nevertheless, confusion continues to reign within the Department
    about whether the 1992 proviso is permanent law, and whether it applies
    to the Delaware Tribe. The legislative history of the proviso makes it
    clear that its sponsors intended it to resolve a dispute between the
    United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Nation of
    Oklahoma, by making the Cherokee Nation the only tribe that would
    receive Federal funding for Cherokee Indians in that area. The original
    Senate bill language, and all of the related floor and report language
    was concerned with the dispute between the Keetoowah Band of Cherokees
    and the Cherokee Nation. The record does not reflect any intention to
    restrict funding to the Delaware Tribe, nor does it even reference the
    Delaware Tribe at all.
        Continuing confusion about the meaning and impact of the 1992
    proviso could disrupt our Tribe's orderly administration of its
    federally-funded programs. Therefore, the Delaware Tribe of Indians
    strongly urges the Subcommittee to include language in the fiscal year
    1999 bill which conclusively and expressly repeals the 1992 proviso.\1\
    If this is not possible, we ask you to include bill language which
    conclusively and expressly exempts the Delaware Tribe of Indians from
    the 1992 proviso,\2\ or to include the bill language proposed by the
    Administration which would replace the 1992 proviso with a more
    narrowly drawn limitation.\3\ Any of these alternatives is to be
    preferred over the uncertainty that continues to be caused by the
    confusion surrounding the fiscal year 1992 proviso.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For example, we favor the following language: ``Provided
    further, That the sixth proviso under this head in Public Law 102-154,
    for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992 (105 Stat. 1004), is
    hereby repealed.''
        \2\ Alternative bill language exempting the Delaware Tribe of
    Indians could read as follows-- ``Provided further, That nothing in the
    sixth proviso under this head in Public Law 102-154, for the fiscal
    year ending September 30, 1992 (105 Stat. 1004), shall be construed to
    apply to the Delaware Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribe in
    eastern Oklahoma, or to affect in any way its eligibility to administer
    federal funds and programs for the benefit of its members.''
        \3\ The bill language proposed by the Administration is as
    follows--``Provided further, That the sixth proviso under this head in
    Public Law 102-154, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992 (105
    Stat. 1004), is hereby amended to read as follows: Provided further,
    That until such time as legislation is enacted to the contrary, no
    funds shall be used to take land into trust within the boundaries of
    the original Cherokee territory in Oklahoma without consultation with
    the Cherokee Nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ``new tribes'' funding
        In fiscal year 1998, the Congress appropriated the full amount of
    funds requested by the Administration for the ``new tribes'' account.
    The Delaware Tribe of Indians wishes to thank this Subcommittee for
    supporting the ``new tribes'' funding in fiscal year 1998, and asks
    that you fully fund the Administration's request for ``new tribes''
    funding in fiscal year 1999.
        Following its 1996 ruling which reaffirmed the status of the
    Delaware Tribe of Indians as a tribal government, the Administration
    sought ``new tribes'' funding for the Delaware after years of
    uncertainty that had disrupted our earlier funding. While we are not a
    ``new'' tribe, our status has only recently been reaffirmed and we thus
    qualify for funding under this account.
        Since enactment of the fiscal year 1998 Act, our Tribe has
    initiated plans to use the ``new tribes'' funding of $160,000 to revise
    our existing tribal constitution, establish core governmental and
    programmatic control systems, and administer service programs for the
    benefit of our members.
        The funds provided under the ``new tribes'' account in fiscal year
    1998 have had a direct and positive impact on our Tribe. We have begun
    to accomplish many things with our first year funding and ask that you
    fund the full amount requested for the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes''
    account which will provide us with our second year of funding as
    requested by the Department.
                                   conclusion
        We are proud of our government-to-government relationship with the
    United States. We are striving to run our tribal government and deliver
    tribal services in the most efficient manner possible. The fiscal year
    1992 proviso has raised unnecessary uncertainties which frustrate our
    efforts to maximize services to our members. We urge the Subcommittee
    to adopt bill language which would remove the confusion created by an
    overly-broad fiscal year 1992 appropriations proviso that has placed
    our Tribe's authority to fully administer federally-funded programs in
    some jeopardy. And we ask that you fund the full amount requested for
    the fiscal year 1999 ``new tribes'' account which provides essential
    funding to our tribal government. Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Edward K. Thomas, President, Central Council of
                   Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
                                  introduction
        Greetings from Alaska. My name is Edward K. Thomas, President of
    the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
    (Tlingit & Haida), a federally-recognized Indian tribe based in Juneau,
    Alaska. I have served as President of my Tribe since 1984.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations request for the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). My testimony will focus on four main
    areas of concern: indirect costs, Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA),
    welfare reform and funding for the Office of Special Trustee.
        Tlingit and Haida has 23,000 members and has been a self-governance
    Tribe since fiscal year 1993. We were among the first self-governance
    tribes in the Juneau Area, which covers nearly all of Alaska. We were
    the first Tribe to enter into a multi-agency agreement under Public Law
    103-477, which allows us to consolidate employment and training funding
    from various federal sources into one coordinated tribal program. Many
    of our Native communities are pockets of high unemployment and many of
    our individual members are quite poor. Many of our members live with
    conditions most Americans would find shocking.
                              1998 appropriations
        Let me begin by thanking Congress, and particularly this
    Subcommittee, for the support it gave to increased Indian funding in
    fiscal year 1998. That resulted in $757.4 million for the TPA account,
    an increase of a little more than one percent ($76.5 million) over the
    amount provided for the TPA account in fiscal year 1997. After fixed
    costs and special distributions necessary to bring each small and needy
    tribe up to a minimum floor of annual TPA funding of $160,000,
    approximately $23.6 million remains available as a general increase to
    the TPA account in the fiscal year 1998 Department of the Interior
    Appropriations Act.
        For far too long, small and needy tribes have had to ``make do''
    with funding levels too small to provide meaningful governmental
    services to their tribal members. In response, the 1994 Reorganization
    Task Force recommended that TPA increases be applied, as a priority, to
    bring small and needy tribes up to a minimum annual level of funding.
    The Reorganization Task Force determined that the minimum floor should
    be $160,000 per tribe in the Lower 48 states, and, in recognition of
    the cost differentials and challenges unique to Alaska, $200,000 per
    tribe in Alaska.
        Many small tribes have not had enough resources even to open a
    small office to conduct tribal business and provide much needed
    services to their members. While we remain puzzled why Congress
    overlooked the added costs associated with being located in Alaska, my
    Tribe does commend the Congress for making sure that these small and
    needy tribes for the first time obtained the minimum funding levels
    which many of us have sought for years. We would encourage you to apply
    any TPA increases in the fiscal year 1999 budget to ensure that small
    and needy tribes in Alaska are raised to a minimum of $200,000 per
    tribe.
                    indirect costs and the ramah navajo case
        The Ramah Navajo class action case is in the final stages of
    settlement. Our Tribe, like most other Tribes, was included by the
    court in the class of plaintiffs who sought damages for administrative
    costs that the BIA unlawfully refused to pay during the years 1989
    through 1993. The amounts of damages have been identified for each
    Tribe. But there is one major problem. The Justice Department, acting
    as the litigation counsel for DOI, has refused to promise that it will
    refrain from seeking to have the Judgment Fund reimbursed by DOI
    appropriations for any damages paid to the Tribes. This is the height
    of heavy-handed unfairness for the United States to admit in settlement
    that it had unlawfully withheld funds from Tribes, to tell the court
    that it has agreed to pay tribes for the funds they lost, and then to
    offset that payment with a reduction in other funds due the Tribes.
    Senators Campbell and Inouye have written to Attorney General Reno
    asking that she ensure that no reimbursement for Judgment Funds paid
    out to Tribes will be deducted from funds that would otherwise come to
    Tribes through DOI appropriations. We ask that you likewise instruct
    the DOI to not permit any reduction in its discretionary funding to be
    made in order to satisfy any judgment duly entered in a court of law.
    We suggest language be included in the general provisions of the bill
    as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
    funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to reimburse the
    Department of Justice for a judgment entered in the Ramah Navajo class
    action suit.''
                          fiscal year 1999 tpa funding
        Increases in the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) funding, and an
    equitable distribution of increases to the TPA account, are of extreme
    importance to my Tribe.
        Increases Are Needed.--While we thank you for providing increases
    in the past two fiscal years, they did not keep pace with even the low
    rate of inflation that we have enjoyed in these years. And the needs
    confronting our communities are so great, and the lack of basic
    services is so painfully obvious, that we can only ask that this
    Subcommittee make major TPA increases its top priority for fiscal year
    1999 appropriations.
        The American Indians and Alaska Natives residing within Alaska and
    the BIA Juneau Area are scattered over a huge territory of land that
    poses unique challenges for communication, governance, and the delivery
    of essential services. Many Indians and Natives in Alaska suffer from
    high rates of unemployment. Given the realities of weather and remote
    geography, the cost to provide basic governmental services is much
    higher in Alaska than in many other parts of America.
        The needs of our membership tax to the limit the meager resources
    of our tribal government. Our Tribe necessarily depends upon the
    appropriations provided by the United States. Most of our essential
    governmental services to our members are funded under the TPA account.
    This is why TPA funds, and an equitable distribution of increases to
    the TPA account, are of extreme importance to my Tribe.
        Increases Should Be Distributed Equitably.--My Tribe strongly
    objects to the short-term recommendation of the January 29, 1998, TPA
    Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. The TPA Task Force's
    recommended allocation of one-twelfth of the fiscal year 1998 TPA
    increase to each of the 12 BIA Area Offices, without any variation
    based on the relative need of tribes within each of those BIA Areas,
    will cause even more inequity in the BIA funding system. We ask that
    the Subcommittee take prompt action to urge the BIA to abandon this
    approach before it makes the fiscal year 1998 distribution. And we
    further request that the Subcommittee expressly require that the fiscal
    year 1999 allocation of any TPA increases be targeted to Tribes whose
    members have the greatest financial need as measured by rational
    standards.
        The numbers of Tribes and Indians, plus individual and tribal
    ``needs'' and conditions, vary tremendously from Area to Area. While
    our Juneau Area has fewer Indians and Natives within its jurisdiction
    than do many other BIA Areas, by nearly every known measure the Juneau
    Area has some of the ``neediest'' Indians in terms of low income
    levels, lack of access to employment and training opportunities, and
    the unavailability of basic services.
        The BIA has never implemented the 1994 Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal
    Reorganization Task Force's recommendation to establish a Standard
    Assessment Methodology by which to measure tribal needs based on
    rational and measurable standards. Nevertheless, even without having a
    well-developed, comprehensive Standard Assessment Methodology, there is
    readily available data on a national level that could have been used by
    the TPA Task Force as an alternative to arbitrarily dividing the
    increase by 12. Factors could be used, such as the number of tribes,
    unemployment rates, cost of living indexes, population, service
    delivery area, and so forth, incorporating readily available data, to
    create a simple allocation formula that begins to address the parity
    gap among tribes. Some or all of these factors could be given varying
    weights in preparing an allocation formula. One of the easiest to
    derive and perhaps best indicators of relative need are the
    unemployment statistics that are available for each Indian and Native
    community in the ``Indian Service Population and Labor Force
    Estimates'' maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
                                 welfare reform
        The 1995 Welfare Reform law provided an opportunity for the state
    of Alaska to enter into a cooperative agreement with my Tribe to
    provide Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to Alaska Natives
    in Southeast Alaska. This program invites states to provide matching
    money for the administration by Tribes of this program. Last year
    Alaska's governor requested some money (about half of what is needed)
    from the legislature and the legislature funded about half of what the
    governor requested. This means that my Tribe and other regional Native
    organizations were not able to manage a ``Native'' TANF in Alaska this
    past year. Our Native people are once again left out of opportunities
    of getting referred to jobs through these programs and left out of
    training opportunities associated with the ``welfare-to-work''
    initiatives.
        I am requesting that a $2 million pilot program be set up in states
    where the state government is unwilling to work constructively with
    Tribes. In this way, funds appropriated through the Department of the
    Interior could be passed on to Tribes to be used as the administrative
    match for Welfare Reform programs. This would go a long way to bridging
    the gap between Tribes and states on Welfare Reform.
              additional funding for the office of special trustee
        The Interior Secretary has endorsed the latest version of the
    strategic plan of the DOI Special Trustee for Indians. My Tribe fully
    supports the Secretary's $42 million request for that Office. Although
    we feel there is a need for more funding to do the job properly, the
    $8.1 million added to last year's amount is a good start at the very
    important job of managing tribal assets held in trust by the
    Department. It is in everyone's best interest to get this very
    important issue behind us.
        Although the efforts of the Office of the Special Trustee are very
    important, it is equally important that increased funding for his
    efforts are not made at the expense of other important BIA and tribal
    programs.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee,
    for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of Central
    Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and its
    citizens. I wish you well as you do your work in this Congress and I
    hope my comments are useful as you decide on these very important
    issues.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Pearl Capoeman-Baller, President, Quinault Indian
                                     Nation
          summary--quinault indian nation requests: tribal priorities
    Quinault Cultural Preservation Center (QCPC) +$300,000 National Park
            Service: Historic Preservation Fund
        The Nation supports the Administration's proposed $25 million for
    grants to states, territories and Tribes. We renew our request to fund
    construction and development of a Quinault Cultural Preservation Center
    and Museum to preserve the cultural heritage of the Quinault people--a
    nation which consists of 7 tribes. Through Self-Governance funding, a
    small cultural program was developed, however, a facility is needed to
    properly preserve, restore, catalogue and display artifacts and family
    heirlooms and other archeological findings. Request a $300,000 earmark.
    Senior Citizens Assisted-Living Program +250,000 IHS--Community Health
            Program
        As our elderly population increases, many of our senior citizens
    are not receiving proper nutritional and health care. Our existing
    Public Health/Community Health Program is unable to provide continuous
    care due to lack of staffing and equipment and supplies. We are in
    urgent need of 24-hour care for seniors in both villages on the
    Reservation. We are requesting an earmark of $250,000 initial funding
    and $150,000 on a recurring basis to establish a senior citizens
    assisted-living program in the villages of Queets and Taholah.
                  requests and recommendations: national level
    BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS--Land Consolidation Project
        We support the Indian Land Consolidation Project, proposed by the
    Department at an initial funding level of $10 million. This program is
    designed to address one of the crucial problems facing Indian Country
    and the Department--consolidation of fractionated interests in Indian
    lands. The Secretary and the Special Trustee both have pointed to this
    problem as one where the costs to the government to not address the
    problem greatly outweighs the cost to fix it. The Quinault Reservation
    and the Quinault government is one of the worst examples of the
    management and financial nightmare created by this problem. We urge the
    Committee to fund this pilot project at the full amount requested.
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE--Restore Indian Self-Determination Fund +$7.5
            million
        No new funding for contract support costs has been provided in
    fiscal year 1999, thereby eliminating support for new and expanded
    Public Law 93-638 contracting and compacting. With Contract Support
    Costs shortfall of over $110 million, the rights of tribes to operate
    programs provided for the benefit of their members will never be
    realized. Congress should restore the 7.5 million Indian Self-
    Determination Fund in the 1999 IHS Budget.
    Provide Funding for Mandatory and Inflationary Cost Increases +$140
            million
        IHS has now had to absorb over $700 million in unfunded mandatory
    cost increases over the past seven years. Congress should provide IHS
    with an additional $140 million for mandatory and inflationary cost
    increases to maintain current services in fiscal year 1999.
    Restore Maintenance and Improvement Funds +14.2 million
        The Administration has proposed a $4.2 million cut in Maintenance
    and Improvement funds. Decreased funding in this area will certainly
    jeopardize the investments in health care facilities nationwide. It is
    imperative that the $4.2 million proposed cut be restored, and an
    additional $10 million be added to address the backlog of maintenance
    and improvement projects.
                   quinault indian nation: tribal priorities
    BIA SELF-GOVERNANCE: Tribal Priority Allocations +$500,000 Public
            Safety and Justice: Law Enforcement
        Nation-wide, current funding levels only provide marginal levels of
    law enforcement services. The Quinault Nation supports the joint
    initiatives undertaken by the Office of Tribal Justice in the
    Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The additional
    funds will help address community law enforcement needs. However, these
    services must include protection of reservation natural resources
    because they are the foundation of our economy and the cultural
    identity of our people and our sovereign status derive in large part
    from the land.
    BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: Construction: Courthouse Facility +$100,000
        The Quinault Indian Nation court house has sustained considerable
    damage in recent storms on the coast this past winter. Our court staff
    have been working in cramped quarters and now they must work under
    leaking roofs, falling ceilings and unstable flooring. We are
    requesting partial funding of $100,000 for construction of a new court
    house facility.
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: Historic Preservation Fund +$300,000 Quinault
            Cultural Preservation Center (QCPC)
        We support the ``Save America's Treasures'' proposed program and
    request a $300,000 earmark out of that fund to construct a Quinault
    Cultural Preservation Center and Museum.
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Community Health Programs +$250,000 Senior
            Citizens Assisted Living Program
        Our Seniors are in urgent need of 24-hour care in both villages on
    the Quinault Reservation. We request an earmark of $250,000 initial
    funding and $150,000 on a recurring basis to establish a senior
    citizens assisted-living program in the villages of Queets and Taholah.
    BIA Self-Governance--Tribal Priority Allocations:
        Support for an increase in the total TPA appropriation to ensure
    that tribal programs are not diminished. Each year, the actual dollars
    available to TPA has been decreased and inflationary costs have not
    been considered. In a time of economic disparity between rural areas
    and urban areas, the failure to keep pace with the actual funding needs
    has caused a reduction in tribal services for all tribes.
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Fund Inflationary Costs +$15 million
        Last year, the IHS received only a 2.2 percent increase over 1997
    resulting in over $100 million in mandatory costs being unfunded. In
    fiscal year 1997, Congress funded less than 50 percent of mandatory pay
    increases, and no unavoidable inflationary cost increases, requiring
    the Agency to absorb an additional $50 million. During fiscal year
    1999, the proposed budget is only 1 percent over fiscal year 1998. The
    repeated absorption of costs due to unfunded inflationary costs have
    eroded tribal and agency budgets to the point of jeopardizing medical
    care provided through Indian Health programs.
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: Fund Mandatory Costs +$125 million
        The Administration has proposed a flat budget for the Indian Health
    Service (IHS) for fiscal year 1999. As a result every health program
    faces a shortage of funds to covering mandatory, inflationary cost and
    population growth increases. In the Northwest, where Indian health
    programs must purchase all inpatient and specialty care from private
    providers, it is particularly important that inflationary cost
    increases for the Contract Health Services program be funded. In past
    years, deferred medical and dental services in the Northwest have been
    as much as $4 million annually. In order to prevent further erosion of
    health services, we request an increase of $125 million to fund
    mandatory costs in fiscal year 1999.
    Elevation of the Indian Health Service Director
        Earlier this year, S. 1770 was introduced by the Senator John
    McCain. This bill would elevate the Director of the Indian Health
    Service to the Assistant Secretary level within the Department of
    Health and Human Services. The Indian Health Service is the largest
    direct health care provider within the Department. Tribes look to the
    Director of Indian Health Service to insure that issues unique to
    Indian Country are taken into consideration when Department policy and
    regulations are developed. To do this effectively, the Director needs
    to report directly to the Secretary and serve on the top policy making
    level within the Department.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Robert Guenthardt, Chairman, Little River Band of
                           Ottawa Indians of Michigan
        This testimony provides the views of the Little River Band of
    Ottawa Indians of Michigan on the President's Budget Request for fiscal
    year 1999 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
    Service.
        The Little River Ottawa is a relatively small Tribe which was
    restored and reaffirmed by Congress just three and a half year ago.
    Because the Tribe's restoration Act was passed in September of 1994,
    the Tribe did not receive funding in fiscal year 1995. Our first BIA
    funding was received in fiscal year 1996 under the ``new tribes''
    program. Unfortunately, because of a misunderstanding when the BIA made
    its first budget estimate for my Tribe, we have been dramatically
    underfunded in comparison to other Tribes in the Minneapolis Area,
    including two Michigan Tribe which received federal recognition when we
    did. This funding inequity has hindered the Little River Ottawa Tribe's
    ability to fulfill the purposes of the ``new tribes'' program and, if
    it continues, will seriously limit our ability to sustain even existing
    programs, and that is the problem we are addressing today. We ask for
    this Subcommittee's assistance in making sure the BIA corrects this
    problem in fiscal year 1999. Specifically, we request that the
    Committee either provide an add-on of $413,000 to the fiscal year 1998
    enacted level or $355,500 to the fiscal year 1999 proposed amount for
    the Tribe under the TPA account, or that the Committee direct the BIA
    to make this money available to the Tribe out of regular TPA funding.
        The Little River Ottawa Band is the political successor to nine
    bands of the Grand River Ottawa people whose village sites were located
    in what is now a nine-county area in Western Michigan. At one time,
    these Grand River bands had reservations in the two northernmost
    counties of tribal territory, namely Manistee and Mason. Now about 500
    of the tribe's members currently reside in these two counties. Other
    tribal members reside in urban areas, including Grand Rapids, Detroit
    and Lansing. Most tribal members, however, continue to live near
    traditional village sites in the nine-county area. Our membership now
    totals 2,200. Unfortunately, when the BIA first contacted the Tribe to
    get enrollment numbers for appropriations planning, tribal officials
    misunderstood the nature of the request and provided the BIA with the
    number of files then-approved, rather than projected enrollment, was
    provided. As a result of this misunderstanding--confusion about
    ``actual'' enrollment versus ``projected'' enrollment--the Tribe's
    appropriations were based on an enrollment of 650. This created a
    funding inequity from which the Tribe is only beginning to recover. In
    1996, the Tribe received $330,000 while Little Traverse and Pokagon,
    which have enrollments only slightly higher than Little River, received
    $1.2 million and $1.3 million respectively.
        In fiscal year 1997, the Tribe's funding level was adjusted upwards
    but as the following table indicates, in fiscal year 1998 the Tribe is
    still funded at a rate significantly lower than similarly situated
    Tribes in Michigan.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of                      Amount per
                                  Tribe                                   members      Appropriation      member
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Little River....................................................           2,200        $671,000            $305
    Little Traverse Band............................................           2,428       1,242,000             511
    Pokagon Potawatomi..............................................           2,700       1,330,000             492
    Grand Traverse Band.............................................           2,930       1,640,000             560
    Bay Mills Community.............................................           1,143         723,000             632
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Because of compacting problems with the State of Michigan, of the
    five tribes listed in the table, only Bay Mills and Grand Traverse are
    conducting gaming. Thus, Little River, like Little Traverse and
    Pokagon, does not have gaming revenues to supplement federal
    appropriations for tribal programs for its members.
        Due to limited funding, the Tribe's recruitment of staff and
    program development was slowed. With the federal funds it has received,
    the Tribe has now hired a minimal core staff and has developed several
    programs to address the service needs of tribal members. The Tribe has
    established its Tribal Court, its governmental offices, a health clinic
    and a community center and has begun to reacquire land within its
    historic Reservations. Unfortunately, this progress may be short-lived.
    Unless we have a funding increase of $413,000 in fiscal year 1999, the
    Tribe will have to cut back or eliminate most of its programs.
        Under a court-ordered settlement, the Tribe will also begin
    negotiations to assume management responsibility for its reserved
    Treaty fishing and hunting resources. The Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty
    Fishery Management Authority (COTFMA) will be requesting additional
    funding to allow the Little River Ottawa to have access to the same
    resources as other treaty fishing Tribes.
        To bring Little River up to a funding level comparable to that of
    the other Tribes in the Minneapolis Area, including the Tribes who were
    also restored in 1994, would require an additional $413,000. Without
    this funding increase we will have to eliminate the following programs:
    child welfare services ($10,800), social services ($48,360), higher
    education grants and GED completion programs for 60 students
    ($134,000), vocational education ($14,500), Johnson-O'Malley supplement
    for 140 children ($40,000), housing improvement for over 100 households
    ($70,000), Court Services ($50,400) and Law Enforcement ($61,249).
    Without an increase, the Tribe will be faced with the Hobson's choice
    of either eliminating all these critical services to Tribe members or
    eliminating certain programs and some of the 15 BIA-funded staff
    positions.
        The Tribe believes this situation has reached a critical state. In
    fact, and I do not say this lightly, our very survival as a tribal
    government depends upon adequate funding provided to us by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs from appropriations made by the Congress. We thank
    you for any help you can offer to ensure that our funding needs in
    fiscal year 1999 will be met.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to bring this important matter
    to the attention of the Members of the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of David Old Bear, Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, Sac
                    and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
    Introduction
        Distinguished members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee,
    thank you for giving our tribe the opportunity to present testimony
    regarding the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 as it
    relates to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. My
    name is David Old Bear Sr. In addition, I represent the Meskwaki
    Nation, more commonly recognized by the federal government as the Sac
    and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. Our tribe is located on the
    Meskwaki Indian Settlement in Tama County, in the State of Iowa. Our
    tribe does not reside on a reservation but on land that our tribe has
    purchased through the years since 1857. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
    has placed our land into trust status.
    The Presidents Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the Bureau of Indian
            Affairs
        The President's fiscal year 1999 budget calls for a budget increase
    of approximately $142.1 million over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level
    for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We believe that the President's
    request has taken a very positive step in reversing the decline in
    funding for Indian programs that has been experienced since fiscal year
    1996.
        Of particular interest to us are the Tribal Priorities Allocations
    (TPA). The Administrations budget includes a $34 million increase over
    fiscal year 1998. It does not include a general increase for TPA. The
    bulk of increases contained are for supporting the bureau's goal to
    increase tribal operations of programs, to increase contract support
    funds for ongoing contracts, and other new initiatives. Our tribe
    depends on the Tribal Priorities Allocation to support our on-going
    services at the tribal level for programs such as housing, road
    maintenance, education, child welfare, and other tribal government
    services. TPA gives us the flexibility to prioritize funds among these
    programs according to our critical needs. The drastic cuts to the TPA
    in fiscal year 1996 severely affected our tribal programs and services
    as the allocations to our tribe were already at a funding level that
    was inadequate to meet our needs. Our tribe has not had the opportunity
    to benefit from other programs included in the TPA such as law
    enforcement, general assistance, and economic development. Continued
    decreases in TPA will only assure that we never will see the benefits
    available from these programs and will serve to decrease the minimal
    benefits that we enjoy now. We urge Congress to support the Presidents
    requested TPA increase beyond its current enacted level.
        Another major concern for our tribe is in the area of BIA
    Construction funding. The President's budget request includes a $27
    million increase over that enacted in fiscal year 1998. Over half of
    the requested funding is for education construction. In all, $37.4
    million is requested to complete three (3) facilities on the approved
    priority list. Our Sac and Fox Settlement School is one of these
    schools. Our original facility that was built in 1937 has structural
    and code deficiencies that threaten student safety and are not adequate
    to handle our rising student enrollment and it is not conducive to
    learning. Funding for site preparation was appropriated in fiscal year
    1998. Appropriations in fiscal year 1999 to complete the construction
    and will bring closure to our 29 year quest to provide a safe, unique
    and effective educational experience for our children. We also realize
    that we are not the only tribe in the country who has the need for
    educational facilities and urge Congress to support the President's
    request for BIA construction projects.
        In addition, in conjunction with the funding for Construction
    funding for educational facilities we support the increase of $26.5
    million over fiscal year 1998 for BIA School Operations. The education
    of our children is dependent on funding from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. The increases in student population in the bureau School
    system coupled with decreases or no increases in funding drastically
    impact the quality of education that can be offered at schools such as
    ours. Our funding level is already at approximately half of the
    national average per pupil expenditure. We urge Congress to join the
    Administration in its commitment to address the educational needs of
    tribes and support the President's request for fiscal year 1999 for all
    Indian Educational programs.
        This concludes the testimonial for the Sac and Fox Tribe of the
    Mississippi in Iowa.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Gerald J. Jones, Tribal Chairman, Port Gamble
                                S'Klallam Tribe
    Summary of Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal Priorities
        Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds.--Request: $420,000 be added
    for implementation of the U.S. v. Washington shellfish decision and for
    salmon recovery efforts necessitated by Endangered Species Act listing
    of salmon runs.
        Law Enforcement.--Request: $240,000 be added to fund additional
    police protection and to fund planning for a tribal jail facility.
        Indirect Cost Funds.--Fully fund the BIA and IHS Contract Support
    pool for funding tribal Indirect Costs, as required by law.
        Indian Tribal Justice Act Appropriation.--Appropriate the funds
    authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993.
    Introduction
        As Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe from Washington
    State, I am submitting written testimony on behalf of my fellow elected
    Tribal Council members and on behalf of our people. We appreciate this
    opportunity to present testimony for the record on the fiscal year 1999
    budgets of the BIA and IHS.
        justification of port gamble s'klallam priorities: tribal level
        Shellfish and Endangered Species Funds.--We are requesting $420,000
    be added for the Tribe to implement the recent U.S. v. Washington
    shellfish decision and the salmon recovery efforts necessitated by
    Endangered Species Act listing of salmon runs.
        Early this year, the Tribe's treaty right to harvest shellfish was
    reaffirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Tribe
    still cannot exercise this right unless it provides for the management
    and protection of the shellfish resource. The court decision requires
    the Tribe to collect and analyze data, conduct resource assessments,
    take measures to ensure the protection of public health and develop
    management plans with State agencies and private tideland owners.
        The Tribe now has the opportunity to utilize many species of
    shellfish, including deep-water animals such as crab, shrimp, and
    geoduck. Effectively managing these ``new'' shellfish resources, while
    providing for their protection, will require additional technical
    expertise. The additional shellfisheries will also require expanded
    enforcement efforts and capability. The opportunity is also available
    for the enhancement of tidelands to increase shellfish production. This
    will benefit both Indians and non-Indians.
        The Tribe cannot take advantage of the opportunity to harvest
    treaty resources unless it meets the court's requirements and it can't
    meet the requirements without funding assistance from Congress. The
    Tribe has imposed a tax on the harvest of shellfish to fund a skeletal
    harvest program. This tax provides about $130,000 per year. This tax
    base cannot increase without opening new harvest opportunities. It is a
    ``Catch-22'' situation for the Tribe.
        Of equal concern, two species of salmon in our treaty area were
    just listed as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    The ESA listing will have broad implications for tribal and non-tribal
    management of salmon. As co-managers of the salmon resource, the Tribe
    wants to be involved and is legally required to be involved in the
    development and implementation of plans to protect and recover
    depressed stocks of salmon. Unfortunately, the Tribe has virtually no
    tax base to support these activities because there can be no harvest of
    these species.
        Continuation of the Tribe's salmon management program and the
    additional requirements of both the shellfish decision and the ESA
    recovery planning efforts require funding. A shellfish biologist,
    salmon biologist with a background in ESA issues, three technicians and
    the support services and equipment needed to carry out our duties under
    the law will require an additional $420,000. We will continue to
    contribute the proceeds from our harvest tax to the program. We are
    asking the Congress to fulfill the United States' trust responsibility
    for these treaty resources by providing us a chance to assist in the
    protection and recovery of our precious natural resources.
        We also request your support of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission Request for Fisheries and Shellfish Programs.
        Law Enforcement.--We are requesting $240,000 be added to fund basic
    police protection and to fund planning for a tribal jail facility.
        Our community has been confronted with a number of serious, new
    crime issues over the past couple of years. The Tribe has launched a
    war on illegal drugs and against gang violence. These efforts have been
    undertaken in cooperation with local and federal law enforcement
    agencies. However, the Tribe continues to have a chronic shortage in
    police protection because there is not enough funding to provide
    salaries and equipment.
        Our goal is simple: to provide 24 hour police coverage on the
    reservation. This requires a minimum of six officers. We are requesting
    $160,000 of the $240,000 to fund additional officers, their equipment
    and training.
        The Tribe currently contracts with neighboring counties for jail
    facilities. The nearest juvenile detention facility, an hour drive from
    the reservation, is filled to capacity most of the time. Adult jail
    facilities are frequently full as well, posing a safety threat to our
    police officers and to the community. This facility could provide jail
    services to six area tribes, increase employment and generate revenue
    by renting jail space to local jurisdictions. The Tribe would like to
    begin the process of planning a tribal jail. We are requesting the
    remaining $80,000 for the costs associated with this planning effort.
        Indirect Cost Funds.--We are requesting that Congress fully fund
    the BIA and IHS Contract Support pool for funding tribal Indirect
    Costs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs refuses to request full funding
    even though payment of full Contract Support is required by statute and
    has been ordered by the court in Ramah Navajo v. Lujan. As a Self-
    Governance Tribe, we have assumed the responsibility to deliver
    governmental services directly to the people we serve. Self-Governance
    been a dramatic success on our reservation. The Tribe's management of
    tribal programs has resulted in considerable cost savings, allowing
    Tribal priorities to be more fully addressed.
        The Indirect Cost (overhead) dollars that enable the Tribe to
    provide these services are critical to the economic stability of the
    Tribe. Each Tribe's Indirect Cost agreements must be approved by the
    Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. The costs are
    independently and rigorously audited each year.
        For the past five years, the federal government has not fulfilled
    its legal obligation to fully fund the Tribe's Indirect Costs. We had
    nearly twenty-five percent of our overhead costs in the BIA cut in
    1997. When our indirect costs are cut, we are forced, by the formula,
    to cut direct services to Tribal members. The gains we have achieved
    through Self-Governance are being eroded by this lack of funding. Our
    Tribe will be making cuts in already underfunded programs including
    daycare, education and senior citizen housing. Our food bank and
    emergency shelter programs face elimination.
        This is no way to run a government or a business. We must have a
    stable base in order to properly serve our people. This means stable
    funding of overhead costs. There is not one contractor for the federal
    government that can remain in business if their overhead costs are not
    covered. Neither can Tribes.
        Indian Tribal Justice Act Appropriation.--The Indian Tribal Justice
    Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. Four years later, Congress has
    still not appropriated the funds authorized under the Act. We urge this
    Congress to do so.
        Congress made specific findings in section 2 of the law that, (1)
    The United States has a trust responsibility to protect the sovereignty
    of each tribal government, (2) That ``* * * tribal justice systems are
    an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
    for ensuring public health and safety * * *'' and (3) That tribal
    justice systems are inadequately funded.
        The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is proud of its court's ability to
    provide high quality justice. However, tribal courts are constantly
    under attack by critics who believe that individual civil rights are
    compromised in tribal justice systems. While we see no evidence of this
    in our court, a chronic lack of funding in our court and in all tribal
    courts hampers the efforts of tribal governments to provide all the
    necessary judicial services to their people.
        Our tribal enforcement and justice officials work in concert with
    federal and state law enforcement, prosecutors and courts to address
    the inter-jurisdictional problems associated with enforcement of child
    abuse, drug crimes, and child support on the Reservation. This work
    requires having personnel available on nights and on weekends as well
    as the during the work week. The court hears cases in twenty subject
    matter areas including criminal, civil, traffic, child welfare,
    juvenile, domestic violence, hunting, fishing, housing, and adult
    protection.
        Like all courts, ours requires a judge, prosecutor, Court
    Administrator, court clerk, court compliance officer and support staff.
    The court facilities require space and equipment for the confidential
    work of the court which can't be shared by other tribal departments. We
    are nearly two hours from the nearest law library and must have an
    updated reference base including internet access located on site for
    the court's use. The court must also provide an effective appellate
    system to ensure due process.
        The Indian Tribal Justice Act was enacted to address precisely
    these basic needs. It is imperative that Congress appropriate funds for
    the Indian Tribal Justice Act.
        We also request your support for the Northwest Intertribal Court
    System request for funds. As members of this consortium, our Court
    funds depend directly on the appropriation for NICS.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Eugene ``Bugger'' McArthur, Tribal Chairman,
                      White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians
        Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to provide the Committee
    an assessment of the challenges faced by the People of White Earth and
    to share with you our views about the overall needs in Indian country
    and, specifically, the needs of the White Earth Band.
                      white earth cadastral survey project
        I begin my testimony on a seemingly small, but important matter.
        A Cadastral Survey Project Office was established on the White
    Earth Reservation in January 1985 in order to survey and monument the
    land boundaries and corners of the Reservation. The purpose of this
    project was to help the Band gain a clear picture of the our land
    holdings so that we can most effectively utilize its cultural, economic
    and natural resources.
        From 1984 until 1995, the BIA had funded this office through the
    Minneapolis Area Office land survey budget. In 1995, the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, the White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians and the Bureau
    of Land Management entered into a tripartite agreement in which each
    party agreed to dedicate resources to continue the work of the White
    Earth Cadastral Survey Office.
        The funding for this agreement was shared accordingly:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Band           BIA           BLM
                            Fiscal year                          contribution  contribution  contribution    Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1995.......................................................      $38,000       $29,000   ............    $67,000
    1996.......................................................       50,000        18,000   ............     68,000
    1997.......................................................       14,000        28,500       $38,000      80,500
    1998.......................................................       85,000   ............  ............     85,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am sharing with you the history of this agreement, because this
    fiscal year the Bureau did not include any funding for this project for
    fiscal year 1998.
        While we have decided to maintain this program during fiscal year
    1998 by expending Band funds, I respectfully request that the Committee
    provide the Bureau of Indian Affairs the necessary funding to complete
    this project, or insert language in the Committee Report directing the
    Bureau to keeps its agreement with the Band by continuing to fund the
    Survey Office until the work is completed.
                           justice and public safety
        The most pressing threat to our children's future is the
    intolerable level of violence that Indian people deal with on a daily
    basis. Too many of us, young and old alike, are being injured by
    violence and domestic abuse. Many of our children face the threat of
    violent death at the hands of a family member or as the result of a
    family feud.
        While statistics indicate that the overall violent crime rate has
    dropped and the national murder rate is down 22 percent, murders in
    Indian country have increased 87 percent.
        Tribal, local and national law enforcement agencies correctly
    attribute the primary cause of this rise in violent crime in Indian
    country to inadequate law enforcement funding.
        Through the help of a $1 million grant from the Justice
    Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS),
    White Earth has formed its own police force. Additionally, the Tribal
    Council has recently enacted public safety codes, and we have
    established an independent court. This combination of law enforcement
    and proper justice under the law is a gigantic step forward for our
    people and our sovereignty; however, the Congress needs to do its part
    to stem the growing tide of crime and lawlessness in Indian country.
        So far, Congress has failed to appropriate any monies to implement
    the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993. As you know, this Act authorized
    the appropriation of $58.4 million to help tribes fund tribal courts.
    The Administration's budget for fiscal year 1999 includes $11.2 million
    under BIA, and $10 million under the Department of Justice, to help
    tribes establish and operate Indian tribal courts. While we laud this
    initiative, I hope you will fund this program to the extent authorized
    by the Indian Tribal Justice Act.
                             indian health service
        There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the alarming degree of
    sickness and disease in Indian country is not acceptable. Our people
    are simply not receiving adequate health care.
        Neither past Congressional appropriations, nor the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget request, comes close to funding the scope of
    work required for the Indian Health Service to markedly improve the
    health and well-being of Indian people.
        The President's request for $2.1 billion for IHS represents an
    increase in services funding of less than 1 percent over the current
    level--a miserable sum compared with the major increases in federal
    spending for non-Indian health care.
        Like all of Indian country, White Earth has an extraordinary number
    of Band members who do not have sewer and water systems. The Indian
    Health Service has simply not received the support in Congress for
    adequate sewer and water funding. I am very disappointed that this
    Administration has decreased sanitation facilities by $5 million, and I
    strongly urge you to increase funding for the construction of sewer and
    water facilities for our people.
                                circle of flight
        As you know, one of the most successful wetland and waterfowl
    protection/enhancement programs in the nation today is the tribally-
    managed Circle of Flight program.
        Funding of this program since 1991 has enabled tribes to implement
    36 different projects on 25 reservations in the Upper-Midwest.
        At White Earth, we have integrated the Circle of Flight and the
    Northern Tallgrass Prairie Restoration Projects to more effectively
    preserve essential prairie wildlife populations. The White Earth
    biology department has restored seven waterfowl ponds and cut back
    overgrown brush to promote grass and forbe regeneration.
        In addition, the Band has worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota to harvest and process
    native tallgrass from waterfowl productions areas, in order to reseed
    additional areas under tribal management.
        I urge you to fully fund Circle of Flight in fiscal year 1999 in
    the amount of $1,038,000.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Finally, we support the President's request to increase the
    Bureau's fiscal year 1999 budget by $142 million. However, the level of
    funding requested by the administration of $110 million for Indian
    Programs Operation is not adequate to meet the task of self-
    determination, which this administration has traditionally supported.
        We also laud the President's initiative to improve funding for BIA
    school construction. While this funding does not directly impact the
    reservations in the State of Minnesota, we nonetheless encourage the
    Committee to fund this increase.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Tom Miller, Administrator, Hannahville Indian
                            Community Tribal School
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies, I am Tom Miller, School Administrator for the
    Hannahville Indian School on the Hannahville Potawatomi Reservation in
    the upper peninsula of Michigan. On behalf of the Minneapolis Area
    Community Tribal Schools, Inc. (MACTS) I would like to thank you for
    allowing me to submit testimony in support of a $250,000 demonstration
    project through the Facility Management and Construction Center (FMCC),
    BIA, to provide facility inventory updates and plan preventative
    maintenance schedules through the Hannahville Indian Community Tribal
    School to the twelve Minneapolis area schools.
        Hannahville Indian School will distribute the services to the
    schools through the MACTS system. The MACTS organization has been in
    existence since 1984 assisting all Minneapolis Area tribal schools and
    up to fourteen tribal schools outside of the Minneapolis Area.
        In this demonstration program, MACTS will provide technical
    assistance to the twelve Minneapolis Area Tribal Schools. The technical
    assistance will be in the areas of Facility Updating and Planned
    Maintenance Scheduling. Funding would be directed from Operation and
    Maintenance funds within the Facility and Construction Center (FMCC)
    through the Minneapolis Area Facility office.
        In the past, the schools have contributed funding for MACTS to
    provide partial services but there is a need for additional funding so
    that complete services can be implemented.
        Currently, the FMCC has the responsibility to work with the Tribal
    Schools across the nation in updating facility inventories and
    developing Planned Maintenance Schedules. This service has not been
    provided. FMCC has recently expressed an interest to provide these
    services, but they have neither the expertise nor the experience of the
    MACTS system.
        The services are critical to the school maintenance and replacement
    process. It is our experience that planned preventive maintenance is
    often the most convenient area to overlook in managing educational
    facilities. In fact, this area is the single most important factor in
    maintaining a quality facility and extending the life of the building.
    It's a simple fact of ``pay me a little now or pay me a lot later.''
        The facility inventories of each specific facility must be accurate
    and correct if the school is to generate the full amount of operation
    and maintenance funding. Each facility director will be trained on how
    to update his own inventory and how to access the FACCOM system for
    validation.
        With an accurate facility inventory, the planned maintenance
    schedule can be developed and made site-specific. This schedule is
    crucial in allowing the schools to plan and budget for the maintenance
    of their buildings. Both major and minor repairs and maintenance items
    can be planned and not just reacted to, as is done in many of the
    schools. The nature of the plan is to ``spend a little now'' to
    maintain the buildings properly and save the schools from ``paying a
    lot later'' due to improper planned maintenance schedules.
        This allows the schools to effectively plan for building
    replacement at the end of the life of the building. The BIA can use the
    information generated by these plans to budget for the eventual
    replacement of these schools. Also, it will allow Congress access to
    accurate information about the state of facilities in the Minneapolis
    Area schools. The schools and MACTS organization will be linked to FMCC
    and OIEP by computer for timely information transfer.
        The schools now receive inadequate maintenance dollars from the O&M
    program of the FMCC based on an incomplete inventory of the facility.
    MACTS has developed a very complete and more effective inventory method
    that has the effect of demonstrating an accurate and larger usable
    square footage upon which reimbursement is awarded. This has resulted
    in increased funding for preventative maintenance. Not surprisingly,
    the prospect of increased funding has brought resistance from FMCC.
        But this resistance is short-sighted. Without adequate funding for
    preventive maintenance, along with timely Improvement and Repair
    Projects, there will be more costly repairs and premature replacement
    not far down the road. Preventive maintenance is by far the highest
    value for the dollar.
        And most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this is not about dollars.
    Poorly maintained buildings have a real and negative effect on
    education.
        We have formally requested FMCC to allow MACTS to provide this
    service. They agree that the service is needed and that it would
    unquestionably help the schools. However, they need direction from
    Congress to initiate a demonstration program.
        This demonstration program will allow the schools in the MACTS
    system to better prioritize educational spending, putting adequate
    maintenance at the top of the list.
        Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me this opportunity to
    submit testimony for the hearings record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Yvonne Novack, NIEA President, National Indian
                             Education Association
        The National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the oldest
    national organization representing the education concerns of over 3,000
    American Indian and Alaska Native educators, school administrators,
    teachers, parents, and students, is pleased to submit this statement on
    the President's fiscal year 1999 budget as it affects Indian education.
    NIEA has an elected board of 12 members who represent various Indian
    education programs and constituencies from throughout the nation. Every
    year, NIEA holds an annual convention which provides our members with
    an opportunity to network, share information, and hear from
    Congressional leaders and staff as well as federal government officials
    on policy and legislative initiatives impacting Indian education.
        The Federal government has a trust responsibility, both legally and
    morally, to provide educational services for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives. This responsibility has been affirmed through
    Presidential Executive Order, Supreme Court decisions, treaties,
    federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. NIEA firmly believes that
    this responsibility should be maintained by the Congress and the other
    branches of the Federal government.
        We commend President Clinton for a budget that emphasizes the
    importance of education for all citizens of this country, including the
    First Americans. There are programs within the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, such as funding for School Operations, school construction and
    repair and higher education which deserve consideration for possible
    increases. President Clinton has proposed several new education
    initiatives for fiscal year 1999 which will require a major investment
    of federal dollars, if approved by Congress. Administration proposals
    like the School Construction Tax Credit and the Class-Size Reduction
    Initiative are desperately needed by schools operated and funded by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The investment proposed for BIA
    Education Construction and Facilities Improvement and Repair will help
    to partially meet the huge backlog of projects now estimated at over
    $800 million.
        In April of 1994, President Clinton and tribal leaders met to
    discuss a variety of issues including, briefly, education. Immediately
    following that historic event, Indian educators were challenged by the
    White House to come up with a comprehensive approach to the federal
    government's administration of Indian education programs. That
    challenge was taken up and has been successfully met in a way far
    exceeding even our expectations. For the past three years, NIEA has
    worked cooperatively with the National Congress of American Indians
    (NCAI) and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) in developing an
    Executive Order on a Comprehensive Federal Indian Education Policy
    Statement (CFIEPS) which we are urging the Clinton Administration to
    issue.
        The intent of this policy is to formally set national guidelines
    for Indian education programs which would be applicable to all federal
    agencies. The uniqueness of this document is that it is tribally-
    endorsed, encompasses all education levels, and reflects the historical
    nature of federal Indian education policy. These guidelines are broad
    enough to define and direct federal agency implementation of all
    congressional and executive branch level Indian education initiatives
    including budget appropriations. The CFIEPS has been forwarded to the
    Clinton Administration with several House and Senate Members endorsing
    the proposal. We urge this subcommittee's formal endorsement of a
    Presidential Executive Order on Indian Education. Below are our funding
    recommendations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
                             department of interior
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
        NIEA is pleased that the BIA's fiscal year 1999 budget for School
    Operations includes a $26.5 million increase over 1998. The $486.8
    million investment in American Indian youth who attend BIA schools
    reflects the Administration's commitment to the Government-to-
    Government relationship that exists between the tribes and the federal
    government. The BIA educates approximately 12 percent of the American
    Indian K-12 population. We urge this subcommittee to support this
    needed increase. NIEA also supports the recommendations from the
    October 1997 Method of Financing BIA-Funded Schools Study that was
    produced under contract through the Department of Interior. One of the
    study's recommendations included higher future funding levels under
    ISEP in order to stay level with inflation, comply with BIA academic
    standards, and to reach parity with public schools. According to the
    study's ISEP estimates, an additional $21 million needs to be requested
    in the fiscal year 1999 budget to meet a minimum level of support. As
    shown below, NIEA fully supports this amount.
                Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA):
        Adult Education.--Adult Education continues to be one of the most
    underfunded Indian education programs despite the fact that it is
    desperately needed to enable adult Indians who did not finish high
    school to obtain their General Educational Development (GED) degree.
    The program's funding levels over the past 10 years have fluctuated
    with fiscal year 1996 being the highest at $3.6 million. The fiscal
    year 1999 request of $2.7 million represents a 25 percent decrease
    since 1996. The BIA estimates at least 20,000 Indian adults participate
    in the program.
        NIEA believes the adult education program needs to be funded at no
    less than $4 million annually. The elimination in 1996 of the Adult
    Education Program in the Department of Education's Office of Indian
    Education (OIE), puts a strain on the limited resources of the BIA and
    does little to focus financial attention on Indian adults who do not
    live on reservations. Older Indian adults tend to not attend state-
    operated programs and are more comfortable with Indian instructors.
        Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program.--The fiscal year 1999 request is
    $18 million, an $864,000 increase over the fiscal year 1998 level. The
    highest level the JOM program has received this decade was in fiscal
    year 1995 when it was funded at $24.4 million. NIEA supports funding
    for JOM at a level of $24 million to meet the increasing student
    population. The JOM program provides supplemental educational services
    for 272,000 American Indian students in 23 states. We understand that
    JOM contractors are unable to add any new schools to their current JOM
    programs without lowering the amount other programs receive. NIEA
    requests that the JOM appropriation level be raised and that any caps
    related to student count increases be eliminated.
        Scholarships.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999 request of $29
    million for undergraduate scholarships for American Indians, which
    represents a $488,000 increase over fiscal year 1998. Over the past ten
    years, the average allocation for Indian scholarships was $28.6
    million. Out of an estimated 12,300 requests for scholarship
    assistance, 9,800 students will be served through this tribal
    scholarship program. The BIA estimates the unmet need is estimated at
    $25 million for 1998. NIEA firmly believes that the trust
    responsibility for Indian education extends through postsecondary
    education. One of NIEA's major priorities is to increase funding for
    all postsecondary education programs for American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. The needs of Indian students pursuing postsecondary education
    are often neglected, especially when critically-needed programs are cut
    or eliminated such as the Department of Education's Office of Indian
    Education Fellowship Program. As mentioned below, funding for BIA's
    only graduate level scholarship program has operated at half funding
    capacity for four consecutive years.
                Other Programs
        Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula.--For fiscal year
    1999, NIEA requests a funding level of $329 million. This would require
    an additional investment of $21 million over the President's request of
    $308.5 million. Funding for this program provides formula-based
    assistance for 185 BIA-operated, grant, and contract elementary and
    secondary schools. NIEA supports a higher ISEP funding amount of $329
    million, as recommended by the October 1997 Method of Financing BIA-
    Funded Schools Study, but no less than the President's $308.5 million
    request. The President's request would provide $3,125 per Weighted
    Student Unit (WSU) compared to $3,009 per WSU in school year 1997-98.
    NIEA continues to support a funding level of $3,500 per WSU--a number
    we have proposed since fiscal year 1993. The proposed $3,125 per WSU is
    still far below the average per student expenditure by public
    elementary and secondary schools, an amount reported by the Department
    of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to be
    $7,317 per student in school year 1996-97.
        Family and Child Education (FACE) Program.--NIEA supports the
    fiscal year 1999 request of $5.5 million for BIA's early childhood
    development program. The fiscal year 1999 funding level represents a
    $42,000 increase over 1998, which previously had not increased for
    three years. We request that the FACE program be funded at the fiscal
    year 1995 level of $6.5 million. Currently there are 22 FACE sites,
    however the BIA could use a FACE program at each of its 82 elementary
    schools if the program were sufficiently funded.
        Student Transportation.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999 request
    for $36.5 million for student transportation. In fiscal year 1997-98
    the BIA-funded transportation cost was $1.98 per mile with 15,897 miles
    (School Year 1996-1997) estimated being driven for day and boarding
    schools. According to the latest School Bus Fleet information, the
    national average for student transportation costs in school year 1993-
    94 was $2.94 per mile for public schools. Therefore, the BIA-funded
    schools, which are located primarily in rural, isolated areas, are at
    least $0.96 below the national per mile average.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--NIEA supports the fiscal year 1999
    request for Administrative Cost Grants of $46.69 million. At least 10
    of the remaining 49 BIA-operated schools an the Navajo Nation have
    indicated that they will convert to grant status after July, 1997. The
    conversion cost is projected at $4.6 million. The need for additional
    Administrative Cost Grants has been increasingly evident as more
    schools convert from BIA to tribal control. Therefore, the BIA may need
    another $1.6 million for this conversion.
        Education Facilities Operation and Maintenance (O&M).--The fiscal
    year 1999 request for Facilities O&M is $77.4 million, a $2.7 million
    increase over fiscal year 1998. The Facilities Operation and
    Maintenance Program provides essential operating expenses and
    facilities for all Bureau funded schools. NIEA supports this request
    that would help to cover the maintenance needs of 2,313 schools and
    buildings in the Bureau system.
        Tribal Departments of Education.--Although no funding is provided
    in the President's budget, NIEA recommends at least $3 million for
    tribal departments of education, which are authorized by Public Law
    103-382, the ``Improving America's Schools Act (IASA).'' We believe
    that sufficient funding should be provided to assist tribes in planning
    and developing their own centralized tribal administrative entities to
    accomplish the original intent of the 1994 Act. This would be
    appropriate given the recent trend to convert more schools from BIA to
    Tribal control.
                Tribally Controlled Community Colleges
        Tribal Colleges/Post Secondary Schools.--The President's fiscal
    year 1999 request for Tribally-Controlled Community Colleges is $35.4
    million, a $5.5 million increase over fiscal year 1998 and represents a
    substantial increase over previous years. NIEA supports the American
    Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) recommendation of $37.4
    million which provides for an additional $2 million for TCCC Operating
    Grants. NIEA also supports an additional $2 million for tribal college
    endowments, $2 million for economic development, and $1.8 million for
    emergency facility repair and renovations and $214,000 for Technical
    Assistance grants in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
        In addition, tribal community colleges have never received
    facilities construction or renovation/repair money from the BIA. The
    national average for Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) funding at mainstream
    community colleges is approximately $6,200 per year. The level of FM
    funding for some special population colleges is approximately three
    times that which is provided to the tribal colleges.
        Furthermore, NIEA supports the separate funding levels in fiscal
    year 1998 for Bureau-funded post secondary vocational institutions.
    This includes Haskell Indian Nations University at $11.6 million,
    Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) at $4.6 million, the
    Institute for American Indian Arts (IAIA) at $4.25 million, and the
    United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) at $2.5 million.
                Special Programs and Pooled Overhead
        Graduate Scholarships.--The Administration request for Graduate
    Scholarships in fiscal year 1999 is $1.33 million, which is the same as
    the past three fiscal years. This program is the primary funding source
    for American and Alaska Native graduate students and is totally
    inadequate to help these individuals meet the costs of an advanced
    degree. The program, which is administered by the American Indian
    Graduate Center (AIGC) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been underfunded
    since its founding in 1969. During the past ten years, the highest
    level of funding for this program was $2.6 million in fiscal year 1995.
    For school year 1997-98, the actual unmet need for Special Higher
    Education Scholarship recipients was $5.7 million, which means that
    even with this assistance, Indian students must pursue other sources of
    funding to complete their higher education package. During the 1996-97
    school year, the program funded an estimated 378 students with an
    average award of $3,955. Because of reduced funding, scholarship awards
    are being drastically reduced while the demand for these limited
    scholarship funds increase. This program funds students in 27 states
    with 128 tribes represented. No other federal graduate level
    scholarship program, other than the Indian Health Service Scholarship
    Program, specifically for American Indian students currently exists.
                Education Construction
        Special Note: NIEA is aware that Senators Pete V. Domenici and Tim
    Johnson were able to increase the budget allocation for BIA school
    construction and repair from the President's request of $86 million to
    $166 million in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution. NIEA fully
    supports their efforts on behalf of the unmet BIA school construction
    needs. We urge this committee to fully support the higher amount for
    education construction projects. Below are NIEA's funding
    recommendations prior to Senators Domenici and Johnson's recent action.
        Replacement School Construction.--NIEA supports the fiscal year
    1999 request of $37.4 million for Replacement School Construction,
    which is $18.2 million more than 1998. These funds are earmarked to
    complete construction of the Seba Dalkai School, the Sac and Fox
    Settlement School and the Pyramid Lake High School. NIEA supports this
    request as the Interior Department strives to make a targeted approach
    to the severe backlog of construction projects at Indian education
    facilities.
        Education Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--NIEA supports
    the fiscal year 1999 request of $46.2 million, which is $14 million
    over the 1998 appropriation. The backlog under this program, however,
    is over $800 million which would take over seventeen years to complete
    at the current rate of funding. NIEA urges the Committee to consider
    additional, or supplemental funding to help meet this need.
                Other
        Institute of American Indian Arts.--NIEA is concerned that proposed
    funding for the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) is being
    terminated with the last year for appropriations in fiscal year 1999.
    We support continued funding for IAIA at the fiscal year 1998 level of
    $4.25 million and request the Committee's support in continuing this
    institution through the year 2005. This institution has been in
    existence for 35 years and is the only facility solely dedicated to the
    arts for American Indians and Alaska Natives. NIEA joins with NCAI in
    opposing any decrease in funding and urge Congress to maintain the
    enacted level for fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
        In closing, the National Indian Education Association would like to
    thank the Committee for allowing us the opportunity to present
    testimony on the educational concerns of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. NIEA appreciates the financial effort the Administration is
    submitting for consideration by the Congress on behalf of Indian
    education. Our concerns reflect a need for a seamless educational
    effort that includes Early Childhood, K-12 and postsecondary education
    in reservation and non-reservation settings. Currently, we feel a
    deficiency exists with regard to postsecondary funding for all American
    Indian and Alaska Native students. All the educational efforts targeted
    for K-12 students mean little if insufficient resources are available
    once Indian students graduate from high school. Please contact NIEA if
    you need clarification on any item presented in our testimony.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Samuel N. Penney, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal
                              Executive Committee
        On behalf of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, the
    governing body of the Nez Perce Tribe, I appreciate this opportunity to
    submit our views on the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for
    tribal programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service
    and other agencies of the Department of the Interior. This testimony
    will cover the following funding requests for fiscal year 1999 which
    are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe: $400,000 for our Wolf Recovery
    Project in the Fish and Wildlife Service; $200,000 in fiscal year 1999
    through the BIA to assist in the establishment of a Bureau of Land
    Management cadastral survey station on the Nez Perce Reservation;
    $750,00 for equipment and $1.7 million for staffing through IHS under a
    joint venture arrangement; and $710,000 under the BIA's Water Rights
    Negotiation and Litigation Program within Indian Rights Protection for
    negotiation and litigation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication.
        In addition, I would also like the Subcommittee to know of our
    support for several general funding increases recommended for fiscal
    year 1999 as follows: support for the increase of $34 million for the
    Tribal Priority Allocation account in the BIA over the fiscal year 1998
    enacted level; support for the Administration's requested fiscal year
    1999 increase of $3.5 million for the Water Rights Negotiation and
    Litigation Program to fund additional tribal water studies; support for
    the $25 million increase requested for BIA Law Enforcement; support for
    additional fiscal year 1999 funding over the budget request for the
    Indian Health Service, in order to address inflation, population
    growth, and staffing at new facilities; support for the $250,000
    requested for Columbia River fishing access sites built by Army Corps
    of Engineers; and support for the $500,000 through the Fish and
    Wildlife Service that the Administration has requested for consultation
    with tribes as part of the recent Secretarial Order related to tribal
    treaty rights under the Endangered Species Act.
    Wolf Recovery Program: FWS, $400,000
        The Nez Perce Tribe is entering our third year of participation in
    the Wolf Recovery Program with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. This
    is the only effort in the nation in which an Indian tribe is leading
    the recovery effort for an endangered species. Through a contract with
    the Service, the Tribe produced and is implementing a Service-approved
    recovery plan for grey wolves in Central Idaho, which requires
    documentation of ten breeding pairs for three consecutive years. We are
    most appreciative that Congress provided $300,000 in fiscal year 1998
    through the Service for this project.
        However, the project is badly underfunded. The funding shortfall
    threatens our ability to adequately monitor the breeding pairs, which
    are scattered throughout 15 million acres, and to capture and install
    radio collars on any offspring produced this spring. The information
    gathered from these monitoring activities is fundamental to determining
    when the recovery standards have been met and essential in working with
    local communities and the livestock industry in addressing concerns
    regarding wolf recovery.
        In addition, as the project enters its third year, we have found
    that many of the radio collars used for the monitoring of these wolves
    need to be replaced. Additional funding is necessary both to provide
    the new equipment and to locate, recapture and recollar the
    participating wolves in the wild. The latter involves the use of
    helicopters and retention of the few professionals licensed by FWS to
    do recapture work. As a result, we ask this Subcommittee to consider
    providing a level of $400,000 additional funding through the Fish and
    Wildlife Service for the Nez Perce Tribe's grey wolf recovery project
    in fiscal year 1999.
    Cadastral survey station: BIA, $200,000
        In 1997, we executed an interagency memorandum of agreement with
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management to
    establish a cadastral survey station on the reservation. The agreement
    calls for a budget of $100,000 for fiscal year 1999, with an additional
    $450,000 to be spent over the following four years. Given the recent
    experience in only two of these disputes that became highly
    controversial, we believe that the expenditure of funds on a cadastral
    survey is the most cost-effective use of federal funds, with benefit to
    Indian and non-Indian landowners within the reservation.
        At the current funding level, only approximately 10 percent of the
    estimated 400 field months of work will be completed under this
    agreement. We are requesting that Congress at least double the funding
    for the Nez Perce Survey Station, to $200,000 per year for the next
    four years. This will add another field survey crew, which will double
    the project output.
    Joint venture funding: IHS, $2.45 million
        The U.S. Congress recognized that the existing system for funding
    the replacement of health care facilities under the IHS Facilities
    Priority Construction List does not work for most tribes. It is
    difficult for our Tribe to make that priority list due to the criteria
    the IHS utilizes for new facility construction. Congress authorized
    ``Joint Venture'' programs under the IHS which provides that tribes who
    construct their own facilities with their own resources could count on
    the IHS to provide increased staffing and new equipment, as long as the
    tribe provides the facility under a no-cost lease agreement to IHS.
        The Nez Perce Tribe has elected to construct replacement clinics at
    Kamiah and Lapwai, Idaho. Both clinics have been designated in need of
    replacement. The Lapwai clinic is too small, and experiences continued
    problems with its foundation. The Tribe will provide the land and
    construction costs. The Nez Perce Tribe seeks funding from IHS for the
    increased staffing and new equipment for these facilities, which we
    hope to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1999. The estimated cost
    for start-up equipment is $750,000 and the annual recurring amount is
    $1.7 million.
    Snake River basin adjudication negotiations funding: BIA, $710,000
        Since 1987, the Nez Perce Tribe has been engaged in an adjudication
    of its water rights in the Snake River basin. This litigation, which
    involves the adjudication of all water rights in the Snake River, much
    of which lies within the aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe,
    is the largest water rights adjudication in the nation. We are
    represented in this proceeding by our own in-house counsel and by the
    Native American Rights Fund (NARF) in Boulder, Colorado. The stay that
    had been in place has been lifted and the parties have begun the
    discovery phase of the complex litigation.
        For fiscal year 1999, we are requesting that $710,000 be made
    available in the BIA's Indian Rights Protection account, Water Rights
    Negotiation and Litigation Program for the Tribe's work and
    participation in the Snake River Basin Adjudication. These funds will
    cover the costs of on-going work by experts needed in the negotiation
    and litigation of the case including fisheries, economic and
    engineering experts as well as attorney and overhead costs in the
    adjudication.
        We note that the Administration has requested an increase of $3.5
    million for the Water Rights Negotiation and Litigation Program, and
    hope that Congress will approve this proposed increase, as well as
    specifying funds for our adjudication.
                            items of general support
        The Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee also hopes that the
    Congress will approve fiscal year 1999 funding increases for several
    other programs, which impact many tribes:
    BIA Law Enforcement
        We urge that the Subcommittee favorably concur with the
    Administration's request for $25 million for BIA Law Enforcement, to be
    used for criminal investigators, uniformed police and basic detention
    services, within the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account.
        The Nez Perce Tribal Police Department provides normal and
    emergency services to Indians as well as non-Indian citizens within the
    Reservation. Additional funds for law enforcement on our Reservation
    are needed for traffic enforcement and driver education efforts, in
    order to address a significant increase in traffic-related injuries and
    deaths over 1997.
        The current Tribal Police Department cannot meet expanding services
    requirement because of lack of manpower. Currently, we have only six
    Patrol officers. The Position Manning Factor for the Patrol Officer to
    perform patrol duties 24-hours, seven days a week, for 52 weeks would
    require a staff of 17. We currently have no Communications-Dispatch
    Center (that function is provided by the County Sheriff's Office); the
    Position Manning Factor for the Dispatcher position would require 7
    persons. The Tribe also does not currently have an Adult and Juvenile
    Detention Center, which would require a staff of 13. For the Nez Perce
    Tribe, an additional $733,000 in fiscal year 1999 is necessary to
    address these law enforcement program deficiencies. We strongly urge
    the Congress to provide additional funds through the BIA for law
    enforcement efforts.
    IHS Mandatory Cost Increases
        We are very disappointed with the Administration's fiscal year 1999
    request for the Indian Health Service, which includes no increases for
    inflation, population growth, or staffing at new facilities. Most
    programs are level-funded at the fiscal year 1998 enacted amounts, and
    the fiscal year 1999 IHS budget request assumes an increase in
    Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance collections totalling $25
    million.
        The Nez Perce Tribe urges the Congress, to provide additional funds
    in fiscal year 1999, for the vital health service and health facility
    programs IHS operates. We also concur with the analysis of the fiscal
    year 1999 budget prepared by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
    Board, and support the recommendations proposed in their testimony
    presented to the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in March
    1998.
    Tribal Priority Allocations
        We appreciate that the Administration continues to provide
    additional resources through the Tribal Priority Allocations account to
    assist tribal governments to address basic necessities and critical
    services within our communities. The President's fiscal year 1999
    budget proposes an increase of some $34 million over the fiscal year
    1998 enacted level. While much of this proposed increase is for
    specific programs, rather than as a general increase to the base
    funding of all tribes, we do support additional funds for TPA in fiscal
    year 1999.
    In-Lieu Sites
        We also support and urge the Subcommittee to approve the $250,000
    requested by the Bureau to implement the terms of the 1995 Memorandum
    of Agreement between the Bureau of the Corps of Engineers for Columbia
    River fishing access sites built by the Corps. In that Memorandum, the
    Corps committed $250,000 annually for the costs of law enforcement,
    operation and maintenance, training and other maintenance needs.
    ESA Secretarial Order
        We support the $500,000 through the Fish and Wildlife Service that
    the Administration has requested for consultation with tribes as part
    of the recent Secretarial Order addressing the relationship of tribal
    treaty rights and the Endangered Species Act.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony to the
    Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of the Nez Perce
    Tribe.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    Introduction
        On behalf of the 31 Tribal Colleges which comprise the American
    Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we thank the Subcommittee
    for allowing us this opportunity to present our appropriations request
    and justifications for the 26 tribally-controlled colleges funded under
    Public Law 95-471, ``The Tribally-Controlled Community College
    Assistance Act.'' This program, also known as the ``Tribal College
    Act,'' is administered by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs. Although AIHEC
    requests full funding for the Act's authorized programs, we realize
    that this request must be obtained over time. We ask that the
    Subcommittee fully support and build upon the President's Budget
    Request of a $5.5 million increase for core operations (Title I and II)
    fiscal year 1999. Specifically, we request an additional $6 million in
    funding for Title I, which provides core operational funding for 25
    colleges, and an increase of $1.5 million in Title II funding, which
    provides core operational funding for Dine College. Additionally, we
    seek Title III funding at $2 million for endowments; Title IV funding
    at $2 million for economic development; $1.8 million under the
    facilities renovation authority of the law; and $214,000 for technical
    assistance.
        The American Indian Higher Education Consortium was founded in 1972
    by six of the first tribally-controlled community colleges. Today,
    AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort on the part of 31 member
    institutions, all of which are fully accredited (with the exception of
    the four newest institutions that are accreditation candidates). The
    Tribal Colleges were chartered by their constituent tribes over the
    last 30 years to bring greater access to higher education opportunities
    to American Indians living on remote and economically disadvantaged
    reservations. Since their creation, the Tribal Colleges have been
    addressing the problems and challenges of our welfare system.
    Throughout their history, Tribal Colleges have provided GED and other
    college preparatory courses, probably more than any other community
    colleges in this country.
        Our mission requires us to help move American Indian people toward
    self-sufficiency and help make American Indians productive, tax-paying
    members of American society. Fulfilling that obligation will become
    increasingly difficult as more and more welfare recipients turn to the
    Tribal Colleges for training and employment opportunities. Tribal
    Colleges serve 26,500 students each year, offering primarily two-year
    degrees, with a few colleges now offering four-year and graduate
    degrees. Together, they represent the most significant and successful
    development in American Indian education history, promoting achievement
    among students who may otherwise never know educational success.
        First, this statement provides background information regarding the
    funding inadequacies with which Tribal Colleges have coped throughout
    their history. Next, we provide justifications for Tribal College
    funding increases and outline how new monies would be directed; and
    then we briefly summarize recent accomplishments.
        Please note that AIHEC's membership also includes institutions of
    higher education funded under separate authorities, and AIHEC fully
    supports their independently submitted Interior Appropriations
    requests. These include: Haskell Indian Nations University and
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; the Institute of American
    Indian Arts; and United Tribes Technical College.
    Background and Funding Disparities
        The Tribal College Act provides funding for the operational budgets
    of one qualifying institution per tribe based on an American Indian
    enrollment formula. The Act does not provide funding for non-Indian
    students, although Tribal Colleges serve an increasing number of non-
    Indian students from the surrounding rural communities. However,
    federal appropriations have never matched the levels authorized under
    Title I. Funding for the colleges was first authorized at $4,000 per
    full-time equivalent Indian student, or Indian Student Count (ISC). In
    1984, this level was raised to $5,820 per ISC, to more closely reflect
    the true cost of higher education at a community college. Due to a
    combination of inadequate appropriations and dramatic enrollment growth
    at the colleges, funding for the Tribal Colleges has never reached
    either of these levels. In fact, even with the fiscal year 1998
    increase of $2.1 million for Title I colleges, the colleges are still
    funded only at about half of the level authorized, or $3,014 per full-
    time Indian student.
        Compounding the existing funding disparities is the fact that
    Tribal College enrollments have increased dramatically--the 26 Tribal
    Colleges funded under this Act now serve nearly 20,000 full- and part-
    time students every year. Additionally, funding for Tribal Colleges,
    insufficient from the outset, has not even kept pace with inflation--in
    fiscal year 1997, the Title I Tribal Colleges received only $30 more
    per Indian student than they received in 1981. When inflation is
    factored in, the payment's value actually decreased by $1,200 (from
    $2,831 to $1,626) since 1981.
        Tribal Colleges, in some ways, are being punished for their
    successes--the impressive enrollment gains recorded by the colleges
    have forced Title I colleges to slice an inadequate pie into incredibly
    small pieces. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
    praised the colleges in its May 1997 report, for providing access to
    students, strengthening communities and rebuilding cultures. The first
    recommendation of the report requested full funding for the Tribal
    College Act. Pointing to the significant enrollment gains posted by the
    colleges, the report called on the Administration and Congress to fund
    the colleges at fully authorized levels.
        Our request for a $6 million increase for Title I would amount to
    only $3,713 per full-time Indian student, which is still significantly
    less than the average amount under which mainstream community colleges
    operate. It is also significantly less than the authorized amount of
    $5,820, and just a modest increase above the current Indian student
    allocation of $3,014.
        Tribal Colleges have survived on a patchwork of smaller,
    competitive, short-term grants that supplement the insufficient Titles
    I and II operational funding. This has never been a stable way of
    funding Tribal Colleges, but the colleges have little choice. Several
    colleges have faced serious struggles because of this funding
    instability, and accrediting agencies have warned the colleges about
    the hazards of relying too heavily on ``soft money.'' Unlike most state
    institutions, the Tribal Colleges are young--most were founded in the
    past 25 years--and they have not built the funding reserves that are
    common at older institutions. The lack of reserves actually forced two
    of the colleges to cease operations during the government furloughs and
    the budgetary impasse of 1996. Therefore, it is more important than
    ever that the Tribal College Act achieve what it was designed to do:
    provide for the operational support of Tribal Colleges.
        Additionally, due to this inadequate funding, Tribal Colleges are
    now in urgent need of facilities repair and renovation, many of which
    currently operate in abandoned, condemned, or donated buildings. Health
    and safety hazards at Tribal Colleges include leaking roofs, asbestos
    insulation, and crumbling buildings. Most repairs and refurbishments
    can be done cost effectively by Tribal College students. The facilities
    renovation provision, requested at $1.8 million (for the institutions
    combined), would allow Tribal Colleges to begin to address their most
    urgent facility renovation needs.
        While mainstream institutions are able to fall back on a foundation
    of stable state support, Tribal Colleges are located on federal trust
    territory, and the states have no obligation to fund them. They receive
    little or no funding from the states in which they are located. It is
    important to note that Tribal Colleges are reliant on the federal
    government for their operational funding. Tribal Colleges are also
    inequitably served by state block grants, and are frequently neglected
    in block grant distribution, as the recently-passed welfare reform
    block grants demonstrate.
        Tribal Colleges cannot rely on local tax base revenue. Although
    Tribes possess the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty
    rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of a strong
    reservation economy diminish the creation of a reservation tax base.
        Indian gaming is not a viable funding source for Tribal Colleges.
    The vast majority of the reservations which Tribal Colleges serve are
    located in extremely remote and economically disadvantaged areas.
    Therefore, gaming has not been a significant source of income for the
    majority of the colleges. In addition, gaming tribes should be held to
    the same standard as states, which are not required to share their
    gaming revenue with other states, nor are they penalized for the
    success of their lotteries or gambling.
        Tribal Colleges are a direct result of the special relationship
    between American Indian tribes and the federal government. Tribal
    Colleges are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian
    nations, which hold a special legal relationship with the federal
    government confirmed by numerous treaties, Supreme Court decisions, and
    prior Congressional action. Tribal Colleges serve communities in the
    most remote areas of our nation. For Tribal College students, both
    Indian and non-Indian, higher education would otherwise be
    inaccessible. Tribal Colleges do not discriminate based on race or
    ethnicity. They are simply, and effectively, removing barriers that
    have long prevented equal access to higher education for reservation
    communities.
    Further Justifications and High Priority Areas of Need
        AIHEC recognizes the Congressional goal of achieving a balanced
    budget, and we applaud this effort. Within that framework, AIHEC would
    like to highlight the following justifications and targeted highest
    priority areas of need for increased funding for Tribal Colleges.
                Justifications
        Tribal Colleges provide access to critical postsecondary education
    opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. Most American
    Indian reservations are located in extremely remote areas, and their
    populations are the poorest in our nation. For many American Indian
    communities, the nearest mainstream institution is several hours away,
    making attendance virtually impossible. The cost of attending a
    mainstream institution is usually prohibitively high, especially when
    tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and all other expenses are
    considered. Unemployment on the reservations served by Tribal Colleges
    can soar to 86 percent. One survey found that 98 percent of Tribal
    College students qualify for need-based federal financial aid.
        Tribal Colleges are producing a new generation of highly trained
    American Indian contributors: teachers, tribal government leaders,
    engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
    professionals. Most of these new professionals are the first in their
    families to attend college. By teaching the job skills most in demand
    on their reservations, Tribal Colleges are laying a solid foundation
    for tribal economic growth, with benefits for nearby off-reservation
    communities. Most Tribal College graduates remain in their tribal
    communities, contributing their newly-acquired skills and knowledge
    where they are most needed. For example, 87 percent of Little Big Horn
    College (Crow Agency, Montana) graduates have found employment within
    the Crow Indian Reservation community.
        Tribal College students and faculty also contribute to our nation
    as a whole, by participating in our national community of researchers,
    scientists, authors, artists, and teachers. Despite their lack of
    adequate funding, Tribal Colleges have established centers for research
    and education that are contributing in revolutionary ways. Many Tribal
    Colleges conduct economic development research, investigate new land
    uses and encourage tribal entrepreneurship. Each college has completed
    a detailed economic development plan that strongly justifies the need
    for the economic development appropriation (Title IV) requested in this
    testimony.
        Tribal Colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
    accreditation boards, and offer top-quality academic programs. For
    example, Turtle Mountain Community College, located in Belcourt, North
    Dakota, and many others were recently granted a ten-year accreditation
    term--the longest term allowed for any higher education institution. It
    is now not uncommon for accrediting agencies to refer mainstream
    institutions to Tribal Colleges for assistance with the accreditation
    process; Tribal College self-studies have been used as models of
    excellence for non-Indian institutions.
        Tribal Colleges serve as highly effective bridges to mainstream
    four-year postsecondary institutions. A recent study showed that 42
    percent of Tribal College students transfer to four-year institutions.
    Students who transfer from Tribal Colleges are much better prepared for
    the challenges of mainstream four-year institutions; they are far more
    likely to complete Bachelor's degree programs than American Indian
    students who enter as freshmen.
        Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing libraries,
    tribal archives, career centers, economic development centers, public
    meeting places, child care centers, nutrition and substance abuse
    counseling, and a broad range of other vitally-needed facilities.
        Tribal Colleges have become centers for American Indian language
    and cultural research, preservation, and revitalization. Many Tribal
    Colleges now serve as tribal archives, and offer courses in tribal
    history, literature, government, language, kinship, and other aspects
    of American Indian culture.
                High Priority Areas of Need
        Like mainstream institutions, these institutions strive to fully
    develop their institution and to expand services to serve the needs of
    their increasing student bodies. If each college received full or even
    increased core operational funding, Tribal Colleges could focus on some
    of their high priority areas of need, such as (1) maintaining
    accreditation by stabilizing their core operational budget (2)
    improving instructional capabilities and enhancing student support
    services; (3) expanding library services and collections, or
    establishing a tribal archive; (4) maintaining and improving facilities
    and enhancing laboratory facilities; (5) expanding technology through
    purchasing computers and establishing Internet access; (6) expanding
    child care facilities; and (7) constructing community or cultural
    centers.
    Conclusion
        In light of the justifications presented in this testimony and the
    even further enrollment increases that will result from welfare reform,
    we urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal Colleges.
    Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 1999 request will strengthen the
    mission of these colleges and the enormous, positive impact they have
    on their respective communities and will help ensure that they are able
    to properly educate and prepare thousands of American Indians for the
    workforce of the 21st century. Without the Tribal Colleges to serve as
    the means for moving from welfare to work, much of the reform
    accomplished by the Congress will fail throughout Indian Country. As
    demonstrated in this testimony, Tribal Colleges have been extremely
    responsible with the federal support they have received in the last 17
    years. It is important that the federal government now capitalize on
    its investment. As the recent Carnegie report stated, ``Now, as
    strongly as ever, we repeat our conviction that Tribal Colleges deserve
    continued support. Their value has been proven, but their vision is not
    yet fulfilled'' (Native American Colleges: Progress and Prospects,
    Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997). These
    institutions have proven themselves as a sound federal investment, and
    we ask for your continued support.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to present our request before
    this Subcommittee. We respectfully ask the Members of this Subcommittee
    for their continued support and full consideration of our fiscal year
    1999 appropriations request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Robert Chicks, Chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee
                       Community Band of Mohican Indians
        The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe appreciates this opportunity to
    present our requests for funding in fiscal year 1999 for the Indian
    Health Service. We request that this Subcommittee provide fiscal year
    1999 funding for our three priority projects: $3.6 million for a new
    wastewater treatment facility for the Stockbridge-Munsee Community;
    $2.8 million for a new health clinic for the Stockbridge-Munsee
    Community; and/or $1.27 million for equipment and supplies and $1.6
    million for staffing to operate and maintain a new tribal health
    facility, which the Tribe will construct under a tribal joint venture
    demonstration project arrangement.
        The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe was once located in what is now the
    northeastern United States. However, in the early 1800's, we were
    removed from our ancestral lands to Indiana, and later relocated to
    what became the State of Wisconsin. Since 1856, our homeland has been a
    46,000-acre reservation in central Wisconsin. The Mohican Nation has
    nearly 1,600 tribal members, over 800 of whom live on the reservation.
    The Tribe employees some 800 people--members and non-members--in our
    tribal programs and economic enterprises, including our small but
    successful casino and bingo operation, and is the largest employer in
    Shawano County, WI. In 1996, the Mohican North Star casino employed
    some 460 people, about three-fourths of whom are non-tribal members.
    The Community uses gaming proceeds to supplement funding for all our
    tribal governmental programs, including Elderly Assistance, Higher
    Education and Vocational Training, Housing Assistance, and Economic
    Development, but gaming revenues make up only 40 percent of the Tribe's
    fiscal operating budget.
        The Tribal Council has three funding requests we have determined to
    be of highest importance, and we submit them for this Subcommittee's
    consideration.
           wastewater treatment facility and sewage collection system
        The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Indian Health Service's
    Sanitation Facilities Construction account proposes a $5 million
    decrease below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. While we recognize
    that the Administration, Congress and tribes are forced to struggle to
    determine which programs will receive funding as efforts to balance the
    federal budget continue, surely the provision of such essential
    services as water supply and waste disposal facilities for Indian homes
    and communities, which the rest of the American population almost takes
    for granted, must be a priority.
        The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe is in desperate need of a wastewater
    treatment facility and sewage collection system. The Tribe currently
    uses a three-cell lagoon system community water and wastewater system,
    instead of a regional treatment facility. Thanks to joint funding in
    fiscal year 1996 through IHS and HUD, we will be able to repair and
    upgrade the existing lagoon system, which services our main housing
    development area, this spring. However, that area is made up of only 30
    households. Even the upgraded lagoon system is not able to meet all
    current community sanitation needs. In addition, the poor condition
    because of old age of the sewer systems in many of the existing homes
    presents the challenge of contamination of the groundwater supply and
    existing wells with bacteria and radon when replacing those systems.
        The Tribe's Planning Department projects that the Tribe will need
    to build 50 to 60 new homes for our members in the course of the next
    10 years. Although several existing residential units on the
    reservation utilize individual septic tanks, due to the soil types on
    the reservation, it is very unlikely that these new homes will be able
    to utilize individual septic tanks. According to data stored on the
    Geographical Information System, almost 93 percent of the soil types
    located on the Tribe's trust lands have severe septic limitations. The
    remaining 7 percent of the land has moderate limitations. These
    limitations make it is very difficult to find suitable areas on which
    to build housing for our members. As a result, the Tribe is seeking
    funding to construct a master wastewater treatment facility which will
    enable us to construct these homes on lands that would otherwise be
    unsuitable because of the septic limitations.
        The proposed wastewater treatment facility would service an
    existing 80 residential dwellings within the regional service area,
    tribal offices, our existing health clinic and proposed new clinic and
    wellness center, and the casino. In addition, the new facility would
    service the contemplated new housing development and other commercial
    development, including a planned hotel. It would also be able to handle
    future increases in wastewater flow.
        The IHS Field Engineer has estimated that the cost of the new
    master wastewater treatment facility and collection system will be $3.6
    million. The need for such a system has been documented and submitted
    to the Indian Health Service for inclusion on the Sanitation Deficiency
    System (SDS) Listing. But, as this Subcommittee well knows, there are
    many tribal projects currently on the SDS list.
        Without adequate funding to the IHS, necessary and essential
    projects like the Stockbridge-Munsee's wastewater treatment facility
    and sewage collection system will not be constructed. We ask that the
    Subcommittee provide additional funds for fiscal year 1999 for the
    Sanitation Facilities Construction account, and provide the necessary
    $3.6 million to the IHS to fund our Tribe's very needed project.
                     new health clinic and wellness center
        For the IHS Facilities account, the President's fiscal year 1999
    budget request proposes an increase of $25 million over the fiscal year
    1998 enacted level for construction of the replacement hospital at Fort
    Defiance, AZ. The balance of funds for this facility is requested as
    advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    While the Stockbridge-Munsee Community strongly supports this
    construction request, we know that many tribes throughout the country
    share the need of the Navajo Nation for a new health facility. However,
    unless Congress appropriates additional funding for IHS Facilities, it
    will be many years before other facilities are able to be built.
        The Tribe has a small, 14,000 square-foot health clinic on our
    reservation which was built in 1973. During a typical month, the clinic
    provides medical services to over 1,200 patients, dental care to 200
    patients, and fills over 1,000 prescriptions at the pharmacy. Annually,
    the current staff of 42 full-time and 1 part-time employees and 6 full-
    or part-time physicians and dentists provides necessary and essential
    medical treatment to over 2,300 people--Mohican tribal members and
    Indians who are members of other tribes but live on our reservation,
    and numerous non-Indians who live within the original boundaries of the
    reservation.
        The severe space limitations, existing structural problems and poor
    condition of the clinic make providing necessary medical services very
    difficult. After a point, further additions to the clinic--and there
    have already been two--are not economically efficient. In 1996, the
    Tribe received a HUD Community Development Block Grant toward the
    construction of the new health clinic and wellness center; the Tribe
    paid for the costs of designing the facility out of tribal funds. Last
    year, the Tribal Council hired an architectural firm which has now
    completed a preliminary cite evaluation and the design of the layout
    and floor plans of the new facility. The Tribe is seeking fiscal year
    1999 construction funding in the amount of $2.8 million through the
    Indian Health Service.
                     tribal health facilities joint venture
        If Congress is not able to provide additional funds in fiscal year
    1999 for specific IHS facilities construction projects like ours, the
    Stockbridge-Munsee Community wishes the Subcommittee to consider
    providing appropriations for joint venture demonstration projects, as
    authorized under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.
    1680h(e)). The Stockbridge-Munsee Community is a member of the Tribal
    Nations Joint Venture Coalition for Health Facilities, a coalition of
    tribes from across the United States which would like to use the joint
    venture approach to draw upon non-federal funds to construct health
    facilities in our communities. Under the joint venture demonstration
    program, a tribe uses tribal, private sector or other available
    nontribal funds, including loan guarantees, to acquire or construct a
    health facility under a no-cost lease. IHS would then provide
    equipment, supplies and staffing to operate and maintain that facility.
    Tribes in Oregon and Oklahoma used this approach to build facilities
    which were completed in the early 1990's.
        If Congress is not able to appropriate specific funds for our new
    wellness center, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community plans to finance and
    build the new Stockbridge-Munsee Community Health Center according to
    IHS planning criteria and design standards, to provide direct health
    care services to a projected user population of 2,900 Indian patients.
    The Tribe will ``joint venture'' with the Indian Health Service for
    staffing and equipment. We ask this Subcommittee to consider providing
    the necessary funding--$1.27 million for equipment and supplies and
    $1.6 million to increase health center staff from 42 to 66--in fiscal
    year 1999.
        I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement to this
    Subcommittee on behalf of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe. We are very
    proud of the services we provide our people and members of the
    surrounding community, services we are able to offer because the
    Congress has provided tribes with additional resources through the
    Indian Health Service. Thank you very much for your consideration of
    these requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Margie Mejia, Chairperson, Lytton Rancheria/
                   Lytton Band of Pomo Indians of California
        The Lytton Rancheria/Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (the ``Tribe'')
    submits this testimony for the record regarding the fiscal year 1999
    budget request for programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
    Indian Health Service. Specifically, we express our support for the
    BIA's requested $3 million for the Small and Needy Tribes program. We
    are very concerned about decreases in IHS funding levels and ask for an
    add-on of $20 million for California Tribes--$10 million for direct
    contract care and $10 million for contract support.
        Located in Sonoma County, California, Lytton Rancheria was restored
    to federal recognition by the federal courts in Scotts Valley Band of
    Pomo Indians, et al. vs. United States of America et al. USDC No. Civ.
    No. C-86-3660-WWS; Sept. 6, 1991. The Tribe received no federal
    services for over thirty years. The effort to restore our status as a
    Tribe took about ten years, five of which were spent in litigation.
    During this time, the ill effects of termination took their toll on our
    people in terms of loss of property; lack of education and health
    benefits; increased poverty; high unemployment; disruption of families;
    death of tribal members due to alcohol and related illnesses or
    accidents; and the destruction of hope.
        The Tribe, currently landless, has approximately 200 Tribal members
    and is governed by a Council consisting of seven Tribal Officers. The
    Tribal membership is 47 percent male and 53 percent female; of these 40
    percent are adults and 60 percent are children under 18.
        Tribal members reside primarily in Sonoma County (57 percent) and
    Del Norte County (27 percent), with the remainder of members scattered
    throughout the State of California and the continental United States
    (16 percent).
        The Tribe plans to empower its constituents through education and
    training. The general membership approved a constitution on January 20,
    1996, to establish laws that the Tribal members have agreed to live and
    abide by. Other empowering documentation which has recently been
    developed and is currently being utilized include: Enrollment Manual,
    Election, Enrollment and Voting Procedures Code, Tribal Government
    Operations Manual, Tribal Court Procedures and related codes. The Tribe
    is devoting its time, energy and resources in order to become self-
    sufficient.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
        Our biggest concern regarding the BIA is the understaffing at the
    Area and Agency offices. California tribes have never known what it is
    to have a strong Area Office. The California Area Office has never been
    the equal of other Area Offices. It has 105 tribes in its service area
    and not enough funding to provide adequate services to them. Our Tribe
    is within the service area of the Central California Agency Office with
    52 tribes in its service area. It needs funds to increase its staff
    from 40 FTE to at least 57 FTE positions.
        Currently, the Tribe operates several grant programs through the
    BIA. We have an Indian Child Welfare program for tribal children and
    have used our BIA Aid to Tribal Government (ATG) grant monies to
    develop tribal infrastructure programs, including the codes and manuals
    described above. We request an increase in funding to implement the
    recommendations of the Interior/BIA/Tribal Joint Task Force on
    Reorganization of the BIA. One recommendation that the Tribe supports
    is the plan for a three-year phased in minimum funding amount for
    tribes starting at $160,000 annually and raised to $250,000 per year in
    the third year.
        Like some 14 other tribes in California, the Lytton Band does not
    have land. This creates problems for our members because if you don't
    live ``on or near'' a reservation, even if you are a member of a
    federally recognized tribe, you are not eligible for federal services.
    Tribal governments simply cannot build tribal communities without land.
    While the process for taking land from the Indians was often done with
    little more than the stroke of a pen, it is nearly impossible to a
    tribe to have lands taken into trust and that process is getting longer
    and longer.
        The Tribe would like to take this opportunity to request
    legislation and funding to tribes to assist them in hiring specialized
    staff to handle repatriated human remains and other associated objects.
    While museums have a great deal of inventory that rightfully belongs to
    tribes, it is often hard for tribes to accept the items because of the
    costs of curating them.
        We very much support the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) within
    the BIA. We believe that the administration of HIP should stay in the
    BIA, not HUD, and that the grant aspect (see 25 C.F.R. 256) should be
    retained. There have been discussions about using HIP monies under the
    regular tribal contracting process, but we support direct grants for
    this very needed program.
        Finally, we request funds to cover 100 percent of the contract
    support costs for new tribes.
    Indian Health Service
        The Tribe requests a $10 million add-on to the IHS budget for
    contract support costs for California Tribes and a $10 million add-on
    to the IHS budget for direct contract health care. As Chair of the
    Tribe, I have become a member of the California Rural Indian Health
    Board and am on the Board of the Sonoma County Indian Health Board. In
    that capacity, the desperate health needs of California Indians have
    become very evident to me. Basic illnesses are untreated. Members do
    not even have eyeglasses or dental care. The President's health
    initiative includes programs to treat Indian diabetes. We believe that
    is excellent but not if other common illnesses and preventive care are
    neglected. There is no IHS hospital facility at all in the State of
    California. In Sonoma County, three tribes used HUD CDBG money to buy
    land and combined grant monies from various programs to build a health
    clinic. The State of California has approved a Mortgage Loan to the
    tribes for this purpose. IHS is staffing the facility. The Subcommittee
    should also know that the federal expenditures per patient in federal
    hospitals (veterans, public health service) is about $3,000 per
    patient; for IHS overall, it is $1,200 per patient; for California
    Indians, it is about $500. This is simply not enough to maintain even
    the most minimal health care for California Indians.
        Without additional continued funding, especially in the crucial
    formative years for new tribes, our membership will stagnate and revert
    back to the downward spiral of life quality experienced by so many
    Native Americans for so many years.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Kenny Mallory, Chairman, Winnebago Tribe of
                                    Nebraska
        This testimony addresses the fiscal year 1999 budget request for
    programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
    The Tribe is concerned about funding for the Indian Health Service, and
    supports the Administration's proposed increases for the Tribal
    Priority Allocation account, Law Enforcement and the Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges program within the BIA.
        The Tribe and Economic Development.--The Winnebago Tribe of
    Nebraska is a federally recognized Indian Tribe organized pursuant to
    Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934. Our
    forefathers were forcibly relocated from lands in and near what is now
    the state of Wisconsin. Our Treaty of 1865 is the first in history to
    require that the United States provide health care services to tribal
    members. The Tribe's 120,000-acre reservation includes lands in both
    Iowa and Nebraska and only about 30,000 acres of land within the
    reservation is now tribally controlled. There are 3,764 enrolled
    members, of whom about 1,238 reside on the reservation.
        The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is very active on the economic
    front. The Tribe operates several business enterprises, including the
    WinnaVegas Casino in Sloan, Iowa, and the Heritage food store and the
    Company A Convenience Mart, both in Winnebago, Nebraska. Additionally,
    the Tribe has developed a small strip mall located on the reservation;
    added tribal revenue is generated by leasing tribal land to outside
    agricultural interests. Ho-Chunk, Inc., a wholly-owned tribal
    development corporation, owns a Rodeway Inn in Sloan, Iowa,
    approximately 3 miles from the Tribe's casino. Ho-Chunk has also opened
    hotels in Omaha and Lincoln. Even with the economic contribution of
    these projects, tribal per capita income remains significantly below
    the poverty level at just over $5,000.
        Unlike states, the tribes have little or no tax base or other
    revenue sources with which to operate tribal government programs.
    Gaming has given a jump start to our economy but those revenues are
    decreasing because of commercial competition. The Tribe still relies
    heavily on federal funds to provide even the most basic level of
    services to tribal members.
                             indian health service
        The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska must, regrettably, ask for the
    assistance of this Subcommittee in regard to completion of the design
    phase of the Winnebago Hospital.
        Over a period of years, Congress made appropriations for design of
    the hospital based on estimates provided by the Indian Health Service.
    The Congress and the Tribe were advised during the fiscal year 1998
    appropriations process that an additional $650,000 would be needed to
    complete the design phase for the hospital. Despite our best efforts
    and those of our congressional delegation, the Congress was not able to
    find sufficient money in fiscal year 1998 for this purpose; however,
    the final fiscal year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill conference
    report urged IHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
    Office of Management and Budget to include funding in the fiscal year
    1999 budget submission to complete design for the Winnebago Hospital,
    as well as the outpatient facilities at Parker, AZ, and Pinon, AZ.
    Unfortunately, and, again, despite our best efforts, the Administration
    failed to include this funding in its fiscal year 1999 Budget Request
    as directed by the Congress. Needless to say, the Tribe and all of the
    Indian people in the IHS service area who will be served by the new
    hospital are very disappointed by this omission.
        As you may know, the IHS hospital at Winnebago was built in the
    1930's and has never been significantly upgraded. The Native American
    clients served by the existing hospital are receiving services in a
    facility that is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the Nation.
    The proposed new hospital was in the works for ten years before the
    Congress made the first appropriation for design and engineering. This
    process is now very near completion and if work ceases during fiscal
    year 1999, the delay will mean significant increases in the overall
    costs of the project. We respectfully request that the Subcommittee
    include an increase of $650,000 for fiscal year 1999 for completion of
    the design phase of the IHS hospital at Winnebago.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Tribal Priority Allocations.--The Winnebago Tribe urges the
    Administration and the Congress to continue to provide additional
    resources through the Tribal Priority Allocations account to assist
    tribal governments to address basic services for our communities. The
    President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an increase of some $34
    million over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Although the majority
    of these funds are proposed for specific programs, rather than as a
    general increase to the base funding of all tribes, we do support
    additional funds for TPA in fiscal year 1999.
        Under the BIA's TPA program, the Tribe contracts to operate Aid to
    Tribal Government, Judicial Services, Employee Assistance, Higher
    Education, Credit, Law Enforcement Communications Services, Real Estate
    (services related to land management), Services to Children, Elders and
    Families, Indian Child Welfare Act services and Wildlife and Parks. The
    total 1997 TPA contract was $817,500, a decrease of $42,000 from the
    contract amount for 1996 which was $866,000; the Tribe supplemented
    this amount with $722,743 from tribal revenues. In the 1998 budget, the
    Administration requests $889,100 for the Winnebago Tribe TPA, an
    increase of just $23,000 from 1996, and $71,500 from the current year
    level. For the current funding year Tribal Allocations to TPA programs
    has decreased from $722,743 to $531,082 due to the decline in tribal
    revenue. With the unmet need of $301,861 identified by tribal
    resolution No. 97-17 in 1997, plus the actual decrease in 1997 in
    tribal funding of $191,745, and finally the additional shortfall
    identified by our tribal program directors in their programs for fiscal
    year 1998, the overall TPA programs show a shortfall of $987,376 just
    to maintain basic operations.
        The following identifies needs of each program under the Tribal
    Priority Allocation program:
        Aid to Tribal Government funds 3 positions, a Tribal Planner,
    Community Development Specialist, and Office Associate. These positions
    were identified in fiscal year 1998 to develop a Planning Department
    for the Tribe to aid in leveraging tribal funds to secure grants from
    the public and private sectors to provide services in Youth
    Development, Youth Employment, Drug and Alcohol Prevention programs,
    Senior Employment, Rural Transportation, Juvenile Staff Secure
    Facilities, Culture Restoration, and Education programs that have been
    defunded or received major cut backs because of decreased tribal
    revenue. Additional funding of $69,600, would enable this program to
    provide staff to develop individual program planning and assist grant
    preparation to increase funding for planned program growth.
        Judicial Services averages over 900 cases in civil, criminal,
    juvenile, family and traffic cases per year. Court needs includes funds
    for court automation. Many activities are still done by hardcopy by
    hand. Computer data capability has been provided to the court during
    the last two years, but these systems will need to be replaced before
    the year 2000. Because we have only one probation officer for all
    adults and juveniles, we are unable to proper monitor compliance with
    court orders. We are also having difficulty in enforcing child support
    orders simply because we do not have the necessary staff. The Tribe
    needs at least another $398,688 for judicial services. The Tribe's
    Supreme Court which hears all appeals is funded entirely by the Tribe.
        Real Estate Services provides services to the tribe in management
    and leasing of all tribally owned land and is responsible for ensuring
    that trust and fee land is managed in accordance with environmentally
    sound practices to guarantee a solid future for generations to come.
    Other services include helping locate homesites for tribal members,
    many of whom own fractional interests in larger pieces of land and
    continue tribal efforts in land consolidation of all tribal lands.
    Present funds provide for a program director, and administrative
    assistant. Additional funds for this program would provide for a lease
    monitor to assure all lease compliance with leasees of tribal
    agricultural lands. This position was funded by tribal revenue.
    Additional funding of $53,120 is needed to meet this shortfall in
    program monitoring of tribal lands.
        Services to Children, Elders, and Families is a program which is
    underfunded in the area of administrative support. Current funding is
    $59,589 which provides for one caseworker and operational costs to
    service all of the Tribe's welfare caseload. Additional funding of
    $170,400 would provide sufficient funding to hire a Human Services
    Director, and three caseworkers to assist the management of this
    program.
        Children with behavioral and/or emotional problems are sent to a
    detention center off the reservation with the tribe responsible for a
    majority of the cost for this activity. The center is about an hour
    away and, while the facility does allow the Tribe to provide services
    for all native American children living on the Winnebago Reservation,
    there are rarely sufficient funds to provide the kinds of services the
    children need. The Tribe has provided in excess of $150,000 per year to
    meet this need. However, the real need to enhance prevention programs
    aimed at this group would be a better use of these funds. Most state
    and federal programs focus on treating symptoms, leaving the tribe
    responsible for funding and implementing prevention. We recommend that
    current costs for detention of juveniles be provided under Child
    Welfare. This would provide the opportunity for the tribe to redirect
    funds to youth prevention activities in the community for all Native
    American children living on the Winnebago Reservation.
        The Tribe is reorganizing the Human Services Department to try to
    realize more benefit from the dollars expended. For example, the tribe
    is in the process of combining employment and training programs under
    Public Law 477 guidelines. This process will be completed and
    implemented by Oct. 1, 1999. The Tribe is also developing a centralized
    in-take process to streamline all delivery services (social, health,
    education, training, employment, law enforcement, court) to meet the
    total needs of families. This holistic approach to confront the total
    needs of a family in crisis is an innovative process to stabilize
    families and prepare the family unit to become productive members of
    the tribe. This process would require case management by a number of
    services at once for each family member needing assistance identified
    by the in-take process. The benefits and savings of one family becoming
    functional would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in future
    services to it members and off-spring. This process as run into many
    problems do the fact federal and state funds are extremely
    compartmentalized and laden with bureaucratic red tape.
        Law Enforcement Communications Services is a program overlooked,
    and underfunded by law enforcement programs within the BIA. In the 1998
    TPA program funding the Winnebago Tribe committed $141,356. to meet the
    minimum funding necessary to provide 24 hour communication services to
    the community of Winnebago and the surrounding area. Services include
    Law Enforcement communications, fire calls, networking with other law
    enforcement agencies, and emergency calls. Additional funding of
    $157,848 is needed to bring this program into a standard of service
    which would meet the needs of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
        Wildlife and Parks funds two conservation officers and two part-
    time officers during hunting seasons on the Winnebago Reservation.
    Without them, there would be no law enforcement of hunting codes on the
    reservation. The Tribe has an agreement with the State of Nebraska
    whereby the Tribe monitors and manages the reservation wildlife. Needs
    of this program are a staff position to oversee the general
    administration of this program and a part time biologist to assist
    conservation officers in herd management of deer population, wild
    turkey and other wildlife management. Additional funding of $137,720,
    would meet staffing and operational needs for this wildlife management
    program.
        Law Enforcement.--We urge the Subcommittee to support the
    Administration's request for $25 million for BIA Law Enforcement, to be
    used for criminal investigators, uniformed police and basic detention
    services, within the Special Programs and Pooled Overhead account. We
    support additional funds for law enforcement in Indian country based on
    two particular needs experienced by the Winnebago Tribe.
        Law Enforcement Center--The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska is
    requesting a centralized Facility to house our Tribal Court, BIA Law
    Enforcement, Tribal Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement Communications
    Services, Adult Detention Services, and Juvenile Detention Services on
    the Winnebago Reservation. Projected costs for this project would be
    $8,400,000 for site preparation and construction, $630,760 to meet
    staffing requirements for detention facilities, and $657,000 to meet
    operational costs for this facility. The Winnebago Tribe is currently
    developing plans and options for cost share on this needed facility for
    our community. As mentioned earlier juvenile detention costs are
    reaching prohibitive amounts for the tribe. Adult detention requires a
    number of adults ordered to detention to be transported to facilities
    in South Dakota approximately 150 miles from our reservation. Costs of
    transportation, officer transporting time, report filing time, and
    returning of prisoners to the Winnebago Reservation are costs that can
    only be estimated. Adults and juveniles that must be placed under house
    arrest because of funding limitations defeats the process of punishment
    for law violations. It is our hope by jointly working with federal
    agencies, state agencies, and our tribal government there will be
    affordable solutions in cost sharing to enable this project to proceed
    in a very timely matter. As part of this request the Winnebago Tribe
    ask that General Services Administration (GSA) begin the process to
    work out a long term lease with the tribe to secure needed operational
    costs, and possible loan repayments for this facility.
        BIA Law Enforcement Services/Uniform Division--The Winnebago Tribe
    of Nebraska requests that additional funding be made available in the
    amount of $1,225,975 to the Winnebago Agency Law Enforcement Services
    to be used to bring BIA Law Enforcement Services on the Winnebago
    Reservation to a standard that will provide adequate services to the
    Winnebago Reservation and all Native Americans living and working
    within its boundaries.
        Tribal Colleges.--In the fall of 1996, the Winnebago Tribe
    chartered and began operation of the Little Priest Tribal College. The
    College, the 30th member of the American Indian Higher Education
    Consortium began to receive assistance payments under the Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges Act (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) in fiscal
    year 1998. Little Priest Tribal College submitted its self-study and
    requested a site visit by the North Central Accreditation Agency. It
    has initial candidacy status.
        The Winnebago Tribe supports the Administration's requested
    increase of $5.5 million for operating grants for the 26 Tribally
    Controlled Community Colleges, for a proposed fiscal year 1999 level of
    $35.4 million.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Bruce Wynne, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians
        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Spokane Tribe.
    The Tribe is located in Eastern Washington, has 2,145 members and a
    Reservation of 156,000 acres. While the Spokane Tribe was historically
    a fishing tribe, we now rely primarily on timber for tribal income. The
    Spokane Tribe supports the overall increase of $142.1 million over the
    fiscal year 1998 enacted level for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    However, there are several program areas within the BIA for which the
    Tribe is asking for increased funding over the Administration's fiscal
    year 1999 request. We support the President's proposed increase of $5.5
    million for funding for the Tribally Controlled Community Colleges. In
    the Indian Health Service, the Tribe is asking the Subcommittee to
    support funding for new modular units to house the Tribe's clinic and
    funding for an elderly assisted living program. In addition, there are
    two policy matters: the first is to implement phase one of the
    Secretary's proposed settlement of disputed tribal trust accounts, and
    the second is the need to include tribes in the decisions related to
    restructuring of the Pacific Northwest Energy System.
                            bureau of indian affairs
    Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Account
        The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed $34 million increase in TPA
    funding for fiscal year 1999. The TPA funding is the lifeblood of
    tribal governments. It is the money tribes receive to support services
    for their people. The United States' obligation to provide funds for
    tribal health, education and welfare programs is part of the treaty
    guarantees made to tribes by the United States in return for the
    cession of millions and millions of acres of land.
        Decreases in prior years in TPA funding have left tribes actually
    losing in terms of adjustments for inflation. We use these funds for
    many purposes, including tribal government infrastructure, services for
    children and the elderly, scholarships, education, courts, law
    enforcement, adult vocational education, training, agriculture and
    forestry. The funds must be stretched very thin for all programs. The
    services the Tribe is expected to deliver versus the amount of our
    contracts for these programs does not fulfill the BIA's trust
    responsibility. In addition, the introduction of Welfare Reform has
    placed an unexpected burden on our Education programs.
        Our unmet identified needs total $2,469,207, as shown: $40,000
    increase for scholarships; $40,000 increase for fire protection--the
    Tribe currently loses 98 percent of all structure fires because of bad
    equipment, inadequate communications and remote fire stations; $115,900
    increase for tribal courts--the Tribe's court caseload has increased
    fourfold in two years; $585,307 increase for UCUT--significant funds
    are needed to maintain existing projects and implement new projects;
    $588,000 increase for Midnight Mine reclamation--the Tribe needs the
    technical expertise to adequately protect our reservation resources;
    $100,000 increase for Lake Roosevelt management--the documented needs
    falls short by this amount; and $1 million for the thirteen Columbia
    Basin tribes to participate in Columbia River Basin governance.
        We ask the Subcommittee to support the President's proposed
    increase for TPA and to add more if possible to this account which
    targets spending at the local level. An across-the-board ten percent
    increase over the President's budget would be of great benefit to all
    tribes nationwide.
    Tribally Controlled Community Colleges Act
        The President's budget requests an increase of $5.5 million for
    operating grants for the 26 Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, for
    a proposed fiscal year 1999 level of $35.4 million. The Spokane Tribe
    supports an additional increase of $2 million to $7.5 million. We
    believe this minimum amount is necessary to maintain stable and
    productive colleges on Indian reservations. The Spokane Tribal College
    is in its early stages of development. We are proud of our
    accomplishments to date and look forward to full participation in the
    TCCC's program in the near future.
    Johnson O'Malley; Scholarships
        The Spokane Tribe requests increased funding for the Johnson
    O'Malley program at the fiscal year 1995 level of $24 million. Fiscal
    year 1999 request is $18 million. We support the fiscal year 1999
    request of $29 million for scholarships, which is an increase of
    $488,000 over fiscal year 1998.
    Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
        The primary purpose of the UCUT program is to mitigate the harm to
    fish and wildlife caused by the construction and operation of
    hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
    UCUT has helped the Northwest Power Planning Council incorporate in its
    decisions the fundamental importance of fish and wildlife resources to
    the religious, cultural and economic livelihood of the Indian tribes.
    UCUT funds are used to implement, monitor and evaluate fish and
    wildlife plans as well as for regulatory enforcement, planning and
    coordination between State, Federal and Tribal governments.
        The Tribe supports the $5 million for a new water quality and
    watershed management planning program for reservation lands in the
    Missouri, Rio Grande, Columbia and Colorado River basins.
    Tribal/BIA Law Enforcement
        The Spokane Tribe supports the President's request for $25 million
    increase for BIA law enforcement we also appreciate the additional
    funds requested for tribal law enforcement in the Justice Department's
    budget. However, we urge that the Bureau remain the primary agency
    responsible for law enforcement in Indian Country.
                             indian health service
        As a general comment, the Spokane Tribe is concerned about the
    inadequate funding base for the Indian Health Service, especially the
    failure in the fiscal year 1999 budget request to include more than
    $130 million in mandatory cost increases for Federal Pay Act costs,
    inflation, population growth and staffing for new facilities. The
    proposed small increase ($2.8 million) for fiscal year 1999 does not
    include increases for inflation, population growth or staffing at new
    facilities and to meet the cost of implementing managed care through
    the IHS system. The Tribe is also concerned about the ongoing need for
    additional resources for construction funds, since many of the clinics
    in the Northwest are outdated, and unable to meet standards for quality
    health care. The fiscal year 1999 IHS budget request also assumes an
    increase in Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance collections
    totaling $25 million to offset the inadequate increase in funding.
        The IHS service unit clinic at the Spokane Reservation serves all
    of the Indians residing on and near the Spokane Reservation. The clinic
    is small and housed in a substandard facility. It is understaffed, with
    not enough doctors, dentists and other needed health personnel.
    Representative Nethercutt, who is the Spokane Tribe's representative in
    Congress, is working with the IHS to obtain modular units to house the
    clinic. We ask the Subcommittee's support for his efforts. The cost
    will be about $500,000. In addition, we would like to begin an assisted
    living program for our elderly citizens through the CHR program at IHS.
    A minimum of $200,000 is needed to establish such a program.
        The Spokane Tribe supports the proposed diabetes prevention
    funding. The actual funds that reach the Spokane Tribe is $35,000. The
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board is working on a
    distribution/allocation formula for the Northwest Tribes. The Spokane
    Tribe also supports the testimony of the Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board in its entirety. We are particularly supportive of the
    request to cover unfunded mandatory cost increases
                             national park service
        The Spokane Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), along with
    fourteen other tribes, has assumed the duties and responsibilities of
    the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for those lands within
    the exterior boundaries of the Spokane Reservation and all dependent
    Indian communities. The assumption is recognized through formal
    agreement with the Secretary of the Interior through the NPS. The
    amount of funding currently allocated for tribal cultural programs is
    not sufficient to run the THPO. The THPO fulfills federally mandated
    duties and responsibilities of the NPS. The Spokane Tribe strongly
    urges the Subcommittee to consider special set-aside funding for tribal
    cultural programs that at least match or exceed entities with similar
    duties and responsibilities.
                                 policy matters
        The Tribe is very concerned about the proposed plan to implement
    the strategic plan of the Office of Special Trustee for American
    Indians, particularly the funds requested in fiscal year 1999 for the
    first phase of the Secretary's proposed settlement of disputed tribal
    trust funds accounts. We strongly urge the Subcommittee take no action
    to implement any part of the proposal until the Tribes have reached
    some agreement on the matter. The Spokane Tribe requests a new
    appropriation of $1 million annually to the BIA Rights Protection
    program for use by the thirteen Columbia River Basin Tribes to complete
    planning and begin implementation of a Columbia River Basin governance
    process. The process will include those 13 Tribes, with the four
    Columbia River Basin States (Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington) and
    numerous federal agencies (including NMFS, ACOE, EPA, DOE and DOJ). The
    Three Sovereigns (Tribes, States and Federal Agencies) are developing a
    more effective regional governance process for the Columbia River
    Basin. The Tribes need financial support, consistent with the federal
    trust responsibility, to provide for offices, staff, travel and other
    necessary capability to effectively participate in the Basin governance
    process.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not once again remind the
    Congress of its failed obligations to Tribes and our sincerest hope
    that this Subcommittee will begin a corrections process. Since 1975,
    our funding for tribal programs has not kept pace with funding for
    programs that serve other Americans. While BIA education programs
    increased an average of $14.6 million per year from 1975 to 1998, in
    reality, when factored for inflation, these programs actually lost an
    average of $1.4 million each and every year. The Northwest Portland
    Area Indian Health Board reports that between 1995 and 1998, Interior
    appropriations decreased by 6.7 percent while Labor, HHS and Education
    increased by 9.7 percent.
        In addition, there are huge backlogs in federal obligations to
    Indian people, including $200 million in environmental clean-up costs
    for BIA facilities, $1.8 billion for Indian sanitation facilities, $4.8
    billion in Indian roads construction, and $188 million for essential
    maintenance and repair for IHS facilities. There is also a significant
    backlog in construction needs for schools (over $600 million), juvenile
    facilities and jails. The Spokane Tribe strongly urges the Subcommittee
    to consider special set aside funding for roads construction, as this
    is a critical area with shortages nationwide.
        Finally, the Spokane Tribe expects the Subcommittee to observe and
    enforce your rules. Once more, the Tribe appreciates the opportunity to
    submit this testimony today and we look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee during the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Earl Havatone, Chairman, Hualapai Tribe of
                                    Arizona
        Summary.--The Hualapai Tribe of Arizona strongly supports the
    President's budget request for funding for Indian tribes through the
    Historic Preservation Fund administered by the National Park Service.
    The President's budget request for the Historic Preservation Fund
    includes two items for tribes: (1) the existing program of grants-in-
    aid to Indian Tribes, for which the President's budget requests $3.096
    million, an increase of $800,000 over fiscal year 1998; and (2) the
    proposed program of millennium Grants to Save America's Treasurers, in
    which $3 million would be made available to tribal governments.
        Background.--In 1998, the Hualapai Tribe of Arizona became one of
    the first Indian tribal governments in the country to take over
    responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
    that would otherwise be performed by the State Historic Preservation
    Officer (SHPO). Amendments to the NHPA enacted in 1992 authorize tribal
    governments to take on those responsibilities, and so far some sixteen
    tribes have done so, even though the amount of federal financial
    assistance available for tribes is quite limited. The Hualapai Tribe
    was in a position to step forward and take on those responsibilities in
    large part as a result of our participation as a cooperating agency in
    the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the
    operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, a project administered by the Bureau
    of Reclamation. The Colorado River is the northern boundary of our
    Reservation, and there are numerous places throughout the Grand Canyon
    that hold religious and cultural importance for our Tribe. The
    operation of Glen Canyon Dam causes impacts on these traditional
    cultural properties. Accordingly, the Bureau of Reclamation provided
    financial assistance to the Hualapai Tribe and other tribes to help
    conduct studies to be used in preparing the EIS. That project funding
    enabled us to establish our tribal cultural resources program.
        Since 1996, our cultural resources program has been funded mainly
    through grants from the National Park Service. This has enabled us to
    accomplish quite a lot, including the enactment of our cultural
    heritage resources ordinance and the establishment of on-going
    relationships with federal and state agencies and other tribal
    governments.
        Need for this funding.--Tribal governments deserve to be full
    partners in our national historic preservation program. The American
    people need tribal governments to become full partners. As more and
    more tribes seek to take on responsibilities like those of the state
    historic preservation officers, the amount of funding simply must be
    increased. The President's budget is a modest request to meet a very
    important need, and we urge you to support it.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Joseph F. McConnell, President, Fort Belknap
                               Community Council
        The Fort Belknap Indian Community wishes to thank you for this most
    important opportunity to present a request for special appropriations
    by and for the members of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. My name
    is Joseph McConnell, I am the President of the Fort Belknap Community
    Council and a member of the Gros Ventre Tribe. I represent both the
    Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian
    Reservation.
        The Fort Belknap Indian Community is requesting appropriations to
    meet the following goals and objectives. (Attached for your review is
    justification for each goal and objective for which funding is
    requested):
    Natural resources
        Land consolidation: $7,250,000--appropriations to FBIC for land
    acquisition and relending to eligible individual members of the
    Community to reduce/eliminate fractionated heirship lands.
        Integrated resource management plans: ($1,789,000) year 1 $489,300;
    year 2 $325,000; year 3 $325,000; year 4 $325,000; year 5 $325--
    appropriations necessary to implement the planning requirements of
    Public Law 103-177 entitled Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act.
        Water development: $998,000--appropriations to FBIC for water
    development to stabilize livestock and farming/ranching industries
    through development/improvement of wells and impoundments.
        Boundary/interior fences: $2,770,000--appropriations to FBIC to
    replace 595 miles of boundary and interior fencing at $4,500 per mile
    constructed from 1889 to 1970 and to acquire and install cattle-guards
    at $1,000 each to protect the traveling public.
        Fort Belknap irrigation rehabilitation and betterment project:
    $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1998 to address Lower Main Canal ``A'',
    Drain ``D-1'' and Drain ``D-3'' in accordance with attached
    documentation.
        Historical/cultural/religious center: $350,000. The Fort Belknap
    Indian Community must develop the capability to protect and preserve
    historical/cultural/religious sites and artifacts. We must also expand
    our capabilities on ``repatriation''.
        Rangeland renovation: Historic abuse of the range (grazing)
    resources of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, and other
    Reservations, by United States Government Policies and unscrupulous
    livestock operations has resulted in the inability of the land to
    produce forage for which it is capable. One of the major contributors
    to insufficient production is ``clubmoss''. Range Renovation cost
    estimate is $602,976 and deferral cost estimates are $703,776 total
    estimated cost of Range Renovation Project is $1,306,750.
        Irrigation operation and maintenance: $65,000. The Fort Belknap
    Indian Irrigation Project is classified as a Category II Project. Under
    this category, Congress has authorized the partially subsidize of the
    operation and maintenance. This subsidy was not in last year's budget
    for the first time in the projects history and has created a severe
    hardship on the landowners and operators of the Tribe. The Fort Belknap
    Indian Irrigation Project lands are 99.5 percent Indian operated. The
    Tribe requests $65,000 for the category II subsidy for fiscal year 1998
    and in perpetuity. We are also requesting that any delinquent O&M
    assessed to landowners/operators due to inability of the project to
    deliver timely/adequate water or lack of drainage facilities be
    eradicated.
        Municipal, rural and industrial water project feasibility study in
    fiscal year 1999: In fiscal year 1999, the Fort Belknap Indian
    Community shall need Congressional authorization for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to fund a Feasibility Study for a Reservation-wide MR&I
    water project. The Tribes request that the House and Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development authorized
    the expenditure of $185,000 for a feasibility study for development of
    an MR&I water system for the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. This
    study shall identify costs and feasibility for the improvement of water
    supply systems for the Reservation to meet immediate public health and
    economic development needs at Fort Belknap.
    Tribal courts
        An additional area of major concern to the Fort Belknap Tribal
    Government is that of jurisdiction and the increasing attacks on the
    Sovereign status of the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. In an
    effort to up-grade our Courts system to enable us to withstand these
    attacks, we are requesting $868,540 annually for the next five (5)
    years in order to up-grade existing staff, increase professional and
    support staff and provide proper training, legal documents and expert
    witnesses and office support supplies.
    Indian Health Service and tribal health
        Funding for the medical care of Native Americans has fallen
    extremely short over the years. While inpatient and outpatient visits
    have increased, the funding has decreased. The President's budget
    request will have severe results if funding for some of these projects
    is not restored. We are requesting your support for the following:
        Hospitals and clinics.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of $9.9
    million.
        Sanitation facilities.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of $5
    million.
        Maintenance and improvement.--Restore the proposed budget cuts of
    $3.8 million.
        Collections.--The proposed requirement includes $25 million to be
    collected from other resources (i.e.: medicaid, medicare, etc.). These
    are funds that may or may not amount to the $25 million that is
    included in the budget. The shortfall would cut into other necessary
    funding. This requirement puts a burden on the field offices to collect
    this amount. Restore this amount and any collections would be used to
    offset this amount.
        Indian self-determination.--The budget proposes no additional
    funding for the ISD Fund. As of September 17, 1997, those on the
    waiting list amounts to $49 million.
        Contract support dollars.--There will be a substantial contract
    support shortfall for the on-going contracts and compacts.
        Pay cost increases.--The only reflect the needs for IHS staff and
    does not include the pay cost needs for Tribes.
        Fort Belknap Indian Reservation has just recently opened a new
    Clinic on the southern end of the reservation, in the community of
    Hays. In addition, a new hospital, located at the northern end of the
    reservation, is in the final stages of construction and hopefully the
    staff will be moving sometime in May or June of 1998. With the new
    Clinic in Hays, the outpatient load is sure to increase. No additional
    funds were made available for staff housing at the Hays Clinic, nor for
    the increase in staff at the new Fort Belknap Agency Hospital. IHS
    Engineering Services estimates the cost to be: Fort Belknap Agency,
    $3,201,000 for 13 units and Hays Clinic, $3,688,000 for 16 units. The
    cost would include the roads, water and sewer, landscaping, etc. In
    addition, we are requesting more funding for the Contract Medical Care
    Program at the Fort Belknap Agency as promised by Indian Health Service
    Staff. With the reduction of hospital beds, the Fort Belknap Hospital
    anticipates and increase in contract medical care. As it is, we are
    always short in contract medical care funds.
        Again I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present to you
    some of the needs of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and its
    members. If you require any additional information concerning our
    request, please contact me or a member of the Staff.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Mervin Wright, Jr., Chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute
                                     Tribe
        I am the Tribal Chairman for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of
    Nevada. On behalf of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit this written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee
    on Interior Appropriations. We express our gratitude for Committee
    support in the past, and respectfully request the Committee to fund our
    Tribe's priorities for fiscal year 1999: High School Construction,
    Water Right Acquisition Program, Judicial Services, Health and Welfare
    Services, Housing Improvement Program, Law Enforcement and Cultural
    Resource Preservation. A brief history will support this request for
    funding.
        Tribal history.--The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is one band of the
    Northern Paiute Nation and is organized under the Indian Reorganization
    Act of 1934. The Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation is the largest Indian
    reservation in the State of Nevada covering approximately 476,000
    acres. Pyramid Lake is the largest terminal lake in the United States
    and has a surface area of 110,000 acres. A prehistoric indigenous fish
    called the Cui-ui (pronounced Koo-uee) has existed in our lake for
    thousands of years, it is the foundation of our traditional culture and
    Pyramid Lake is the only place in the world where our Cui-ui is found.
    We are traditionally known as the Cui-ui Ticutta or Cui-ui eaters. The
    Cui-ui are an endangered species, while another inhabitant fish the
    Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is a threatened species. These two fish
    species were once the primary economic support for our Paiute People.
        The enrolled membership of the Tribe is currently 1,987. Our Tribal
    Government responsibility is to provide primary services to our
    elderly, our children, and the maintenance social order within our
    reservation. Cultural identity is a prevalent matter of importance in
    preserving the status and well being of our past and future
    generations. Education and health care are principle factors requiring
    professional attention and care at acceptable standards of our society
    addressing social ills and additional pressures of our modern day
    society.
    Pyramid Lake High School: $8,700,000
        Our high school architectural design is 100 percent complete and
    Congress appropriated $1.8 million in fiscal year 1998 to begin site
    preparation leading to construction completion. Our high school will
    enhance acceptable educational standards of achievement that will
    promote post secondary education promoting the well being our
    reservation community. We are committed to promoting a high standard of
    achievement, while each student entering high school will be provided
    the opportunity to realize the challenge of success and the completion
    of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. Our People
    will be positively impacted in realizing the building of social and
    economic indicators enhancing community based involvement aimed to
    further our ability to educating our youth.
    Water Right Acquisition/Water Resources Management: $3,000,000
        The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is seeking the remaining $2.5 million
    to complete its water rights acquisition program. Over the recent
    years, Congress has appropriated $9.5 million for this program and the
    remaining $2.5 million will complete the federal government's
    commitment authorized by 1996 Water Quality Agreement. Under the
    Agreement the United States Department of Interior, on behalf of the
    Tribe, is obligated to purchase $12 million worth of water rights from
    willing water right holders in the Truckee River Basin. Since the
    inception of the Newlands Reclamation Project in 1902 and with the
    construction of Derby Dam in 1908, Pyramid Lake's aquatic habitat and
    environmental structure has been seriously damaged and continues to be
    threatened. The Tribe entered negotiations in 1986 to resolve the long
    history of outstanding litigation and related issues on the Truckee and
    Carson Rivers with upstream and neighboring communities, the States of
    Nevada and California and the federal government.
        We are directly involved with completing final stage of the
    Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act (Title II of Public
    Law 101-618). However, the management, monitoring and enforcement will
    only begin with achieving and approving this settlement. The Pyramid
    Lake Paiute Tribe is one of five principle signatories of the
    settlement act. As we approach the implementation phase of the
    settlement act, we realize and accept the immense administrative
    responsibility accompanying its implementation. The Tribal Water
    Resources Management Contract will require at least $500,000 in funding
    support for technically advanced operations associated with monitoring
    flows, establishing water quality criteria, scheduling releases,
    managing the accounting of various water supplies and participating in
    any further implementation activities. Our role is critical in
    achieving full satisfaction among the principle parties.
    Health Care/Social Services: $2,500,000
        Our health services and social structure on our reservation
    continue to be one of fragile capacity. The Tribe manages its own
    clinic facility, but the bureaucracy surrounding the service absorbs
    much of the funding before actual services can be provided. Service
    units are capable of providing equal, if not more efficient
    administration without incredible Area Office wasteful spending. This
    funding will provide for contract health care services which is used to
    treat Indian patients outside the primary care perimeters. Due to
    contract health services deficits, our patients are suffering increased
    denial of specialty providers as hospitals are refusing to accept our
    patients. Our service unit is forced to transfer funding from contract
    health services to purchase pharmaceuticals, while the Area Office
    budgets increase. Certain unfunded mandates for commissioned corps
    salaries and Area Office costs are crippling our capability to provide
    health care and restrict actual needed medical care.
        Dental services are lacking adequate funding support to accommodate
    the needs of our reservation community. We are limited to providing
    only one day of service per week and our patients are expected to
    utilize surrounding dental care units miles from the reservation. Our
    mental health care needs are severely conditioned by the funding
    disparity within the service unit. Our People deserve the utmost
    attention to address the needs to provide acceptable levels of
    professional clinical services.
        We thank Congress for providing $35 million for prevention and
    treatment of diabetes. We would use this funding amount to supplement
    and increase our ability to address the large alcoholism problem, which
    plagues every sector of Indian Country. Unlike diabetes, alcoholism
    affects the entire family. Alcohol related accidents are the number one
    killer of Indian People under the age of 40 and alcohol related deaths
    are 10 times higher than that of Caucasian populations. Diagnosed
    alcoholism is 10 times greater than that of any other category of
    People. We urge Congress to commit funding support to enhance our
    ability to combat a historical and longstanding problem.
        Our child abuse cases are among the high levels of our society. The
    Indian Child Welfare Act provides abilities to address the needs of
    Indian children, but without adequate funding levels, we are restricted
    to limit services to that of our penal systems. Child placements are a
    high cost to our Tribe, from which we can envision funding for
    pragmatic skills enhancement, parenting skills and family unity
    education programs. Our society has become highly dependent on federal
    services to absorb costs, which at times those costs are not
    supportable. Therapeutic based services provide welcomed intervention
    to families rather than forceful or court ordered counseling sessions.
    A positive approach is the best manner to address the problems related
    to social ills on our reservation. Our People will be the beneficiary
    of these supportable services through this funding.
    Housing Improvement Program: $100,000
        Our Tribe has incredible unmet housing needs with the majority of
    our homes built over 20 years ago. Most of the housing is below
    standard living conditions. Our elderly are the sector of our
    population that has lived in such substandard and poverty levels. This
    funding will be used to address housing needs such as water and sewer
    service, renovation, insulation and utility upgrades. HIP grants will
    help us to bring many homes of our members up to a livable standard.
    Cultural Resource Preservation: $300,000
        The overall land acreage of the reservation requires an immense
    level of resources to monitor and police areas of sensitivity.
    Uninvited encroachment, vandalism and trespass issues are the primary
    violations on the reservation. The Tribe has the ability to represent
    concerns and issues before federal and state agencies, but does not
    have the financial ability to organize an effort to work cooperatively
    and in conjunction with such agencies. The aboriginal territory of the
    Northern Paiute encompasses five states and crosses many jurisdictional
    boundaries. The Tribe will be responsible for planning and developing
    stringent representative measures to protect and preserve our vast
    amounts of cultural resources.
    Law Enforcement: $500,000
        Tribal law enforcement requires having the ability to effectively
    enforce tribal laws and regulations upon many visitors to the
    reservation, which also includes enforcement upon Tribal members. In
    enforcing the regulatory requirements for law and order, fish and game
    and ordinance compliance, this funding will provide a greater ability
    to work cooperatively with federal officials, state officials and local
    jurisdictions. It is important that our tribal government accept and
    support the needs of adequate law enforcement for proper enforcement
    measures to meet community safety needs of our reservation. We also
    want to call the Committee's attention to the lack of investigation
    abilities of our Tribal law enforcement. Many crimes on the reservation
    are not recognized by the Attorney General as important to the United
    States, so many acts of vandalism, arson, theft and property crimes go
    unpunished because the Tribe does not have investigative certification
    from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or any other federal agency.
    Judicial Services: $400,000
        Tribal judicial services includes providing court jurisdiction over
    civil and criminal matters occurring within the exterior boundaries of
    our reservation. We conduct both juvenile and adult court on a
    regularly scheduled basis. Much of our violators are tried in civil
    matters, while many are tried in criminal matters. This funding will
    provide for additional costs in locating our entire judicial services
    in a self-contained facility already established on the reservation,
    but aside from the administrative operations on the Tribe. We require
    this funding support for elevating the services of our employee duties
    and responsibilities of our two judges, court clerk, prosecutor,
    defense advocate and probation officer. This will enhance our ability
    to better serve law and order of our reservation.
    Policy Issues:
        BIA and IHS Reorganization.--As Congress continues its review of
    the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are serious
    concerns with respect to the structure of the BIA which provides actual
    services to reservation communities. The structure of the BIA, its Area
    offices and its BIA Agency offices tend to regulate the authority of
    this federal agency. The services provided through the Interior
    appropriation process gets into the system, but normally the Area and
    Agency offices tend to absorb the funds intended for Tribal programs on
    the reservation. It is a matter of reducing the bureaucracy causing
    setbacks, but not cutting funding for services that actually reach
    Indian Tribes.
        The Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) funding must be increased as
    many of the people based services are in direct association of this
    funding source. The BIA and other federal costs must not be expended
    from this TPA source, as the trust responsibility and regulatory
    compliance is retained within the BIA system. Tribes should not be
    charged with unnecessary costs that is a federal obligation to afford
    its own ability to address its bureaucratic problems without reducing
    needed funding for our TPA programs.
        The IHS is in the same situation. The services are not received at
    adequate levels. It is the Area Office and the Headquarters where the
    bureaucracy absorbs the funding intended to provide services on the
    ground. The purpose or reorganizing the IHS should be viewed as one to
    increase the services at the reservation. It is our recommendation that
    the process of restructuring the IHS not result in reduced funding for
    direct Tribal services. Tribal members are eligible for Medicaid and
    Medicare, but the IHS system offers their services as a supplement, not
    as an addition to the care provided. Although new medications are
    introduced to Indian populations through the IHS, our patients do not
    see the research and study results prescribing safe new drugs to IHS
    pharmacies. As a result, we are treated as experimental subjects while
    our illnesses and diseases are not effectively diagnosed, this is
    unacceptable. Our People cannot be treated as expendable to a
    bureaucracy controlled agency who may not utilize its own services upon
    its own families.
        Sovereign Immunity.--Legislation pending in the Senate, S. 1691,
    which aims to eliminate the sovereign status of Indian Tribes. If each
    member of Congress can expect its representative State to waive its
    limited and conditioned sovereign immunity, this bill may be viewed as
    fair, but until then this is form another form of a coward's attack. S.
    1691 is a meat axe approach to problems that are merely misapplied
    perception of non-Indian communities without merit. In a broad scope,
    this bill will gut Tribal sovereign immunity without protection for
    Tribal authority to govern Tribal affairs. S. 1691 findings are not
    valid and are a blatant disregard to the United States' fiduciary
    obligation to Tribes. This issue is not considerable by any means.
        Trust Responsibility.--The federal trust responsibility is one that
    our People know well and is one that I cannot allow to be overlooked or
    placed secondary to resources of material content. We are People of
    this land, the first People of this land and express our concern for
    equal, if not better, services for our People than has been provided by
    the Congress over the past 20 years. We expect that the concept of
    government to government relations be upheld by the each and every
    federal agency of the Interior Department. As long as we can
    effectively consult with each agency in decision making processes,
    there will definitely be an increased awareness to trust the ability to
    meet our expectations.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
        Prepared Statement of Thomas H. Altmeyer, Sr., Vice President,
                Government Affairs, National Mining Association
        The National Mining Association's (NMA) member companies account
    for approximately three-fourths of the coal production in the United
    States, over one billion tons annually, and the vast majority of mined
    minerals including iron ore, copper, gold, silver, uranium, lead, zinc,
    and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to present the mining
    industry's views on fiscal year 1999 programs for the following
    agencies: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
    Fossil Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological
    Survey, the Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land Management,
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Forest Service.
    Office of Fossil Energy
        One of our major challenges as we enter the 21st century will be
    both replacement and expansion of the electric generating capacity of
    our nation. By 2020, according to EIA forecasts, we will have to add
    the capacity to generate up to 1.7 trillion more kilowatt hours than in
    1997 (a 45 percent increase). In the same timeframe, much of existing
    capacity will be reaching its useful life, or must be relicensed. As we
    build new, to replace old and to meet new demands, we must be in a
    position to utilize the more efficient and cleaner technologies that
    DOE is developing through its R&D Programs. NMA supports continuing the
    Federal government's partnership with the private sector as an integral
    part of the foundation for enhanced utilization of our vast domestic
    energy resources.
        Vision 21.--DOE's Vision 21 proposal builds on technology
    advancements already being made by the Fossil Energy Program through
    the integration of ongoing research and development in advanced coal
    gasification and combustion, fuel cells and advanced coal conversion
    technologies. The ``energyplex'' concept incorporated in Vision 21 is
    integral to the effort to make the coal conversion process as close to
    a ``zero emission'' goal as possible by the middle of the next century.
    NMA strongly supports this concept.
        Research and development dollars spent to increase efficiencies of
    utility generating capacity have a greater potential to reduce overall
    energy use (and thus all emissions) than dollars spent to increase the
    efficiency of end use applications. For this reason, NMA supports
    focusing the majority of available research dollars to development and
    refinement of generation technology. DOE funding to continue the
    advanced clean/efficient power systems (advanced pulverized coal-fired
    power plant, indirect-fired cycle, high-efficiency integrated
    gasification combined cycle and high-efficiency pressurized fluidized
    bed) and carbon sequestration technology should be increased by the
    Congress.
        The Clean Coal Technology Program.--The Clean Coal Technology
    Program is a highly successful industry and government partnership
    designed to demonstrate a new generation of innovative coal processes.
    Many of the technologies developed by the program will be an integral
    part of the energyplex as envisioned by ``Vision 21.'' NMA supports the
    budget request to continue the Clean Coal partnership, which to date
    has been funded at approximately a 60/40 private industry to government
    ratio to obtain the multiple benefits derived from coal utilization
    both domestically and internationally.
        Coal Research and Development.--The subcommittee should provide
    adequate funding for coal preparation and direct and indirect
    liquefaction. Advanced coal preparation technologies promise to enable
    the nation to continue use of coal in traditional applications in large
    industrial and electric utility boilers. Development of cost effective
    liquefaction technologies will open new opportunities for high quality
    coal use in turbines for power and for liquid fuels. These systems are
    important both as an insurance policy against the disruption of
    imported oil to the U.S. and a necessary investment in establishing an
    economically viable liquid fuels program.
        National Laboratories and Cooperative R&D Programs.--The Department
    of Energy should continue its emphasis on making maximum use of its
    existing research facilities, including those national laboratories
    which traditionally have not been active in fossil energy. The National
    Laboratory system is important to the future of the mining industry
    steering R&D Programs for more efficient combustion technologies, and
    since the demise of the Bureau of Mines, a research program to enhance
    extraction technologies. Cooperative R&D Programs such as the Western
    Research Institute in Wyoming and the Energy and Environmental Research
    Center in North Dakota have demonstrated value because of their
    potential for near-term payback through commercialization and should
    continue to be supported through the DOE budget.
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
        The Industry of the Future Program.--The research priorities
    developed through this industry/government partnership will offer
    important direction to the Department of Energy, industry and the
    Congress in developing a research agenda in coming years. The mining
    industry is working with the Office of Industrial Technologies to
    develop technology road maps for the mining industry which will be
    completed in the fall of 1998. NMA urges the subcommittee to approve
    the funding level requested by DOE for this program.
    Energy Information Administration
        In addition to its value to the nation, the functions performed by
    the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are of significant
    importance to the mining industry. EIA's unbiased analysis and
    independent short- and long-term forecast form the basis for reasoned
    and responsible policy decisions by the Congress, the DOE and other
    government agencies on both the Federal and the state levels. EIA's
    independence and objectivity are extremely important as the nation
    evaluates the merits of the proposed Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
    and the effects on new energy systems should the protocol be ratified.
    EIA's energy data collection and dissemination responsibilities are
    essential to our industry's ability to evaluate production and market
    trends and to make investment decisions which benefit the nation. NMA
    urges the subcommittee to support the increase in funding proposed for
    the EIA.
    Office of Surface Mining
        The Office of Surface Mining's Regulation and Technology
    appropriation should be regularly evaluated in light of acknowledged
    maturation of approved state regulatory programs over the last 20
    years. The mining industry supports the agency's new results-oriented
    oversight system that emphasizes the effectiveness of state programs
    rather than the ill-conceived duplicative regulatory approach to
    oversight. Additional opportunities exist to streamline and reduce the
    number of OSM activities that duplicate state regulatory functions
    including consolidation of existing OSM offices and positions. State
    program grants, technical information processing systems, training
    state personnel, review of state program amendments and electronic
    permitting activities can and should continue to be enhanced as OSM
    streamlines its structure.
        The mining industry supports increasing the Title IV funding for
    these state abandoned mine land programs where priority coal projects
    remain to be addressed. We urge the subcommittee to require continued
    improvements by OSM and states in the efficient use of abandoned mine
    land (AML) dollars for on-the-ground priority, coal projects. Excessive
    expenditures for administration and overhead costs, as well as for
    projects unrelated to AML priorities should be discouraged. The mining
    industry would also note that the coal mining industry continues to pay
    substantially more in AML taxes than is used each year. This disparity
    of excessive revenue over expenditures--more than $100 million annually
    for the last three years--has pushed the cumulative unappropriated
    balance of the AML Fund to almost $1.5 billion.
    Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service
        National Mining Association members are engaged in extensive
    exploration for and development of minerals on public lands. These
    lands are the cornerstone of the nation's mining industry. In turn,
    mining operations on public lands generate taxes and employment. In
    many cases, mining activity is the major source of employment in rural
    communities.
        Absent reform of the Mining Law, the mining industry opposes the
    Administration's proposal to make the annual maintenance fee for mining
    claims on federal lands permanent and to a continuation of a moratorium
    on patenting. The mining industry continues to support legislative
    proposals to amend the mining law and has consistently sought to
    advance economically sustainable modifications including a royalty;
    payment for surface land with a reverter to the Federal government if
    used for nonmining purposes or upon completion of mining; and a claims
    holding fee. Last year, the industry signed a historic agreement with
    the Western states to identify and work toward elimination of
    disincentives to the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mine lands and other
    purposes. Work on the Abandoned Mine Land Initiative (AMLI) is
    proceeding cooperatively under the auspices of the Western Governors'
    Association. Any additional revenues collected from the industry for
    administration of the mining laws should be directly returned to the
    states where the AMLI activity is occurring to assist the ongoing
    effort.
        The mining industry, as well as other natural resource industries,
    is faced with increasing impediments to exploration and use of Federal
    lands. A significant, yet declining, amount of domestic minerals
    production activity is conducted on Federal lands. Withdrawals of land
    from exploration by executive fiat and through moratoria, as recently
    proposed by the Forest Service, coupled with NEPA compliance and
    permitting delays of as long as eight years, are resulting in a marked
    decline in domestic exploration and mine development activity--
    particularly on land areas under the control of the BLM and Forest
    Service. A number of major mining companies have significantly scaled
    back or terminated U.S. exploration activities. As a result, our
    nation's ability to continue to domestically produce the 40,000 pounds
    of minerals annually consumed per citizen is being placed in jeopardy.
        The mining industry would suggest that an independent assessment of
    the ramifications of this trend on domestic production and minerals
    availability would greatly benefit policymakers in evaluating current
    and future land use policy. The mining industry recommends that the
    Congress direct the National Academy of Sciences through the Board on
    Earth Sciences and Resources to prepare such an independent analysis on
    an expedited basis.
        Pending submission of such an analysis to the Congress, the
    industry suggests that the use of Federal resources to conduct ongoing
    regulatory activity such as BLM's revisions to the Surface Management
    Regulations, which would duplicate existing state programs, and the
    Forest Service's proposed 30 million acre moratorium on multiple use be
    placed in abeyance.
        Available resources in both BLM and the Forest Service should be
    utilized for permit processing and NEPA compliance including an
    accelerated effort by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to
    identify and eliminate impediments to the orderly and timely conduct of
    NEPA analysis by the Federal, state, and private sectors. A recently
    completed analysis by the mining industry, which identifies existing
    problems in the administration of the NEPA, has been provided to the
    CEQ, relevant Federal agencies and the Congressional authorizing
    committees.
    Clean water and watershed restoration initiative
        The budget proposal highlights its commitment to the Vice
    President's clean water initiatives. In several places in its ``Budget
    in Brief'' the Department of the Interior refers to programs designed
    to clean up abandoned hardrock mines (AML sites). Six million can be
    identified in the BLM request, three million in the USGS request and
    $100,000 in the OSM request have been identified for hardrock AML
    cleanup. Additional analysis of the full budget document may uncover
    additional requests from these and other bureaus. EPA and other
    agencies may have made similar requests. However, history records that
    government agencies compete, rather than cooperate, with each other and
    states in their efforts. The result is that the appropriated money
    never ``gets on the ground.'' Further, efforts to clean up these sites
    are frequently inhibited by barriers and disincentives to state-led
    voluntary cleanups. NMA recommends that Congress urge Interior through
    the USGS, BLM, and OSM and other agencies to participate in, rather
    than circumvent, state-led initiatives to perform cleanups and help
    identify and eliminate the administrative, regulatory, and statutory
    impediments to effective abandoned hardrock mine restoration.
    U.S. Geological Survey
        Federal investments in geoscience research and information have for
    decades paid enormous dividends, and the rationale for continued
    support of geoscience remains strong. For example, there is a
    demonstrated need for an integrated national effort to provide
    information about natural resources and geologic hazards. In addition,
    the USGS prepares geologic maps utilized extensively in both the public
    and private sectors. The Survey is the only source for much of the
    statistical data on mining and minerals commodities. This information
    forms the basis for informed policy decisions by government and is
    extensively used by industry, nongovernmental organizations and
    academia. Therefore, NMA strongly advocates that these data collection
    and dissemination activities continue to be funded and carried out by
    USGS in conjunction with state geologists.
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
        The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation continues to move
    forward on their rule amending their regulations implementing Sec. 106
    of the National Historic Preservation Act. NMA commented on the
    Council's proposed rule in November, 1996, stating that the Council's:
    ``* * * attempt to expand its limited role under Sec. 106 in a manner
    that transcends its statutory authority pervades almost the entire
    rule.'' The subcommittee should closely monitor the Council's
    rulemaking activity to ensure that the Council: (1) completes its
    report and allows Congress sufficient time to respond, if necessary;
    and (2) promulgates regulations that do not exceed its limited
    commenting role under Sec. 106.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
                                  introduction
        The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) is pleased to
    offer its views on the role of government in support of energy
    research, development, and deployment (RD&D)--as it relates to energy
    efficiency programs at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The BCSE is
    a diverse group of companies and industry trade associations; our
    members include manufacturers, energy producers, suppliers,
    distributors, and energy service companies. The BCSE has Fortune 500
    companies and small entrepreneurial businesses as members. The Council
    supports energy policies and programs that enhance the nation's
    economic, environmental, and national security goals through the rapid
    development and deployment of efficient, non- and low-polluting energy
    technologies.
        The Council is highly supportive of the Administration's fiscal
    year 1999 request for energy efficiency and alternative energy
    programs. The years 1997 and 1998 stand to be watershed years for
    energy policy in the United States due to a convergence of at least
    three substantial events. They include: (1) The international climate
    change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan; (2) The emergence of state and
    impending federal electric industry restructuring; and (3) The
    possibility of Clean Air Act re-authorization. The BCSE believes that
    the least intrusive and most efficient means of addressing domestic and
    international environmental challenges is to promote cost-effective
    clean energy technological solutions. The BCSE supports the view that
    the federal government has an important role in working in cost-shared
    partnership with U.S. industry toward the accelerated development and
    deployment of energy-efficient and alternative fuel technologies.
        The federal government's energy efficiency programs are as diverse
    as the activities that consume energy. Given their breadth, the BCSE
    will not attempt to address all of DOE's energy efficiency programs.
    Rather, we would like to focus on a few programs that the BCSE believes
    illustrate the value of the federal government's energy efficiency
    effort.
                           alternative fuel vehicles
        Transportation is the fastest growing energy consuming sector. Most
    of the forecasted increase in demand for petroleum imports is driven by
    the growing consumption of motor fuels. In 1996, DOE reported that
    approximately two-thirds of all U.S. petroleum consumption and one-
    fourth of all U.S. energy consumption are directly attributable to the
    transportation sector. Demand for energy in this sector is actually
    projected to grow faster than approximately two-thirds of all U.S.
    petroleum consumption and one-fourth than the population due to
    increased per capita travel and slower fuel efficiency gains.
    Alternative fuel vehicles (AFV's)--including natural gas and electric
    vehicles--promise to reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil while
    virtually eliminating emissions of criteria air pollutants. The
    Administration has been very active in promoting its Partnership for
    Next Generation Vehicles (PNGV).
                               battery technology
        A key component of PNGV includes advanced battery technologies for
    electric (EV) and hybrid vehicles. DOE has conducted research, in
    cooperation with the Advanced Battery Consortium that has led to
    significant improvements in battery performance. The Ovonic Nickel-
    Metal Hydride battery--produced by Council member Energy Conversion
    Devices--has met or exceeded the performance goals set by the
    Consortium, affirming the future market viability of EV technologies.
    Although the technology is ready for market introduction, further
    advancements in battery technology are required before the electric
    vehicle becomes commonplace.
                              natural gas vehicles
        While the BCSE is pleased with the Administration's increasing
    budgets for PNGV, the Council is also very supportive of natural gas
    vehicle (NGV) research. At this Subcommittee's request, the NGV
    industry and DOE entered into a joint five-year research plan. The BCSE
    supports full funding for the Plan. Accordingly, the BCSE supports DOE
    research for engine optimization, tank storage, and infrastructure
    equipment. DOE's emphasis should continue in the industry's priority
    areas of high-fuel use medium- and heavy-duty fleet vehicles. Finally,
    the BCSE continues to be a strident advocate of the Clean Cities
    program and its successful effort to create and expand AFV corridors.
                            combined heat and power
        The BCSE supports the highly leveraged advanced gas turbine, fuel
    cell, and cogeneration research programs being conducted at DOE. The
    Advanced Gas Turbine system offers extremely high efficiencies and low
    emissions. The BCSE believes that clean distributed power generation
    systems will have a remarkable impact in the electric market in the
    coming years. The BCSE supports full funding for both the industrial-
    scale and large generation turbine programs. These programs have served
    as a model for public/private partnership. In terms of hybrid systems,
    the gas turbine has great potential for hybrid applications with other
    devices. One option is a natural gas-fired fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid
    system that can use waste heat from the fuel cell to drive the gas
    turbine as a bottoming cycle. The Council supports DOE forays into
    promising hybrid systems of this nature. The Initiative also encourages
    DOE to continue work on microturbine (ten to hundreds of kilowatts
    scale) development under the Office of Transportation programs.
                             fuel cell technologies
        One of BCSE's members, International Fuel Cell/ONSI, has a
    commercially available Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) on the market
    for dispersed electricity generation. More fuel cells will be available
    in the future in a variety of sizes to fill diverse power-generating
    needs. High-temperature, natural gas fuel cell systems that are
    currently under development may ultimately be able to achieve a 60
    percent fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency. This is extremely
    favorable compared with the average of 35 percent fuel-to-electric
    efficiency for the mix of generating equipment currently used to supply
    the Nation's electricity. Further development of all fuel cell types
    must focus on refining system designs to reduce costs, improving
    performance, reducing maintenance requirements and developing the
    manufacturing technology needed to achieve a market-clearing price. In
    order for PAFC's to achieve full commercial status manufacturing
    challenges will need to be overcome. However, the lessons learned will
    have a wider application and will make U.S. technology more competitive
    in the global marketplace.
        The two principal U.S. developers of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells
    (MCFC) are pursuing different paths in the designs of their cells,
    stacks, and power plants. The BCSE supports the diversity of the two-
    developer approach. DOE must also play a leading role in initiating MW-
    scale demonstrations of the MCFC and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)
    technologies to validate commercial feasibility, build user confidence
    in the technology, and attract the investment needed to build a
    manufacturing capability.
                     heat pumps, gas cooling and appliances
        Natural gas cooling technologies are especially energy efficient
    when measured on a life-cycle and/or full-cycle basis. The societal
    benefits of natural gas cooling accrue during the hours of the day and
    months of the year that correspond to the peak demand for electricity.
    A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1994 estimated that the
    domestic and international use of natural gas cooling will create a net
    270,000 annual jobs between 1996 and 2010. This would create and
    additional $8.3 billion in wage and salary income. By investing in
    advanced gas cooling technologies, U.S. industries will also be able to
    capture the growing global market for clean efficient technologies. The
    BCSE is highly supportive of these programs and places great emphasis
    on robust research for the GAX and large commercial chiller programs.
        The BCSE supports DOE's research and training programs on desiccant
    dehumidification devices. Desiccants offer the option of decoupling
    temperature from humidity loads on a building, thus applying exactly
    the amount of energy needed to satisfy each load independently. DOE is
    participating in the improvement of this potential new market by
    studying the properties of newly developed desiccant materials. Further
    materials characterization, combined with analysis of the effects of
    desiccant wheel structure and mass on desiccant equipment performance,
    offer the potential to improve desiccant system economic effectiveness.
        DOE should also continue its research and development of energy
    efficient appliances in residential and commercial buildings,
    particularly those that utilize alternative fuels. There is an inherent
    conflict between national increased efficiency requirements and
    consumers' desire for lower first-cost equipment. Increased-efficiency
    systems, while offering lower energy costs and (usually) lower life-
    cycle costs, are increasingly more complex and more expensive than
    lower-efficiency equipment. Increased research is needed to solve this
    paradox between efficiency requirements and consumer desires.
        In addition to balancing the energy efficiency needs of new
    appliances with consumers' demands, DOE should educate consumers about
    the benefits of purchasing high-efficiency appliances, both to
    themselves and the nation as a whole through reduced energy
    consumption. Major appliance manufacturers such as Maytag are willing
    to work with DOE to help promote efforts to encourage consumers to
    replace older appliances with newer and more energy efficient models.
                                utility programs
        DOE also has worked effectively with utilities and power
    authorities to promote energy efficiency. Through voluntary programs
    such as Climate Wise, DOE has obtained the commitment of utilities to
    reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Generally, activities that
    reduce emissions also reduce energy use. Climate Wise participants--
    such as Council member Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)--
    have premised their programs on sound economic principles. In fact,
    SMUD attributes its aggressive support for energy efficiency as a
    primary reason it has been able to stabilize its electricity rates.
                            standards and insulation
        DOE has played a constructive role in providing educational and
    technical support of building codes and standards such as the Model
    Energy Code and ASHRAE 90.1. These codes and standards--promulgated by
    private-sector organizations--help ensure that our nation's housing
    stock reflects good building construction practices and is reasonably
    energy efficient. In addition, DOE is currently providing educational
    and technical support to help industry implement the guidelines. DOE
    also has provided valuable technical assistance to the polyurethane
    foam insulation industry, helping the industry to find substitutes for
    some blowing agents used in insulation installation. The new
    polyisocyanurate insulation performs as efficiently as the prior
    product.
                           federal energy management
        Finally, the BCSE is extremely supportive of the Federal Energy
    Management Program (FEMP) efforts at reducing federal energy usage
    through the use of energy service performance contracting, reducing
    energy usage while minimizing up front capital outlays. The federal
    government spends over $3 billion annually to light, heat and cool the
    interior of buildings it owns and operates. FEMP's progressive program
    is a model of public/private partnership. Federal facilities, like
    those occupied by private industry, often can be economically upgraded
    and retrofitted, reducing the energy required to provide essential
    building energy services. The BCSE is proud that two of its members,
    Honeywell and Pacific Enterprises, won DOE competitive regional
    solicitations to perform this important work. We believe every agency
    of the federal government should increase its utilization of energy
    service performance contracts to take advantage of this approach for
    upgrading facilities and reducing energy expenditures.
                                   conclusion
        The Council recognizes that the Administration's fiscal year 1999
    request for energy efficiency programs represent an increase over
    fiscal year 1998. However, the BCSE believes that the federal
    government's participation in cost-shared public/private partnerships
    aimed at developing cost-effective non and low-polluting technologies
    is the best and least intrusive manner for the government to address
    our environmental challenges.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
     Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa; Director, Integrated
           Public/Private Energy and Environmental Consortium [IPEC]
     ``train the trainer'': expanding environmental know-how among native
                                   americans
        Damage from past oil production can be found throughout
    historically active oil and gas producing areas of Oklahoma. Perhaps
    one of the most persistent problems is contamination resulting from
    spills or intentional surface discharge of produced water brine. The
    sites of these spills are seen today as scars on the land, devoid of
    vegetation, and highly eroded. In many cases the parties responsible
    for these brine spills can no longer be identified. For example,
    historic brine scars are clearly visible on aerial photos from
    northeast Oklahoma from 1937. Historic brine scars not only represent a
    loss of use of land but also a continuing source of pollution of
    valuable surface waters and groundwater. Many of these brine scars are
    located on tribal lands near public and private sources of drinking
    water. These sources of drinking water are jeopardized by runoff and
    drainage from brine scars carrying brine components. The only way to
    prevent these scars from acting as continuous sources of brine
    contamination is to remediate them. However, local tribal authorities
    rarely have the environmental know-how to remediate these problems
    although the remediation of crude oil spills and brine scars does not
    require expensive instrumentation or highly trained environmental
    professionals. Members of tribal organizations with a high school
    education can be easily trained to do site assessment, site
    remediation, and, where necessary, ongoing monitoring. The major
    equipment required is earth moving equipment. Most tribes have
    equipment of this type currently used for road work and other municipal
    projects. Once trained, members of the tribes can train others to
    perform these remediations.
        The University of Tulsa respectfully requests an appropriation of
    $500,000 for fiscal year 1999 to provide much-needed training in
    remediation and spill response to tribal organizations in areas of the
    State of Oklahoma impacted by past oil and gas exploration activities.
    The ultimate goal of this training will be give Native Americans
    environmental know-how that they can pass on to others.
    integrated public/private energy and environmental consortium (ipec)--a
                          progress report to congress
        In fiscal year 1998, after a three year campaign and the strong
    support of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation, the Congress provided
    $1.5 million in dedicated funding for the Integrated Public/Private
    Energy and Environmental Consortium (IPEC), for the development of
    cost-effective environmental technology and technology transfer for the
    domestic energy industry. The funding was provided in the fiscal year
    1998 appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    As envisioned and proposed by the consortium, State-level matching
    funds have been pledged to support IPEC, creating a true Federal-State
    partnership in this critical area.
        IPEC officers have met with the Agency and are working to satisfy
    all of EPA's internal requirements for funding as a research center.
    Although it will be some months before IPEC finalizes a grant with the
    EPA, IPEC is proceeding in our solicitation and review process so that
    we will be in a position to fund projects as soon as funds are made
    available. We have solicited research proposals, formed our Industrial
    Advisory Board, and had all proposals evaluated by the IAB for
    relevancy to our mission. Of 36 proposals received thus far, five have
    been approved by the IAB to proceed further in the evaluation process.
    So you can see our IAB takes its job very seriously.
        Although IPEC's close ties to the independent sector of the
    domestic energy industry have resulted in a strong working relationship
    with the National Petroleum Technology Office in the Office of Fossil
    Energy, IPEC continues to have broad applicability across the
    Department of Energy. For example, IPEC is in the second year of a
    major three-year effort to support risk-based regulatory decisions at
    hydrocarbon-contaminated sites. This work is funded by the Biological
    and Environmental Research (BER) Program of DOE ($973,000). Further, as
    I noted previously, IPEC's Industrial Advisory Board has thus far
    approved five research topics as relevant to our mission. Of these
    five, four concern bioremediation of contaminated soils using plants
    and microbes, issues relevant to the missions of both FE and BER.
    Fiscal Year 1999 Office of Fossil Energy Budget Request
        In its presentation of its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the
    Office of Fossil Energy proposes a significant increase in fiscal year
    1999 for the development of technologies that decrease the cost of
    effective environmental protection and regulatory compliance. These
    goals are certainly consistent with those of IPEC and we endorse the
    proposed budget increase. However, the fiscal year 1999 proposal
    eliminates funding for downstream (i.e., refining) processing
    technology. The Nation needs to continue to improve the economic
    viability of our remaining refineries and prevent further lost of
    domestic refining capacity. Therefore, IPEC urges the Subcommittee to
    continue funding of this vital research in fiscal year 1999.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Kateri Callahan, Executive Director, Electric
                            Transportation Coalition
                           introduction and overview
        This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric
    Transportation Coalition (``the Coalition''), a national, non-profit
    organization of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, state and
    local governments and other entities that have joined together to
    advocate greater use of electricity as a transportation fuel. (A
    membership list is attached.) A principal activity of the Coalition,
    which was formed in 1989, is to encourage the adoption of incentive-
    based policies and programs to support the development of a widespread
    and sustainable market for electric modes of transportation.
        The Coalition believes the role of the federal government, in
    partnership with industry, is four-fold. First, to continue to
    participate in efforts to advance the state of electric transportation
    technologies through programs like the United States Advanced Battery
    Consortium (USABC); second, to join industry in the test and evaluation
    of the latest electric vehicles technologies through programs like the
    Department of Energy (DOE) Field Test and Evaluation program; third, to
    work with communities and industry to assure deployment of
    infrastructure required to support the convenient and safe operation of
    EV's; and fourth--and perhaps most important at this stage in EV
    commercialization--to use the purchasing power of the federal
    government to ``kick start'' the market for EV's through acquisition of
    commercially-available products for use in federal agency fleets. The
    Coalition requests that the Subcommittee provide funding to a number of
    DOE EV-related programs, as detailed below, to assure that the federal
    government is a full partner with industry in introducing technology
    that can further the national policy objective of increasing the use of
    clean, domestically-produced, alternative fuels--like electricity--
    within the transportation sector.
                         industry goals and objectives
        Three years ago, the Coalition adopted a strategic business plan to
    assure the successful commercial launch of electric vehicles (EV's).
    The plan, known as the ``EV Ready Market Launch Framework'' calls for
    the building of a partnership between the auto industry, the electric
    utility industry, the federal government and several key communities
    around the U.S. to establish the basis for a long-term and sustainable
    market for EV's. The goal of our plan is to demonstrate the viability
    of EV's through the successful deployment of up to 5,000 EV's in ten
    urban areas.
        To achieve this goal, the Framework focuses on preparing the
    infrastructure systems in the ten target communities to support
    electric vehicles. Under the plan, ``infrastructure'' is defined to
    encompass not only charging systems, but also financial and non-
    financial incentives, training, code and standard modifications, and
    public awareness.
        The six principal elements of the Framework, which are intended to
    direct and guide industry and government in efforts to launch the EV
    market are: Initiation of a commercial demonstration of up to 5,000
    EV's in up to ten areas throughout the U.S.; Government (federal, state
    and local) purchase an agreed-upon number of EV's; Utilities in
    selected areas purchase an agreed-upon number of EV's and secure
    investment of up to $2,000 per vehicle for charging infrastructure;
    Vehicle manufacturers will provide, and support the sale of EV's to
    selected areas; Auto and electric utility industries will seek a
    $10,000 per vehicle government incentive to offset the initial
    incremental cost differential for EV's; and, Auto and electric utility
    industry will seek to ensure that one-half of the vehicles placed
    through the Framework are equipped with advanced batteries and/or other
    enabling technologies.
              role of doe in meeting industry goals and objectives
        A number of the on-going DOE EV-related programs are providing
    critical support to a number of areas that are key to the success of
    this new, efficient and clean transportation technology. These DOE
    programs complement, and augment, other work that is being undertaken
    by industry separately or in partnership with other federal agencies.
    If fiscal year 1999 appropriations for these DOE programs are
    significantly reduced or eliminated, the requirements for funding would
    fall to other parties who may not be able to increase investments even
    further in order to move this technology into the marketplace.
             the united states advanced battery consortium (usabc)
        The Coalition urges support for the funding level of $7 million
    requested by the Administration for the USABC. (In fiscal year 1998,
    the Congress appropriated $15.8 million to this program.)
        The USABC is a battery research and development program, critical
    to the advancement of EV's. Full-size battery packs and their
    components, such as cells and modules, are being developed through
    research contracts and then tested by the developers, U.S. automobile
    companies, and national laboratories. Battery packs also have been
    installed in prototype EV's being operated at electric utilities and
    testing facilities of U.S. automobile companies.
        It is important to note that without the limited federal assistance
    already invested, the advancements in battery technology accomplished
    to date through the USABC probably would not have been achieved.
    Individually, companies cannot, or are unwilling to, make the
    significant investment required to conduct advanced battery research.
    Largely as a result of the USABC partnership, all three domestic
    automotive manufacturers have announced that nickel metal-hydride
    batteries will be offered in limited numbers of EV's beginning later
    this year.
        The majority of fiscal year 1999 funding will be directed toward
    long-term, lithium-based battery research; however, the Coalition urges
    the USABC to consider using some of the funding being sought for the
    program to help ``buy down'' the purchase price of early-to-market
    nickel metal-hydride batteries.
         funding for the hybrid propulsion systems development program
        The Coalition supports efforts underway by industry and by the
    federal government working with industry to develop a consumer
    attractive, ultra-low emission vehicle with high fuel economy. While
    continuation of the Department's Hybrid Propulsion Systems Development
    Program is supported by the Coalition, it should be noted that
    international and domestic auto manufacturers appear to have stepped up
    individual efforts to develop hybrid electric vehicles. Indeed, as of
    the end of 1997, Toyota began selling hybrid electric vehicles in Japan
    for approximately $17,000 per vehicle.
        The Coalition urges the Department and its partners to review the
    interim and long-term goals of the program to determine whether
    modification to the goals and/or scope of work is required given the
    new hybrid electric vehicle availability dates announced by the
    automotive industry. (Currently, the interim goal of the hybrid
    propulsion program calls for completion of production feasible hybrid
    propulsion systems that can double the fuel economy of passenger
    vehicles, compared to 1995 models, by all three domestic auto
    manufacturers by the year 2000. The long-term goal is to develop a
    production prototype hybrid electric vehicle, which will meet the PNGV
    goal of 80 miles per gallon, in the year 2004.)
           funding for the vehicle field test and evaluation program
        The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund the Vehicle Field
    Test/Evaluation program at $5.45 million, or $2 million above the level
    recommended by the President. The program provides critical federal
    support to industry efforts to test, evaluate and undertake fleet case
    studies of electric vehicles manufactured by original equipment
    manufacturers. Two test teams, known as ``Quality Vehicle Test Sites
    (QVTS)'' have been selected under the program to establish a uniform
    set of procedures to be used in undertaking baseline performance,
    reliability and fleet testing of EV's and for the conduct of such
    testing on EV's as they become available.
        Importantly, some of the funds made available in fiscal year 1998
    through this program are to be used by the Department to acquire, and
    to assist other agencies in acquiring, electric vehicles for use in the
    federal fleet. DOE intends to focus federal acquisitions of electric
    vehicles on those equipped with advanced batteries that have been
    developed through the United States Advanced Battery Consortium. The
    additional $2 million in funds being requested by the Coalition for
    this program can allow the federal government to acquire at least 500
    EV's as part of its obligation, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992
    (Public Law 102-486), to transition to the use of alternative fuel
    vehicles (AFV's).
        An announced goal of the Department for fiscal year 1999 is to add
    15,000 AFV's to the federal fleet. (Generally, the federal government
    acquires roughly 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles annually.) Currently, the
    federal government operates only about 150 EV's in its entire fleet of
    more than 400,000 vehicles. Further, current 1998 federal agency
    acquisition plans indicate that there may be no more than 200 EV's
    operating in the federal fleet by the end of 1998 unless further action
    is taken.
        The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's position that all
    costs for AFV's should be borne by the federal agency acquiring the
    vehicles. However, we believe that in the instance of electric vehicles
    an exception to this tenet is warranted for the following reasons:
        First, electric vehicle technology has largely been developed
    through industry and DOE partnerships. The federal government,
    principally through this Subcommittee, has invested significant funding
    into the development of this technology; these investments cannot
    provide a return unless the product (EV's) are commercialized. ``Early
    adopters'' who are willing to try new products, and pay a premium for
    the technology, are key to building volume (thereby lowering costs) and
    attracting infrastructure and technology improvement investments
    (thereby improving market potential). The federal government, using its
    purchasing power, is an extremely important ``early adopter'' market.
        Second, electric vehicles, if successful in the market place, offer
    significant environmental, energy security and energy efficiency
    benefits. Even given the emissions from power plants that result from
    the creation of the EV ``fuel''--electricity--EV's offer significant
    reductions in VOC's and NOX, the major precursors to ozone.
    Further, EV's--which are highly efficient in their use of energy--offer
    the potential to significantly reduce transportation-related greenhouse
    gas emissions. And, finally, at a time when the U.S. is importing more
    than one-half of the oil it consumes, EV's offer the advantage of being
    domestically-produced, from a wide variety of fuel feedstocks.
        The President, through an Executive Order (E.O. 13031) directing
    federal agencies to convert agency fleets to AFV's, has recognized the
    need for DOE assistance to the agencies in order to initiate the use of
    EV's within the federal fleet. The President has directed DOE to
    provide financial assistance of a limited amount (no more than $10,000
    per vehicle) to agencies that choose to acquire EV's to fulfill some or
    all of their vehicle acquisition requirements.
        We are respectfully requesting that the Subcommittee provide
    relatively modest funds ($2 million) to allow the DOE to assist federal
    agencies in acquiring a limited number of EV's. These federal
    acquisitions will be matched--and exceeded--by electric utility
    acquisitions. And, if the industry is successful in reaching the target
    level of acquisitions for calendar year 1998--3,250 vehicles into no
    more than 10 communities, the Coalition believes we will be well along
    the way toward development of a sustainable market for EV's in the U.S.
                other department of energy programs of interest
        In addition to the programs outlined above, the Coalition also
    supports funding to a number of other alternative fuel-related programs
    administered by the Department of Energy.
        To assure that the marketplace is prepared and receptive to new
    forms of transportation like EV's--especially in the ten Market Launch
    communities--the Coalition strongly encourages full funding, at the
    levels requested by the Administration, of DOE's programs designed to
    create an infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, including
    electric vehicles, and to build public awareness and confidence in
    these new modes of transportation. These funds include $6 million for
    the Clean Cities initiative; $2 million for infrastructure, systems and
    safety activities; and, $1.3 million for EPAct replacement fuels
    programs. These outreach, education, organization and infrastructure
    deployment activities by DOE encourage investment by industry and help
    to build market acceptance for alternative fuel vehicles.
                                   conclusion
        1998 and 1999 are critical junctures in industry's efforts to
    determine the type(s) of vehicles that will be used in the 21st
    century. The automotive manufacturers, government and the electric
    utility industry have focused upon electric drive systems because of
    their efficiency, environmental profile and flexible use of fuels. The
    automotive industry has begun to introduce the first generation of this
    technology--battery-powered electric vehicles. This Subcommittee can
    play an important role to assure that we can capture the full return on
    investments made to date, and realize the national benefits that will
    accrue from widespread use of EV's by providing adequate levels of
    fiscal year 1999 funding to the important industry and government
    partnership programs to advance EV's that are currently administered by
    the Department of Energy.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of James A. Beck, President, Seneca Resources Corp.
    Introduction
        Chairman Gorton and members of the panel, I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify before you. My name is James Beck, President of
    Seneca Resources Corporation (``Seneca Resources''). I am pleased to be
    here today to represent the interests of Seneca Resources regarding
    payment for drainage in the West Delta Field. Congress, under Title IV
    of Public Law 105-83, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, 1998 (``the Act''), provided that the drainage
    compensation would come from the newly created Environmental
    Improvement and Restoration Fund (``the Fund''). The purpose of my
    testimony is to propose methods of payment from the Fund or by other
    means that would provide the most cost effective disbursement mechanism
    to satisfy this $32 million obligation.
        Seneca Resources and the State are innocent parties that suffered
    substantial economic loss when they were drained for many years by an
    offsetting federal lease at West Delta. Even though the drainage was
    improper and the Minerals Management Service (``MMS'') controlled a
    mechanism to prevent this wrong, the Secretary of the Interior at the
    time allowed it to happen and took no action to stop it. Both Seneca
    and the State pursued a number of measures to end the drainage but were
    unsuccessful. Although the MMS disputed the drainage occurrence and
    amounts, a Congressionally appointed Independent Factfinder confirmed
    that drainage had in fact occurred and determined its magnitude during
    the period under study. Since the Independent Factfinder's study
    covered just a three-year period, the $32 million obligation that
    Congress has recognized represents only a portion of the resources that
    were drained. Drainage continued after the study was published.
        We are pleased that Congress, through this legislation, has again
    acknowledged the government's obligation to appropriate the funds
    authorized by Section 6004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (``OPA
    1990''). Seneca Resources, in cooperation with the State, hopes to work
    with Congress to bring the West Delta Field drainage issue to a close
    through the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process. It would appear
    that the newly established Fund is the intended vehicle from which to
    obtain the compensation. However, if the Fund is somehow not the right
    vehicle, then we respectfully request an appropriation of $32 million
    be made in fiscal year 1999 to pay the settlement. In addition, Seneca
    Resources is willing to explore other options that might be available,
    such as Outer Continental Shelf (``OCS'') royalty relief.
        My testimony includes some background on the issue and discusses
    how the Fund may most efficiently compensate the State and its lessees,
    including Seneca Resources, for oil and gas drainage in the West Delta
    Field.
    Company Overview
        Seneca Resources is a natural gas and oil exploration and
    production subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Company (``National Fuel'').
    National Fuel, incorporated in 1902, is an integrated natural gas
    company with its corporate headquarters in Buffalo, New York. The
    company has three major business segments: exploration and production
    and other non-regulated activities, utility operation and pipeline and
    storage. Seneca Resources is active onshore in Alabama, California,
    Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming.
    In addition, we operate offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico off of
    Louisiana and Texas.
    History of West Delta 17/18
        In August 1985, the State's lessees and Federal lessees began to
    produce a natural gas field in the West Delta region of the Outer
    Continental Shelf (``OCS'') that underlies both Louisiana and Federal
    waters. In November of 1985, the State's lessees began to notify the
    MMS that a federal lessee was draining the West Delta field at the
    expense of the State's lessees \1\. Officials at MMS and the Department
    of Interior (``DOI'') disagreed with the lessees, the Governor of
    Louisiana and the Louisiana Congressional delegation regarding the
    availability of relief.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ EDC suffered no drainage losses because it also owned an
    interest in the Federal leases and, therefore, was excluded from the
    drainage calculation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On April 17, 1986, Louisiana Governor Edwin W. Edwards formally
    notified DOI, pursuant to Section 8(g)(3) of the OCS Lands Act
    Amendments of 1986 (OCSLA) of common reservoirs in the West Delta
    blocks. When the MMS allowed an acceleration well to be placed on
    production, the State and its lessees filed a suit (April 25, 1986)
    against DOI, the MMS and the Federal lessee, seeking to compel the
    Secretary of the Interior into a unitization or other form of royalty
    sharing agreement. On May 22, 1986, the MMS changed its policy of
    cooperation (confirmed May 30, 1986) and resorted back to the outdated
    Rule of Capture, only to the extent that it applied to an adjoining
    State's leases. On December 19, 1986, the Federal Court in the Western
    District of Louisiana held that at West Delta 17/18, the Secretary of
    the Interior was not obligated to cooperate under Section 8(g) of the
    OCSLA.
        On August 17, 1987, litigation was proceeding concurrently with
    that in the West Delta unitization, in the Federal Court in the Eastern
    District of Louisiana. In that case (Clark \2\) the MMS was actively
    asserting its authority to force unitization of adjoining federal
    leases to avoid the undesirable affects that were fostered by the
    application of an unmodified Law of Capture at West Delta. The Eastern
    District Court in that case held that ``* * * the Conservation Manager
    (predecessor to the MMS) intended and was authorized to modify the Law
    of Capture * * *'' and ruled that his ``* * * decision to require
    unitization was a proper exercise of his authority.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Clark Oil Producing Co. v. Donald P. Hodel, et. al.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To resolve the dispute between the MMS and the State, the DOI and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989 was enacted containing a
    provision (Section 117) that directed the Secretary of the Interior to
    appoint an independent fact finder to determine if drainage was
    actually occurring. On March 21, 1989, Rider Scott, the Independent
    Factfinder, filed the Third Party Factfinder Louisiana Boundary Study
    with Congress. The report found:
      --The State and its lessees had suffered significant drainage of
            state natural gas and oil resources through the actions of the
            Federal lessees.
      --Total dollar losses to the State and its lessees at West Delta 17/
            18, in market prices at the time of the drainage, was
            $18,115,147.16.
      --44 percent of the loss was suffered by the State.
      --56 percent of the loss was suffered by the State's lessees.
    Authorization under OPA 1990
        Based on these findings, the Louisiana Congressional delegation
    sought and obtained a Congressional authorization of appropriations for
    compensation. OPA 1990, under Section 6004(c), authorized the
    appropriation of sufficient funds, including interest, to the State and
    its lessees, for net drainage of oil and gas resources as determined in
    the Rider Scott study.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The amount of compensation authorized is the amount determined
    by a Congressionally authorized third party fact finder, who set
    compensation at $18,115,147.16, plus interest. The Senate
    Appropriations Committee Report on the fiscal year 1991 Interior
    Appropriations bill specified an annual interest rate of 8 percent.
    Interest continues to accrue at $1,449,211.77 per year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Designated Funding
        Last year, Congress reaffirmed the obligation to compensate the
    State and its lessees by establishing the Fund under Title IV of the
    Act, and designating the State and its lessees, together with certain
    federal agencies, as beneficiaries of that Fund.
    Conclusion
        In its inclusion of corrective legislation in OPA 1990, Congress
    recognized the improper drainage in the West Delta Field and again
    directed the MMS to employ ``the cooperative development of an area''
    so as to prevent the harmful effects of unrestrained competitive
    production, including, among other things, ``economic waste,
    environmental damage, and damage to life and property.'' Last year,
    under Title IV of the Act, Congress reaffirmed the need and established
    the Fund from which to compensate the State and its lessees for the
    West Delta drainage. As stated in that law, a portion of this Fund is
    to be used ``for payment to the State of Louisiana and its lessees for
    oil and gas drainage in the West Delta Field.''
        We are pleased that Congress has acknowledged the need to bring
    this matter to a close and are ready to work to make that happen. The
    issue at hand is how to most efficiently accomplish this in a cost
    effective manner to compensate the State of Louisiana and its lessees
    for the drainage that did occur and for which compensation has been
    authorized and reauthorized.
    Options for Fulfillment of Obligation
        Congress has three viable options available to satisfy its
    obligation to the State and its lessees.
        The first option is to pay the State and its lessees from such
    portion of the 80 percent of the first year's interest generated by the
    Fund as set forth under Title IV of the Act so as to complete the
    payment in fiscal 1999, and thereby avoid the further accrual of
    interest expense. Presuming an annual interest rate on government
    securities of 6 percent, the Fund would generate $48 million each year.
    This would be adequate to cover the entire $32 million current
    obligation and still provide substantial funds to satisfy needs of the
    four agencies named under Sec. 401(c)(1).
        A second option would be a direct appropriation of $32,607,260 in
    the fiscal year 1999 budget.
        A third option would allow the government to satisfy its obligation
    to the State and its lessees without making use of direct
    appropriations. Seneca Resources pays the MMS on the order of $20
    million a year in OCS royalties for production from some 18 leases.
        Under this option, Congress would direct the MMS to grant Seneca
    Resources royalty relief until the government's obligation to the State
    of Louisiana and its lessees for drainage in the West Delta Field is
    fulfilled from the royalty withheld. From each dollar of royalty
    withheld, Seneca would pay forty-four (44) cents to the State of
    Louisiana and eleven point eighty-five (11.85) cents to the Energy
    Assets lessees.The benefits of this third option are that the impact on
    OCS revenue to the MMS would be kept to a minimum. Also, more of the
    interest generated by the Fund would be available to benefit the four
    agencies for whose benefit it was also established.
        If none of the above options are fully suited in themselves, a
    final option is to have the payments to the State and Seneca Resources
    to come from a combination of the three. We believe that these options
    establish mechanisms that allow for a broad range of needs to be
    satisfied. I would leave it to the members of this panel to determine
    which option would best satisfy the parties involved. It should be
    noted that the State of Louisiana has indicated its support for each of
    these options.
    Closing
        In summary, we are pleased that last year Congress again recognized
    the need and established a fund from which to compensate the State and
    its lessees for drainage in the West Delta Field. Mr. Chairman, I thank
    you for the opportunity to testify on this matter and offer my services
    in working with you and your staff in crafting a payment option which
    will satisfy the needs of all the parties involved.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Donald Mason, President-Elect, Ground Water
                               Protection Council
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
    name is Donald Mason and I am President-Elect of the Groundwater
    Protection Council and Commissioner at the Ohio Public Utilities
    Commission. Previously, I held the position of Chief of the Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas. That agency is
    responsible for the environmental safeguards related to oil and gas
    exploration and production, solution mining and the re-injection of
    waste such as produced salt water into geologic formations deeper than
    the deepest underground source of drinking water. Such deep zone
    injections protect which assures the safety of our underground water
    supplies. My testimony today is submitted on behalf of the Ground Water
    Protection Council (GWPC).
        The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is responsible for the
    development and operation of the RBDMS system. The GWPC is made up of
    state oil and gas agencies as well as those that regulate ground water
    and other underground injection control programs. Through the GWPC, the
    states are all working together to protect ground water resources while
    reducing the cost of compliance to industry.
        We would like to thank the Committee for the previous support of
    approximately $750,000 in the fiscal year 1998 budget. The funding has
    given the states the opportunity to develop additional software the
    enables state and local government to make decisions that result in the
    best possible balance of exploration and environmental considerations.
    We, in turn share that information with the industries we regulate,
    many of which are small businesses that would not otherwise have the
    ability to access such accurate information. We ask for continued
    support and assistance to state oil and gas agencies and the
    independent oil and gas industry with continued funding of the Risk
    Base Data Management Systems (RBDMS) last year and would urge the
    Committee to increase funding for RBDMS to $1.5 million for fiscal year
    1999 so we can expand the system to every oil and gas producing state.
    The system is currently operational in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska,
    Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio and we are installing it in Alabama and
    California. Additional funding would allow each remaining state to
    initiate the program as well. This amount would provide the smaller
    independent oil producers access to this environmental data management
    system. Smaller producers are often the most in need of such a system
    because high regulatory costs hit them the hardest. In addition to
    providing the system to smaller producers, additional funding will
    allow the GWPC to expand the system to include oil field surface
    facilities including tanks, pipelines, and storage units. Before I go
    into detail on the how RBDMS works, I want to make the point that
    states are dedicating their own resources to RBDMS. For example Ohio,
    is using almost $600,000 in state capital improvement and $400,000 of
    operations funding to implement RBDMS. I know all other states are
    planning on using state dollars as well as federal funds. But what the
    remaining states need is a relatively small amount of start-up
    assistance after which time they have shown they are willing to begin
    applying their own resources.
        With past assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy, the GWPC
    assembled a project team with extensive knowledge and experience in
    state oil and gas agency environmental data management to develop
    RBDMS, the only comprehensive, fully relational, PC-based oil and gas
    regulatory data management system in the country. By allowing the oil
    and gas industry to participate in the next phase of development of the
    system, we will assure that it will be useful and effective for them.
    Additional funding at $1.5 million for fiscal year 1999 will be
    mutually beneficial to the private sector and the states by keeping
    environmental compliance costs down.
        RBDMS is one of the best examples we have seen of how industry,
    working with government, can improve both industry production and
    environmental protection at the same time. Included with my testimony
    are endorsement letters of RBDMS as an alternative to costly command
    and control regulatory policies. It is supported by both the regulated
    community and the regulators themselves. Continuing to fund the states
    in this manner allows us to tailor our regulatory program needs to the
    industry which operate in our respective states as each state as there
    is not a good ``one size fits all'' national approach that would work
    as efficiently as a cooperative state effort.
        In summary, the increased funding we are requesting will provide a
    means for the successful expansion of the Risk Based Data Management
    System and will provide the following benefits: (1) improve
    environmental protection, (2) less regulatory and compliance costs for
    producers, (3) better state enforcement of environmental regulations,
    and (4) continued oil production. The remainder of my testimony
    provides a more detailed explanation of how we have used prior funds
    and how we would use the requested increase. Due to its length, I will
    submit it for the written record. Thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of General Electric Power Systems
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power
    Systems (GE) for consideration by the Committee in connection with its
    deliberations on the fiscal year 1999 budget requests of the U.S.
    Department of Energy. GE fully supports the Administration's request
    for $43 million through the Fossil Energy budget for the Advanced
    Turbine Systems (ATS) program in fiscal year 1999. DOE's request
    reflects the importance of the ATS program to the nation's energy
    security and environmental objectives. GE is extremely grateful for the
    continuing support of Congress in assuring that adequate resources are
    provided for the ATS program, and welcomes the opportunity to update
    the Committee on the status of the ATS program.
                               ats program status
        As the Committee is aware, the DOE Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS)
    program is a multi-phase, heavily cost-shared program initiated in 1992
    to support the development of the next generation power system for
    utility and industrial applications using advanced gas turbines. In
    1993, GE was one of three companies competitively selected to
    participate in the Conceptual Design and Product Development phase
    (Phase 2) of the utility portion of the ATS program, which is
    administered through DOE's Office of Fossil Energy. In August 1995, DOE
    selected GE as one of two companies to proceed to the Technology
    Readiness Testing and Pre-Commercial Demonstration phase (Phase 3) of
    the utility-scale ATS program.
        In March 1997, DOE issued a Request for Proposals to the ATS
    contractors for a restructured program. Instead of the original
    demonstration phase (Phase 4) of the ATS program, which included the
    siting of the first commercial unit at a host site, the program would
    be restructured to extend the technology validation phase (Phase 3).
    The restructured program will feature full-speed no-load testing of the
    ATS, including design, procurement and installation of unique tooling
    and test instrumentation. Importantly, the restructured program is
    designed to achieve the ATS program's technical goals in the timeframe
    established by the ATS program plan.
        GE responded to the Department of Energy with a proposal for a
    restructured ATS program in July 1997. Subsequently, GE submitted a
    final revised proposal to DOE in December 1997. Negotiations with the
    Department regarding the restructured ATS program concluded in late
    March with the execution of a cooperative agreement for the revised
    Phase 3 of the ATS program.
        The new cooperative agreement reflects the continuing commitment of
    GE and DOE to the ATS program. The central goal of the ATS program--
    producing technology by 2000 that is ready for commercial application--
    is unchanged. Under the restructured ATS Phase 3, GE will manufacture
    and perform a full speed, no load test on a 60 Hertz machine by the end
    of 1999 at GE's Greenville, South Carolina facility. DOE cost sharing
    is critical to this aggressive schedule.
                   benefits to the nation of the ats program
        Energy efficiency.--The goal of the ATS program is to achieve fuel-
    to-electricity efficiencies of 60 percent or greater, resulting in
    significant reductions in fuel consumption.
        Lower electricity costs.--These fuel savings will, in turn, lower
    electricity costs, benefitting the competitiveness of U.S. industries
    in the world marketplace. The ATS program has had as its goal a 10
    percent reduction in the cost of electricity produced relative to
    current (F-level) combined cycle power plants.
        Emissions reductions.--Natural gas fired gas turbines produce no
    particulates, ash, heavy metals, toxins, or sulfur oxides.
    Additionally, the ATS will achieve a significant reduction in emissions
    of oxides of nitrogen, and will further reduce carbon monoxide and
    hydrocarbon emissions relative to the current fossil fueled power
    generation base. The high efficiency of gas turbine systems makes this
    power generation concept the most effective method of reducing carbon
    dioxide emissions from fossil fueled electricity generation.
        Stimulating jobs retention and growth.--Tens of thousands of
    Americans already work to manufacture gas turbines and to provide key
    components. Manufacturing jobs in this industry already have been lost,
    and the remaining jobs are at risk because of uncertain U.S. market
    conditions and stiff international competition. U.S. jobs depend on
    continued U.S. global leadership in turbine technology, which the ATS
    program is designed to support.
                            the technical challenge
        Through the ATS program, the Federal government has challenged
    industry to develop the technology that will enable gas turbines to
    achieve fuel to electricity efficiencies of 60 percent or more, a step
    increase from current levels, rather than merely inching beyond today's
    efficiency limit. The Federal/private ATS partnership is central to
    industry's ability to achieve the technology breakthroughs needed to
    meet this high efficiency level, and to achieve the other aggressive
    technical goals of the program.
        Existing gas turbine technology has benefited from the knowledge
    gained from years of national investments in military aircraft engine
    technologies. Now, however, the need to meet high efficiency and low
    emissions requirements simultaneously for power generation systems in
    2000 and beyond requires the development of a steam-cooled turbine
    generation system. The power generation industry is facing the
    challenge, for the first time, to develop a new technology specifically
    for power generation applications. Government is sharing in this
    challenge through the ATS program.
                             the market opportunity
        Industry and government working together can take on more risk,
    confront bigger technical challenges and speed the development and
    application of technologies which ultimately will gain market
    acceptance and provide potentially large energy, economic,
    environmental and strategic returns to the nation. The ATS program
    offers a prime example of how government technology leadership can
    bridge the gap between market opportunity and current market realities.
        ATS technology ultimately will be supported in the marketplace,
    both domestically and internationally. But despite the important
    benefits of ATS technology, because of the continuing technical risks,
    today the market alone is not sufficient to bring this technology to
    the point of commercial acceptance. The likely users of this technology
    in the U.S., both utilities and independent power producers, are not in
    a position today to make multi-hundred million dollar investments in
    technologies and systems that are not yet proven by actual, full-scale
    operation.
        Industry's R&D risk/reward window is often more focused on the
    short-term than government's, which can address broader, national
    priorities that may not yet be adequately valued in the marketplace.
    With the support of the ATS Program, U.S. manufacturers will be better
    able to compete in the projected international market in electricity
    generating systems--a marketplace in which foreign competitors
    frequently receive significant assistance from their governments.
    Successful completion of the ATS program will position U.S. technology
    for immediate introduction into global markets, and will enable U.S.
    technology to surpass leading foreign competitors, solidifying U.S.
    market share in the worldwide market. U.S. success in the export of
    power generation technologies translates directly into jobs in the
    United States.
        The ATS program will assure that clean power technologies are
    available when required by the domestic market. The same key enabling
    technologies being developed through the ATS program are required for
    both international and domestic applications. Domestic market
    uncertainty resulting from electric industry restructuring makes
    potential investors in new technologies more risk averse, underscoring
    the need for government participation in the ATS program.
                            program accomplishments
        GE's work over the course of the last two years has focused on the
    technologies and components necessary for high temperature operation
    and steam cooling. Major program accomplishments include the following:
      --Completion of full-scale, steam-cooled, first-stage nozzle cascade
            design validation testing at ATS turbine operating conditions.
            The first stage nozzle and buckets are the most critical high
            temperature component in the ATS.
      --GE's design for the gas turbine combustion system permits its ATS
            to achieve high firing temperatures while minimizing production
            of oxides of nitrogen. Initial tests of the ``H'' series
            combustor design have been completed at the component level and
            in a full-scale combustion test stand that permits testing at
            full pressure and flow design conditions.
      --GE has also worked with suppliers to develop ``single crystal''
            casting technology to provide the high temperature strength
            required for these very large buckets and nozzles. While single
            crystal casting has been applied in the aircraft engine
            context, the size of the castings required for the ATS is
            unprecedented.
      --Rig testing of the one-third scale H compressor has been completed,
            to validate the fundamental design approach of the compressor
            in heavy duty gas turbine operation.
      --Elements of the steam cooling system have been tested extensively
            in component rigs and utility field test conditions. To resolve
            concerns about the effects of impurities in the steam on the
            operation of the cooling system, GE has designed a particulate
            filter which has been fully validated in testing at an
            operating combined cycle power plant.
      --GE's activities have also addressed manufacturing technologies
            essential for the success of the ATS. For example, thermal
            barrier coatings (TBC) are ceramic coatings applied to parts in
            the path of the hot gas that flows through the ATS; effective
            TBC are critical to the steam cooling system. In addition to
            testing to validate the performance of the TBC in utility
            customers' current gas turbines under actual conditions, GE has
            also designed a robot to assure proper application of the
            coatings. In addition, GE has improved the forging process to
            allow for production of the largest gas turbine Inconel wheels
            ever made.
      --GE has also developed testing processes which will permit product
            quality to be confirmed without necessitating destruction of
            expensive parts, including nondestructive inspection techniques
            for single-crystal airfoil production, and new analytical tools
            to model the startup and shutdown of the gas turbine component
            of a combined cycle unit in greater detail than ever before
            required.
        It is anticipated that fiscal year 1999 funding will be used to
    continue testing of full scale components and sub-systems. The
    manufacturing capability for the first test engines will be completed,
    and full speed, no load testing of H series engines will begin.
                                   conclusion
        Through R&D investments, the Federal government can assist industry
    in raising its sights and taking on high risk, high payoff
    opportunities that require challenging accepted technological limits.
    This has been, and will continue to be, the effect of DOE's ATS
    program. GE appreciates the Committee's strong support for the ATS
    program in the past, and urges the Committee to continue to provide the
    resources necessary to see this program through to completion in its
    restructured form.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
                               Services Programs
        The National Association for State Community Services Programs
    (NASCSP) is pleased to offer testimony in support of continued funding
    for the Weatherization Assistance Program operated through the U.S.
    Department of Energy's Office of State and Community Programs (DOE).
    NASCSP is a membership organization representing state directors of the
    Weatherization Assistance Program and the Community Services Block
    Grant.
        DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program is one of the largest
    energy conservation programs in the nation. Its purpose is to increase
    the energy efficiency of homes occupied by low-income persons,
    particularly the elderly, those with disabilities, and families with
    children, while ensuring their health and safety. The Weatherization
    Assistance Program operates in all fifty states and the District of
    Columbia. It serves between 60,000 and 70,000 households per year.
        Last year, Washington state's Weatherization Assistance Program
    operated through the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
    Development provided energy conservation services to over 5,000
    households. Forty percent of those served were households of elderly or
    disabled persons. The services were delivered by a network of 26
    community based non-profit organizations and local governmental
    organizations. They used the Department of Energy's $2.3 million to
    help leverage over $7 million in non-federal resources. Washington's
    program applies up-to-date technology to determine the most cost
    effective measures to install in each home. This assures significant
    energy use reduction and cost savings for low-income residents. As an
    indirect benefit, the program created or sustained up to 700 jobs and
    infused an estimated $27 million into the state's local economies.
        Oak Ridge National Laboratory recently published a report entitled
    State Level Evaluations of the Weatherization Program in 1990-1996: A
    Metaevaluation That Estimates National Savings. The findings revealed
    that the Weatherization Assistance Program has significantly improved
    its energy savings over the past seven years. In 1996, the Program
    showed savings of 33.5 percent of gas used for space heating up from
    18.3 percent savings in 1989. The greater savings are based in large
    part on the introduction and use of more sophisticated diagnostic tools
    and audits. The report also concluded that the Weatherization
    Assistance Program possesses a favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.40 to
    1.0. Simply stated, the federal funds provided to support the Program
    have a 140 percent return on investment.
        We believe the Weatherization Assistance Program has an even
    greater national impact and serves national interests by creating the
    technological and programmatic foundation for the individual state
    programs it funds. The Program's contribution in achieving national
    energy and social goals includes: Cleaner air through reduced
    CO2 emissions--the program reduced CO2 emissions
    by 63,215 metric tons in 1996 that would otherwise have been released
    into the air; reduced consumption of imported fuels by reducing
    residential consumption; reduced demand on other social programs like
    fuel assistance, housing and health care; and implementation of
    innovative energy conservation technologies and transfer of this
    technology into the private market. These are examples of how the
    Weatherization Assistance Program helps conserve energy and advances
    the national interest.
        Since the 1990 reauthorization in the State Energy Efficiency
    Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 101-440), the rules promulgated by
    the Department of Energy insured greater flexibility in the program
    which has led to even greater energy efficiency and savings in the
    homes of low-income persons. Based on this reauthorization language,
    the program now includes cooling measures. The language also called for
    a review of the factors in the funding formula, leading to the
    development of an entirely new funding distribution method. The new
    formula addresses issues of equity that had long troubled members of
    Congress. With the new funding formula and the inclusion of cooling
    measures, this program is a national energy conservation program. The
    Weatherization Assistance Program can no longer be characterized as a
    cold climate state program, but must be recognized as a national effort
    that acknowledges energy as a commodity that every American household
    consumes.
        The Weatherization Assistance Program, like all successful
    businesses, understands the need for constant change and self-
    improvement. When the 1989 evaluation noted that greater savings were
    achieved by the use of more sophisticated auditing techniques, states
    moved immediately to incorporate them. Other important advances include
    the increased use of blower-door directed air infiltration reduction,
    in-depth furnace efficiency analysis, duct system diagnostics, and air
    quality improvement measures. Trained professionals employed by local
    agencies use state of the art diagnostic equipment and techniques along
    with twenty years of practical experience to make homes more energy
    efficient, safer, and more affordable.
        The Department of Energy supports state program efforts to ensure
    that the individuals involved in the implementation of the program at
    the local level have adequate training on the latest and best energy
    conservation practices. The states of New York and Vermont joined
    together to create the Building Performance Institute (BPI) to set
    competency standards and establish a training curriculum that can be
    transferred throughout the country. North Carolina also participates in
    the BPI. California, Virginia, and Nevada are considering joining.
    Illinois uses the state's community college and vocational education
    systems to offer ongoing standardized training. Indiana and Ohio have
    created their own training centers and Pennsylvania supports a training
    center at the Pennsylvania State University School of Technology.
    California sponsors the Stockton Training Center and West Virginia has
    recently opened a regional training center for furnace efficiency
    improvement. In Florida, the Solar Energy Center provides training on
    warm climate weatherization measures. Whichever option is selected for
    transferring technology and skills improvement, the results are the
    same, i.e., trained competent people using the latest technologies to
    provide the most cost effective and energy efficient measures in low-
    income households.
        The Department of Energy has invested significant amounts of money
    in energy conservation research through its laboratories. The
    Weatherization Assistance Program has been the testing ground and
    provided a fertile field for the deployment of their research. The Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory developed the National Energy Audit for use
    by local agencies in assessing cost effectiveness of service delivery.
    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recently completed an
    audit that can be used to conserve energy in mobile homes. The Oak
    Ridge Building Technology Center is testing the use of storm windows as
    replacement windows for use in warm climate states. The Florida Solar
    Energy Center and the state of Hawaii are working on the development of
    cost effective solar hot water heaters. The state Weatherization
    Assistance Programs throughout the country will be the front line in
    the deployment of these technologies and the citizens of their states
    will be the beneficiaries.
        Equally important, these technologies are tested by the
    Weatherization Assistance Program and from there are adopted by private
    contractors and builders. The rigorous conservation standards of the
    Weatherization Assistance Program are not found in the building
    industry. In fact, the Program has introduced many new technologies and
    best practice protocols to this industry. Many of the subgrantees of
    the Weatherization Assistance Program are private contractors. The
    Program provides the perfect mechanism for transferring technology from
    the public to the private sector thus benefiting not only low-income
    households, but all households. This is one of the less discussed
    benefits of the Program, but an enormously important one nonetheless.
        Testimony of the Weatherization Assistance Program's success in
    delivering professional, competent, and valued services to its
    customers is evidenced by the extensive use of the Program's state and
    local agencies by utility companies as the delivery system for many
    Demand Side Management Programs and local energy efficiency efforts.
    Some examples include:
      --The Public Service Company of Colorado committed $2.6 million to
            the Colorado Weatherization Assistance Program for use in the
            1997-1998 fiscal year.
      --In Texas, four utility companies have elected to operate their
            Demand Side Management programs as an added service through the
            Texas Weatherization Assistance Program. Their contribution to
            the Texas Weatherization Program will soon exceed $5 million.
      --In Maryland, five utility companies make an annual commitment of
            more than $2 million to supplement the Weatherization
            Assistance Program. These funds are used to expand both the
            service delivery options for each household and the number of
            households served.
      --In Florida, a pilot project has been started with the Florida Power
            Corporation. The utility is providing $800,000 in rebates for
            energy saving weatherization activities.
        In each of these states, and many others that receive utility
    funding for weatherization activities, the utility funds would not be
    available without the presence of the federal program. The
    Weatherization funding, appropriated by Congress and distributed to the
    states, serves as the foundation on which program core capacity is
    developed and bridges are built to leverage other resources. In 1997,
    the Weatherization Assistance Program leveraged $1.72 for every dollar
    invested by the federal government. More than 60,000 families received
    energy conservation services through the federal investment. More
    importantly, an additional 50,000+ families were served by the Program
    because of the states' ability to leverage resources--an ability that
    would not exist without Congressional support. Simply stated, the more
    funding made available to the states, the more families can be served
    by the states through a combination of federal and non-federal
    resources.
        It is also important to note that many utilities are abandoning or
    severely reducing their Demand Side Management programs in an effort to
    maintain a competitive edge. There is a question as to how long the
    arrangements that states have with utility companies will continue. The
    electric and gas industries are in the midst of changes that will
    affect nearly every American business, institution and household. The
    changes that will occur as a result of restructuring will have a major
    impact on both the Weatherization Assistance Program and the households
    it serves. The funding now being generated will not be available within
    the next few years. It is more crucial than ever that the Program
    retains an economically viable presence and the core capacity of the
    program remains intact to guide the residential energy conservation
    efforts during the next decade.
        The average household served by the Weatherization Assistance
    Program has an income of less than $8,000 per year. These families
    spend between 14 to 20 percent of their income to pay their energy
    bills while an average household spends only 3.5 percent of its income
    on home energy. A 15 percent reduction in energy costs through
    restructuring would only reduce these households' energy burden to
    12.75 percent, still over 3 times the average. The problem facing these
    families must be addressed as both a ``cost'' and ``consumption''
    energy issue. Utility restructuring will help control costs. The
    Weatherization Assistance Program serves the vital role of helping
    these families control their energy consumption and their burden on
    already limited resources.
        To put national numbers in perspective, last year in West Virginia
    70 percent of the households that were served had annual incomes of
    less than $10,000 and well over half of all households were occupied by
    persons who were elderly or disabled.
        Utility restructuring may present significant future opportunities
    to help the Weatherization Assistance Program complete its mission of
    aiding families in need. These opportunities can only be maximized if
    there is an established network ready to take advantage of the new
    possibilities. The need for a commitment to energy efficiency is
    acknowledged by its inclusion in many of the deregulation proposals at
    the state and federal level. The continuation of the federally
    supported Weatherization Assistance Program will ensure that it remains
    as a catalyst for utility involvement and that low-income energy
    conservation activities remain strong.
        The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program has
    always been the budgetary, as well as technological, foundation of the
    low-income energy conservation network. Congress has recognized the
    need for and the benefits provided by the Program and has continued to
    provide funding--although sparse in the past three years. The
    Weatherization Assistance Program is a proven federal, state, local and
    private partnership that leverages additional funds, develops and
    transfers technology, saves energy, creates jobs, puts dollars into
    local economies and helps a needy segment of our society. For these
    reasons, we urge you to support the Weatherization Assistance Program
    by approving the Administration's request for $154 million in fiscal
    year 1999.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
        The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) wants to express
    appreciation for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the U.S Department of Energy (DOE)
    Office of Fossil Energy. We strongly support DOE funding at the level
    requested in the Administration's budget.
        PTTC is a national non-profit organization formed in 1994 by
    industry to accelerate the dissemination of exploration and production
    (E&P) technologies to companies that find and produce domestic oil and
    gas. Primary funding for PTTC comes from DOE's Office of Fossil Energy.
    Additional cost-share is provided by several state governments,
    universities, state geological surveys, and industry. Thus, PTTC is a
    prime example of how the federal government can work with industry and
    state governments in a successful partnership to enhance our national
    energy security.
        We would like to make several key points in support of continuing
    DOE's oil and gas programs, especially those that are working to apply
    technologies that benefit the national interest.
        The nation's small independent operating companies are increasingly
    using PTTC to gain access to DOE's research and development (R&D)
    programs. As independents continue to participate in PTTC's network of
    resource centers, workshops and Internet websites, they are able to
    make use of the information and technologies being made available from
    years of federally funded R&D efforts. As a result, DOE technologies
    are helping increase the recovery of U.S. oil and natural gas
    resources--and helping address the problem of 17,000 marginal wells
    being abandoned every year in this country.
        With DOE's support, PTTC has created a multi-disciplinary network
    for transferring practical and cost-effective technological solutions
    to U.S. oil and gas producers. These companies use the technology in
    the field to improve production efficiency and help prevent the
    premature abandonment of the thousands of marginal wells in the 33
    producing states. Also, because PTTC programs are led by independent
    producers, a two-way communication stream has been established on an
    ongoing basis between the producing industry and the R&D community.
        To determine the industry's technology needs, PTTC conducted a
    series of problem identification workshops that covered nearly all of
    the nation's major reservoirs and geological plays. The results were
    complied in a 1996 report that presented a national perspective on the
    technical problems and needs of producers. The report, Technology and
    Related Needs of U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Producers, offered an
    important tool to be used by America's research institutions and
    technology providers to target their R&D efforts to the specific needs
    of independents. PTTC is in the process of updating that report with a
    new survey of the highest-priority technology needs of independents.
    The results are expected to be released this fall, and again will be
    provided to DOE, the national laboratories, and other R&D groups.
    Industry and Government Should Share in R&D Investments
        During the last decade, major petroleum companies have been
    consolidating their operations in the U.S. and focusing increasingly on
    overseas opportunities. Many independent producers are struggling to
    survive in the new business environment. At the same time, industry
    investment in petroleum-related technology and R&D is being cut to the
    bone. Thus, DOE needs to continue to invest wisely in its R&D and
    technology transfer programs so that they are focused toward the
    industry's most important needs. This means identifying where advances
    in geosciences and petroleum engineering can achieve the greatest
    return in deferring premature well abandonments and maximizing
    incremental oil and natural gas production.
        Public and private research projects continue to achieve advances
    in petroleum E&P technology that could yield significant national
    benefits in the form of increased domestic production, reduced oil
    imports, and increased public sector revenues. Technology advances
    resulting from ongoing R&D projects promise to amplify these potential
    benefits. Both industry and the public sector stand to gain from the
    development and application of advanced E&P technologies; thus both
    should share in the investments. Government also has an essential
    stewardship role--to ensure that America's domestic resources are
    produced efficiently and with respect for the environment. To achieve
    these goals, industry and government must work together.
    Effective Technology Transfer Is Essential to Realize R&D Benefits
        The full economic potential of new and existing technologies will
    not be achieved if producers are not aware of the technology,
    understand its economic potential, or feel comfortable with applying
    it. Nor will it be achieved if known resources are abandoned in the
    reservoir before the technology can be applied. Effective technology
    transfer is essential to achieve the full benefits of this potential
    and to sustain a viable domestic petroleum industry.
        Investments in research and technology are worth little if the
    results are not aggressively transferred and applied to produce more
    oil and natural gas. Preliminary analyses indicate that some 80 percent
    of the potential benefits of improved technologies could be foregone
    without technology transfer. The government has already invested vast
    sums through the years in federally funded research at national
    laboratories, DOE laboratories, universities, and other R&D providers.
    To truly obtain value from this investment, it is critical to continue
    funding the technology transfer and related programs of DOE's Office of
    Fossil Energy.
        PTTC performs various technology transfer functions (workshops,
    resource centers, Internet system, etc.) to inform producers of
    potential technologies to economically address their problems. Where
    solutions are not available, PTTC reports the technology gaps and their
    relative urgency to the R&D community to help guide and focus the
    direction and priorities of public and private research.
        PTTC has helped DOE in targeting upstream R&D efforts on practical,
    short-term projects with immediate applications in the field. As a
    result, informing users of new and on-going research projects
    accelerates the public and private R&D process.
        On a practical level, PTTC has sponsored many workshops for
    independents to transfer the results of DOE programs. One example is
    that PTTC conducted a series of traveling workshops for DOE to
    disseminate results of its Reservoir Class Demonstration Project, and
    additional workshops are expected.
        Further, PTTC technology workshops serve as catalysts for bringing
    new partners into R&D consortia and other industry groups. An important
    benefit is that small independent operating companies (those without
    the staff or budget for R&D) have new access to cost-efficient
    technologies to maximize the recovery of oil and natural gas reserves.
        Although PTTC is coordinated through the national organization, it
    is the local expertise and activities that are the heart of the
    technology transfer program. Each region tailors its activities to meet
    the particular needs of the independent producers in that region. A few
    years ago, DOE designed its outreach program based on the PTTC
    structure and the regional DOE-PTTC teams are working closely together
    to meet industry's technical needs.
        PTTC is also supportive of the Advanced Computational Technology
    Initiative, the Natural Gas Supply Program, the Environmental Program,
    and all aspects of DOE's Technology Transfer Program.
    Programs for U.S. Oil and Gas Production
        In less than four years, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and
    gained the credibility within the upstream petroleum industry that is
    vital to success in increasing domestic energy supplies and preventing
    the premature abandoment of oil and natural gas wells. The main program
    areas include:
        Technology workshops are held in various locales to provide real-
    world information and solutions to address specific exploration and
    production challenges. In fiscal year 1998, PTTC conducted nearly 60
    technology workshops around the country, focusing on a variety of
    topics from 3-D seismic applications to produced water disposal. In
    fiscal year 1999, many more workshops are planned to focus producer's
    attention on available technologies and information that can help them
    resolve specific high-priority technological problems at current
    prices. The number of workshops is nearly double if one includes the
    functions that PTTC co-sponsors with other organizations such as the
    professional societies, Gas Research Institute, state and regional
    producers associations, etc.
        Regional resource centers are successfully operating as hubs for
    the technology transfer activities in each region. They provide
    operators with access to technical and referral assistance, libraries,
    and computer workstations with software demonstrations and regional
    data covering project histories, field and reservoir data. Commercial
    vendors of technology, software, and other information have been
    enthusiastic about donating their products and services to the PTTC
    resource centers, and helping to train producers in state-of-the-art
    technologies to solve their most important technical problems.
        Internet websites are part of the PTTC electronic network, allowing
    petroleum producers and other users to share information through 10
    regional websites and a national website. It includes an up-to-date
    calendar of events, technical summaries and access to exploration and
    production data, software, and other information.
        Other outreach efforts are conducted through a variety of regional
    technology events, exhibits at industry conferences, and user groups
    for oil and natural gas producers. PTTC also publishes technical
    reports, fact sheets, and other publications aimed toward industry. The
    national PTTC newsletter, PTTC Network News, is published quarterly and
    posted on the national website. Many regions publish their own
    newsletters that inform local producers about technology transfer
    activities and the results of DOE research programs.
    Conclusion
        Congress should continue to support an active DOE role in
    petroleum-related R&D and technology transfer. Oil and natural gas are
    strategically and economically critical to national energy security.
    The value of DOE programs in these areas extends far beyond geoscience
    and engineering research. Through technology transfer efforts, the
    results of federally-funded research will reach operators in the field,
    where it can be used to preserve and expand our national resource base.
    We encourage Congress to provide the funding that DOE has requested and
    to continue support for its vital oil and natural gas programs.
        In particular, PTTC delivers demonstrable and measurable benefits
    to the producing industry and to the nation. The investment by DOE in
    technology transfer programs will be returned in multiples through
    incremental federal revenues from new projects and additional energy
    production that will be stimulated by effective technology transfer.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please let me know
    if we can supply any additional information for the record.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Joseph N. Darguzas, Sargent & Lundy
        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Committee Members: Thank you very much
    for this opportunity to provide testimony concerning an extremely
    critical issue facing the United States and our energy independence. As
    a Registered Professional Engineer in many states and as a citizen of
    the United States, my professional opinion is that continued Federal
    and State cooperation in fossil energy development and demonstration
    projects is essential.
        For the past several years, the U.S. Department of Energy has
    financially supported the majority of the bench scale and pilot plant
    work necessary for the development of a new Low Emission Boiler System
    (LEBS) that will significantly benefit our economy and our environment.
    The Illinois Office of Coal Development and Marketing has also provided
    support appropriate for the prior project development.
        The technology is now at a state of development where the Prairie
    Energy Project team are ready to build a nominal 80 MW Proof-of-Concept
    Facility at Zeigler's Turris mine near Elkhart. Once this plant is in
    service and the technology demonstrated; no further Government grants
    will be required. However, because of economies of scale, to compete in
    our deregulated utility industry with larger generators; one final
    Federal and State grant will be required.
        We are in support of maintaining the President's $15 million Budget
    line item for Advanced Pulverized Coal-Fired Power Plant development
    for fiscal year 1999. This is the same funding level as fiscal year
    1998 and will allow the benefits of previous years' funding to be
    realized and the final Phase of the Low Emission Boiler System (LEBS)
    project work to be completed.
        Our total project value will be approximately $127 million. State
    of Illinois co-funding is expected to be $25 million with the balance
    from private industry sources. Our company, Sargent & Lundy, has
    invested millions of dollars in research, development and demonstration
    programs. However, we cannot afford to continue without the backing of
    Federal government.
        The Combustion 2000 LEBS project is also important to direct
    stakeholders from Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Utah, and
    also to the future of U.S. industrial development through lower cost of
    electricity. Benefits are also being seen by our Industry Group from
    Ohio, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, New York,
    Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, Alabama, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of
    equal importance, the advanced, more efficient, low emission
    technologies being developed through this program will be ready for
    commercialization when tougher environmental regulations will be in
    place in the year 2000 and without continuing Government support.
        Funding significantly lower than the above level will cause
    significant project delays that will result in this window of
    opportunity being lost to foreign competition. It would also leave U.S.
    companies at a disadvantage in competing in emerging foreign markets.
    In the end, the overall cost to the Government and the people of the
    United States will be greater.
        Finally, please accept our sincere appreciation for the strong
    support you, the rest of the Committee, and the staff have provided to
    us in the past. We look forward to working closely with you all in the
    future.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Roger Duncan, Director, Planning, Environmental
    and Conservation Services, City of Austin, TX; Chair, Urban Consortium
                   Energy Task Force, Public Technology, Inc.
        This testimony is submitted for the information of the Subcommittee
    during the consideration of the fiscal year 1999 budget requests for
    the Department of Energy (DOE). The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
    (UCETF) appreciates this opportunity to update the Subcommittee on the
    progress of the applied energy research and development activities
    being undertaken through the DOE's Municipal Energy Management Program
    (MEMP).
        The UCETF is made up of local government energy policymakers and
    administrators from major urban areas around the United States.
    Currently, 23 jurisdictions are represented on the UCETF: Albuquerque,
    NM; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dade County, FL; Denver, CO;
    Greensboro, NC; Hennepin County, MN; Kansas City, MO; Long Beach, CA;
    Memphis, TN; Monroe County, NY; Montgomery County, MD; Orange County,
    FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; San Antonio, TX; San
    Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; and
    Washington, D.C. The UCETF is a subgroup of the Urban Consortium, an
    organization of the nation's largest cities and counties joined
    together to identify, develop and deploy innovative approaches and
    technological solutions to urban issues. The Urban Consortium is a
    program of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI), which is the non-profit
    technology organization of the National League of Cities, the National
    Association of Counties, and the International City/County Management
    Association.
        The goal of the UCETF is to act as the premier technology research,
    development and deployment organization dealing directly with the
    energy problems and needs of local government. The UCETF meets this
    objective, in part, by managing an applied energy program that
    leverages federal, state and local funds for the conduct of energy
    research and technology transfer projects. In furtherance of its
    objective of serving as an urban energy laboratory, and with funding
    provided by the Department of Energy, Municipal Energy Management
    Program, the UCETF annually conducts a program of applied energy
    technology research and development, application and replication
    projects that address locally-defined energy needs. Projects are
    competitively selected for funding based on merit, and conducted by
    local government staff, in furtherance of the UCETF mission to improve
    the energy management capabilities of local governments.
        All programs must demonstrate strong partnerships, which in many
    cases include cost-sharing, from the private sector and other
    government agencies, in order to maximize the successful application of
    project results.
        The UCETF also undertakes a variety of technology transfer and
    solution deployment activities designed to widely disseminate the
    knowledge gained through the performance of local government energy
    projects to jurisdictions throughout the United States.
              the ucetf responds to local government energy needs
        Through its focus on annual work programs, the UCETF is in a
    position to respond to changing emphases and issues in the energy
    field. Local governments are in the forefront of the nation's response
    to interrelated energy supply, clean air and, increasingly, energy-
    related climate change issues. Larger urban governments in particular
    have found means to utilize energy policy and programs as a tool to
    help reduce the cost of government and stimulate the local economy,
    thereby producing more revenues that can be used to deliver priority
    services to local populations.
        The ability of local governments to respond to new challenges and
    make prudent policy choices in the energy area for the benefit of local
    citizens is directly enhanced through the UCETF program. The program
    responds to needs identified by local governments for specific support
    in addressing and resolving local energy issues. DOE support has
    enabled the UCETF to competitively select and co-fund nearly 300 energy
    projects to address locally-defined energy priorities in jurisdictions
    all across the United States. UCETF projects have focused on energy
    efficiency (increasing the efficiency of energy use in local government
    buildings through new technologies, efficient lighting, improved HVAC
    systems and building controls; efficient building design; increasing
    residential energy efficiency, including ``Green Builder'' guidelines
    and home energy rating systems); energy supply (district heating and
    cooling; biomass district energy systems; fuel cell power; methane
    recovery from municipal landfills; application of renewable energy in
    local communities); reduction of transportation energy use
    (alternatives to conventional transportation fuels, including alcohol
    based fuels, electric vehicles and vehicles operating on compressed
    natural gas, light and heavy duty vehicle applications including fuel
    cells for urban buses, transportation demand reduction, telecommuting);
    and sustainability (emphasizing the linkage between energy,
    environmental and economic development objectives in local
    communities).
                  the ucetf's 1997-1998 applied energy program
        The 1997-1998 UCETF program is supporting projects focusing on
    energy as a tool for economic development; issues and opportunities for
    local governments in electric industry restructuring; and strategies
    for environmentally responsible local energy production and usage.
    Concurrently, the UCETF is working to share among local governments the
    knowledge and information necessary to assess the implication of
    changes in the electric utility industry for local governments;
    information on public charging of electric vehicles; and options for
    encouraging renewable energy in local communities. Specific energy
    technology development/application or technology transfer projects are
    underway in the following topical areas:
        Energy and Economic Development.--Energy efficiency activities can
    contribute to creation of a sustainable urban environment. Urban
    governments also have important roles to play in bringing energy
    efficiency technologies and techniques into the marketplace. Urban
    areas are well positioned to serve as testbeds for such technologies,
    as part of an overall effort to increase energy efficiency. The UCETF
    continues to focus on projects that make the linkage between energy,
    environmental and economic concerns in local communities. Hennepin
    County, MN, is developing telecommunications and energy management
    design standards for urban redevelopment projects; Santa Barbara
    County, CA, is developing a system to track and measure economic
    savings attributable to energy efficient development targets attained
    through an incentive program with local developers; Philadelphia, PA,
    will produce model specifications for improvements in traffic signal
    hardware and operations in conjunction with the development of all-
    color LED signal displays, which reduce energy usage and maintenance,
    and provide enhanced lighting; and Seattle, WA, will cooperate with
    local developers in the effort to assure the use of sustainable
    development practices throughout the Northwest.
        Municipal Governments and Utility Policy.--Again this year,
    significant attention in the 1997-1998 program is being devoted to
    issues involved in the introduction of increased competition in the
    electricity industry. This issue has the potential to significantly
    influence--for better or for worse--all local governments. But because
    of the breadth and complexity of the issues involved, many local
    governments are ill-prepared to deal with the demands of the changing
    marketplace. Through research projects in jurisdictions around the
    nation, and technology transfer activities, the UCETF seeks to become a
    leading national resource for municipal governments on approaches to,
    and the implications for local governments of, coming changes in the
    structure of the electricity industry. The UCETF is conducting five
    projects focusing on local aspects of the restructuring issue. San
    Jose, CA, is conducing a project to determine how the city can align
    the interests of residents and businesses with opportunities to procure
    increased energy efficiency and renewable energy that may become
    available as the result of the restructuring of the California
    electricity marketplace; Kansas City, MO, is developing a metropolitan-
    area wide deregulation strategy, to identify means for the many local
    entities in the Kansas City metro area to maintain local flexibility,
    authority, and environmental quality in a restructured utility
    environment; Chicago, IL, is studying electric load aggregation, and
    will develop an energy supply strategy for five municipal entities in
    the wake of restructuring and legislative action in Illinois to
    introduce competition; Portland, OR, is developing a program for local
    government to serve as a mechanism to assure that the ``benefits'' of
    electricity restructuring are available to renters, small businesses
    and low income families within the community, through consumer
    education, bundling of energy efficiency and renewable energy program
    offers that may be available in the marketplace, and pilot programs;
    and Salt Lake City, UT, will address a key issue in restructuring from
    the local government perspective--potential loss of tax revenues--by
    identifying mechanisms for mitigating revenue impacts.
        Energy Usage and Supply.--Local governments face continuing
    requirements to cut energy usage and costs, and opportunities to apply
    new technologies expressly suited to local climatic conditions and
    utilizing local energy resources. San Francisco, CA, is developing and
    will demonstrate a comprehensive energy efficiency program for office
    machines, including a guide to maximizing office machine energy
    efficiency in an institutional setting; Mayaguez, PR, is developing a
    program to utilize used cooking oil to generate electricity from fuel
    cells, and for the production of biodiesel; Yolo County, CA, will
    address methane enhancement for energy generation through accelerated
    landfill decomposition; and Albuquerque, NM, will evaluate the
    logistical, regulatory and economic feasibility of producing biogas
    (methane) from diverted organic municipal solid waste.
        Technology Transfer.--The UCETF is conducting five projects
    specifically designed to document and transfer lessons learned through
    local government energy programs. Chittenden County, VT, is developing
    a tool kit for municipalities on biomass district energy opportunities;
    Anaheim, CA, is preparing an electric vehicle public charging tool kit
    also aimed at municipal governments, which will complement other DOE-
    funded activities to support ``EV readiness'' in cities around the
    nation; San Jose, CA, will utilize the unique expertise of city staff
    in developing a program to encourage the use of renewable energy within
    local governments; Philadelphia, PA, will analyze the issue of
    securitization of ``stranded costs'' resulting from electricity
    restructuring; and Barnstable County, MA, building on its expertise in
    assessing the implications of and preparing for electricity
    restructuring, will implement a community choice pilot project,
    documenting results for the benefit of local governments in other
    states where competition is being introduced.
        In addition to these specific technology transfer projects, the
    UCETF program features peer to peer exchange and dialogue on a variety
    of issues, and is concentrating in particular on effectively
    documenting products available for transfer from prior year programs.
    Specific efforts are underway in several areas to conduct direct
    transfer activities to share widely the benefits of Federally-supported
    energy technology development and application programs. In addition to
    continuing to distribute the primer on electricity restructuring for
    local governments, entitled ``Keeping the Lights On,'' and its
    companion document on power marketing, the UCETF has prepared a
    ``workshop in a box'' of information for local government on
    restructuring issues. The forthcoming publication of case studies of
    local government restructuring projects funded through the UCETF/MEMP
    program will also be designed to provide first hand experience in
    meeting the challenges of restructuring to other local governments
    around the country.
                                   conclusion
        Local governments are a crucial component of the national effort to
    maintain the United States as the world's leader in developing,
    applying and exporting sustainable, environmentally benign and
    economically competitive energy technologies. The UCETF's activities
    through the DOE Municipal Energy Management program enhance the ability
    of local governments to identify, design and implement energy policies
    that support local economic objectives, including jobs growth and
    retention. The MEMP program offers the nation a proven successful
    method to identify ways that energy technologies can be applied to aid
    in addressing community issues; to share information among local
    governments; and to prepare local officials to respond to the energy
    and energy-related environmental issues in their own communities.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert H. Trent, Director of the School of
              Mineral Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
        I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to support the Department of
    Energy's fiscal year 1999 Natural Gas Research Budget Request of $5.3
    million for Gas-To-Liquids. This appropriation is important for the
    continued development of novel gas-to-liquid (GTL) technologies which
    will enable the utilization of Alaska's vast natural gas reserves, one
    of America's largest reserves of hydrocarbon energy, second only to
    Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields.
        Experts estimate that the United States has substantial remote gas
    reserves (defined as natural gas which cannot be economically brought
    to market in a gas pipeline), including offshore reserves in deep
    waters in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Pacific coast, and most
    significantly, the vast recoverable reserves on the Alaskan North
    Slope. The technically recoverable natural gas resources in developed
    and known undeveloped oil fields on the North Slope total approximately
    38 TCF (trillion cubic feet), and in a recent circular, the United
    States Geological Survey estimates that there is nearly double that
    amount of technically recoverable reserves in undiscovered fields.
        Alaska's challenge for years has been how to economically produce
    and transport its remote natural gas to market in an environmentally
    responsible way within a very competitive international economy.
    Domestic oil production, especially the large fields in Alaska, is on a
    decline, and petroleum imports are projected to exceed 60 percent of
    our needs by 2010. Already, in Alaska, 4 out of 11 (36 percent) of the
    operating pumping stations for the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS)
    have been shut down and placed on standby, as the production decline
    continues, the long-term viability of the TAPS is uncertain. Therefore,
    developing a means to recover and transport remote natural gas in
    Alaska is of vital importance to the Alaskan economy, the nation and
    potentially to the future of the TAPS. Unfortunately, commercially
    available technologies are far too costly for reserve owners to bring
    most of Alaska's gas to market.
        A promising technology solution is to convert remote gas to
    transportable liquid products which could be easily delivered to the
    market in the lower 48 states using the existing petroleum
    infrastructure in Alaska, including the TAPS.
        The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering,
    is proposing to work with the Department of Energy to conduct a
    comprehensive evaluation of various methods for transporting gas-to-
    liquid products, commonly called ``white crude,'' through the existing
    TAPS. Utilizing the TAPS for GTL transport will significantly increase
    its operating lifetime. In addition, it will further enable the
    recovery of 1-2 billion barrels of oil from the North Slope, which
    would remain unrecoverable if the pipeline were to be prematurely shut
    down.
        However, gas-to-liquids conversion technology is dependent on
    developing a low-cost alternative to synthesis gas production, the
    first processing step, in which natural gas is converted to a mixture
    of hydrogen and carbon monoxide before being processed further to make
    liquids. Through a team led by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of
    Allentown, Pa., the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Research Program
    is sponsoring development of an important new synthesis gas
    technology--referred to as ITM Syngas. This technology is based upon a
    novel ceramic membrane reactor that could significantly reduce the cost
    of syngas production, enabling economic gas-to-liquids conversion. The
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering, is a
    participant in the ITM Syngas project team, along with ARCO, Argonne
    and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Ceramatec, Chevron, Eltron
    Research, McDermott International (formerly called the B&W Alliance
    Research Center, in Alliance, Ohio), the University of Pennsylvania and
    Penn State. The technology exists at the laboratory scale, and if
    successfully developed, could result in a major step change in the way
    alternative liquid fuels, chemicals, and even hydrogen are produced
    from natural gas. Although the significant progress of the research has
    nurtured considerable optimism for the technology, many technical
    hurdles remain. The ITM Syngas process will require substantial
    development and financial investment by both the private and public
    sectors before a commercial technology can be realized. In response to
    a competitive procurement completed in 1997, the Air Products-led
    project team has committed a 68 percent private-sector cost-share
    toward ITM Syngas development and has also agreed to full payback of
    the Federal funding contribution should the technology be successfully
    commercialized.
        In addition to the direct energy benefits for Alaska and the
    nation, a major reduction in the cost of producing syngas via ITM
    Syngas technology will have a cross-cutting impact on the domestic
    economy; many U.S. industries depend upon syngas as a raw material in
    the manufacture of numerous commodity chemicals and consumer goods,
    such as clean-fuel additives, rubber, polyester textiles, urethane
    foam, plastics, paint, detergents, and fertilizers. Also, cheaper
    hydrogen made possible by ITM Syngas will help the petroleum refineries
    meet increased hydrogen demand for Clean Air Act-driven oxygenated
    gasoline, reformulated gasoline, lower-sulfur diesel fuels and
    upgrading of heavier and high-sulfur crude oils.
        Furthermore, the ITM Syngas technology will have a favorable
    environmental impact on the North Slope due to a substantial reduction
    in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants (CO2,
    CH4, NOX and SOX). A viable GTL
    technology will virtually eliminate the need for the current practice
    of flaring and will reduce gas combustion requirements for wellhead
    reinjection, all of which are sources of pollutants.
        In conclusion, I would like to restate the importance of the
    Department of Energy's Natural Gas Research--Emerging Processing
    Technology Applications program. This shared investment by government,
    industry, universities and national laboratories in developing new
    energy technology to efficiently use our natural gas resources is
    integral to our nation's efforts to protect our future economy from
    escalating energy costs and to improve environmental quality. I
    strongly believe that new gas processing technologies, such as the ITM
    Syngas technology supported by the DOE, will not only benefit the
    citizens of Alaska, but will also enhance the global competitiveness of
    our industries as we move forward into the 21st century.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Council for Chemical Research, Inc.
        Issue.--The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
    Industrial Technologies (OIT) is to help U.S. industries realize
    substantial improvements in energy efficiency, waste reduction, and
    productivity. As a leading federal interface for the nation's major
    process industries (chemicals, aluminum/mining, forest products, steel,
    metal casting, glass, and agriculture), OIT funds high-risk, cost-
    shared, industry-driven cooperative R&D through the partnerships of the
    ``Industries of the Future'' (IOF) program. The leveraging of resources
    represented by this program is an important element to ensure the
    competitiveness of these industries in global markets.
        Position.--The Council for Chemical Research believes that the full
    potential of the ``Industries of the Future'' program can be realized
    through appropriate funding levels and the strategic use of the
    capabilities and facilities of the nation's academic and industrial
    research infrastructure, and the DOE national laboratories.
    Specifically, CCR supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999
    request of $166.6 million for DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies,
    an increase of $30.4 million (including $19 million for reducing
    greenhouse gases) over fiscal year 1998 and a reflection of the value
    of the ``Industries of the Future'' program.
        Rationale.--Industry uses more than a third of the energy delivered
    in the U.S. and spends tens of billions of dollars annually for
    pollution abatement and control. Seven industries account for 82
    percent of the energy used in manufacturing: pulp and paper; steel;
    aluminum; metal casting; chemicals; petroleum refining; and stone, clay
    and glass. These industries also account for more than 80 percent of
    the air emissions and 90 percent of the waste produced by U.S.
    manufacturing. The Office of Industrial Technologies focuses on
    developing innovative technologies to assist major industry sectors in
    becoming more resource efficient and, thereby, more productive and
    competitive, and less polluting.
        The ``Industries of the Future'' framework that OIT has facilitated
    puts ownership for the future of U.S. industry where it belongsin the
    private sectorwhile providing leveraged resources for addressing
    industry's most critical, long-term technology needs. Technology
    roadmapping and implementation efforts provide opportunities for the
    highly skilled scientists and engineers residing in our nation's
    university- and industrial-based research and national laboratory
    facilities to lend their expertise to this process.
        Long-term research to develop enabling technologies for the major
    process industries can create economic value and enhance the quality of
    life. Strategic use of collaborative research teams across industry,
    academe, and government laboratories can positively affect these
    industries and our Nation.
                                     ______

     NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS/NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
       Prepared Statement of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
        The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) is pleased to
    submit this testimony in support of funding at $136 million for the
    National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 1999, for the hearing
    record of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations.
    Appropriations Request
        In support of a budget request of $136 million for the National
    Endowment for the Arts, NASAA and the member state arts agencies
    believe that a steady federal commitment is important, as a foundation
    for funding the arts, to enable communities to maintain their artistic
    resources.
        NASAA advocates for federal arts funding, working in partnership
    with state, local and private funding sources, to: enable people in
    communities nationwide an equal opportunity to participate in the arts;
    increase the ability of all Americans, through the arts, to excel in
    education; contribute to a healthy economy; and support innovative
    projects with national significance to enlarge the federal role in
    supporting the arts.
        A basic level of federal financial support is important to the work
    of states arts agencies to serve all Americans. When federal arts
    funding is cut, those reductions in dollars are sorely felt at the
    state and community levels.
    Widening Public Access to the Arts
        In 1998, state and federal funds totaling $348.7 million are
    available for distribution through state arts agency-funded projects.
    The state arts agencies are the mechanism for distributing federal arts
    funds equitably throughout the country. Where NEA dollars do not go
    directly to communities in states around the country, the federal funds
    going to state arts agencies do the job. Over 5,600 communities in
    every county, parish and U.S. congressional district receive state arts
    agency grants, using federal and state appropriations.
        Public arts spending is especially important in rural areas, for
    example, which are often artistically underserved due to their
    geographic and economic isolation. To improve access to the arts in
    these areas, state arts agencies direct an aggregate of 30 percent of
    their awards and 12 percent of their funds to non-metropolitan
    grantees. Federal funds from the NEA to state arts agencies for grants
    to underserved areas are an important source of this support.
        Utah.--The Utah Arts Council has created the Alternative Funding
    Resources Program to assist individual artists and small arts
    organizations which increasingly face the need to identify non-
    traditional sources of funding, especially in light of recent federal
    funding cuts. The Utah program lends assistance by providing
    information on granting opportunities, assisting in grant applications,
    and working with communities to create new opportunities for
    collaboration. The program, which is the only state-sponsored program
    of its kind in the country, represents the commitment of the Utah Arts
    Council to preserve the presence of the arts within the state.
        State arts agencies use federal dollars to broaden access to state
    and federal funds by regranting public funds for the arts, often in
    partnership with local governments to decentralize grant dollars for
    distribution to smaller community organizations. Regranting invokes a
    multiplier effect in matching funds, which states have capitalized upon
    in recent years by nearly tripling their regranting dollars.
        Presenting and touring grants are another way that state arts
    agencies expand the reach of both federal and state public arts
    dollars. State arts agencies use these grants to expand audiences and
    provide opportunities to experience a wider variety of art forms. But
    for public funding, these opportunities would not likely be available
    for Americans in communities across the country.
    Arts in Education
        All state arts agencies, with assistance from the NEA, support arts
    education programs. Artist residencies, curriculum development, teacher
    training are some of the ways state and regional arts agencies
    incorporate the arts into learning to make children better students.
        The NEA's Arts in Education (AIE) grants support programs that make
    the arts basic to the education of students in pre-kindergarten through
    12th grade. AIE money to state arts agencies is regranted locally,
    encouraging both state legislative and local investment in arts
    education programming.
        For years, parents, legislators, civic leaders, educators and
    business owners have been calling for change in our education system.
    Communities are demanding that their schools promote higher student
    achievement, reform the teaching process and improve the environment in
    which students are expected to learn.
        The arts address all of these needs. Educational research shows
    that instruction in the arts improves student achievement. Arts
    programs improve students' communication skills, self-discipline, and
    self-concept. And arts in education produces the kind of resourceful
    and creative problem solvers that employers today prefer.
    The Arts Build a Healthy Economy
        Public spending on the arts is a good investment in the economic
    growth of every community in the country. Data gathered from economic
    impact studies conducted by city, county and state governments have
    repeatedly shown that the economic benefits of the arts exceed the
    investment of public support. The nonprofit arts industry alone
    generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, supports 1.3
    million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the federal government in
    income taxes.
        Cultural development is a vital part of urban revitalization and
    economic development strategies, attracting businesses and new
    residents and generating jobs. Cultural institutions enhance the market
    appeal of an area, encouraging corporate relocation.
        The arts have been the anchor to restore declining downtown
    districts from Charleston, South Carolina, to Providence, Rhode Island,
    to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In community after community are excellent
    examples of adaptive reuse of buildings. Old banks, post offices, train
    depots, churches, jails, city halls, schools, opera houses and movie
    theaters are arts centers, museums and theaters.
        The arts also attract tourism dollars, America's third largest
    retail sales industry. Americans spent $987 million a day on travel and
    tourism in 1995, and that means more jobs and employment possibilities.
        In fact, the nonprofit arts are a major factor in tourism and state
    arts agencies invest in a number of innovative approaches to tourism,
    from publishing cultural guides in Ohio and Arizona, to launching the
    First Night festival in Boston, Massachusetts, to show-casing local
    crafts at tourist information centers in North Carolina and South
    Carolina.
        Washington.--With a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts,
    and in collaboration with the Washington State Department of
    Transportation, the Washington State Arts Commission has produced a
    tour guide and cassette tape documenting both the visible (geology,
    architecture and geography) and invisible landscapes (music, songs and
    stories) for those traveling through central Washington on a designated
    State Heritage Corridor. The 38-page booklet, with the history of the
    land, the geologic forces that shaped it and the people who have lived
    there, and the cassette connect the places along this route with their
    stories and songs. The taped documentation has gathered songs from
    places that range from churches to a tire shop, as well as stories,
    poems and sermons told by local residents and artists.
        California.--The California Arts Council, a trio of local arts
    agencies, three convention and visitor bureaus, Hyatt Hotels and the
    California Division of Tourism have formed a coalition to market San
    Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco through promotion of their arts
    and culture. With $150,000 in seed money from the National Endowment
    for the Arts, the partners have committed to matching this grant with
    $450,000, which will be used to develop brochures and other materials
    outlining different itineraries which highlight cultural attractions,
    as well as shops and restaurants in each city.
        The California Cultural Tourism Coalition has published a guide to
    its first 13 cultural heritage itineraries, each suggesting 4-15 day
    trips in California's three urban cultural centers. As part of a
    national marketing effort, an insert summarizing the project and
    itineraries was included in the March issue of Travel and Leisure
    magazine, mailed to 200,000 American Express cardholders and
    distributed to the travel trade. Aside from publishing the guide, the
    coalition has also created a Web site, CalforniasEdge, which includes
    the itineraries, a list of resources and background on the project.
    The Federal Partnership
        State arts agencies depend on the NEA as a full partner in projects
    to promote the arts around the country. The reductions in
    appropriations to the NEA have a negative impact on the federal-state
    partnership in funding the arts in all areas. The result of the deep
    cuts already made in the NEA's budget is a loss in the public's access
    to cultural resources in classrooms and communities across the country.
        By combining our arts dollars--federal, state, and local--with
    other funding partners, we are able to increase the impact of the
    available arts money to reach more people and benefit many more lives.
    Arts endowment funding is an essential part of the work of state arts
    agencies so they can fund the arts in diverse ways that strengthen our
    arts organizations and extend the reach of all forms of artistic
    discipline and expressions.
        With the kind of modest increase in federal appropriations proposed
    by NASAA, the states, and indeed all arts organizations, can expand on
    those possibilities and bring to all Americans full opportunities to
    experience the arts.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Edward H. Able, Jr., President and C.E.O.,
                        American Association of Museums
        ``A museum can be a place to gather and debate community problems
    and community-based solutions. It can educate citizens in the
    community's needs. It can train leaders. It can break down isolation,
    recreate feelings of obligation toward one another, reinvigorate civic
    commitment. In short, it can do the kinds of things neighborhoods did
    before the suburbs fragmented them, the League of Women Voters did
    before its potential recruits became lawyers and CPA's, and the heads
    of locally owned businesses did before the out-of-town corporations
    bought them.'' Journal Star, Peoria, IL (Editorial, December 9, 1996)
        My name is Edward H. Able, Jr. I am President and C.E.O. of the
    American Association of Museums (AAM), the national museum organization
    that has served America's museums and their staffs since 1906.
        For over 30 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided
    invaluable financial assistance to museums of every kind as they make
    public service a focal point of their missions. I urge you to continue
    this effort by funding the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
    and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the modest levels
    requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 1999. In addition,
    I encourage you to fund the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the
    Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) at $40 million for
    fiscal year 1999. To illustrate how these agencies are helping museums
    fulfill their missions, I will focus on two major themes: education and
    cultural tourism. I could easily testify for an equal amount of time on
    other themes. Also, as my time is very limited, I will simply mention
    the critical support the NEH and NEA provide museums, but I will focus
    on the importance to museums of OMS General Operating Support (GOS)
    grants.
        The last two decades have transformed museums. They have become
    what a recent three-page article in USA Today's weekend magazine
    describes as ``The New Public Square.'' Museums are and will continue
    to be places for scholarly research, lifelong learning, and quiet
    contemplation of beauty, our cultural heritage, and civilizations past
    and present with their primary focus on their educational missions. No
    doubt because museums put tremendous resources into ensuring that what
    they do and how they do it is intellectually understandable and
    enjoyable to the broadest public, the New York Times recently reported
    that ``[w]hile dance companies, orchestras, serious theater groups and
    other ``high arts''--with the possible exception of opera--struggle to
    retain their audiences, American museums are setting one new attendance
    record after another.''
        The lead editorial from the Peoria Journal Star quoted above is an
    apt description of museums as community institutions at their best.
    What inspired the editor was experiencing this ``new public square''
    during a visit to The Public Museum of Grand Rapids, Michigan--a museum
    that enjoys 470,000 visits annually in a city with a population of
    189,000.
        Museums, more than ever, are being asked to be many things to many
    people. They greet this call with enthusiasm and a strong sense of
    responsibility engendered by their public trust missions. However, this
    places tremendous demands on museums' infrastructure. The main reason
    for establishing the OMS--``to ease the financial burden borne by
    museums as a result by their increasing use by the public'' (Public Law
    94-462, Title II, Museum Services Act)--has never been more true than
    today. OMS General Operating Support (GOS) grants are more important
    than ever.
        According to a recent AAM survey, nine-tenths of museums believe
    that ``funding to meet basic commitments'' is a critical need for the
    coming years, with 70 percent ranking this issue first among their
    needs. Only 8 percent believe that the museum community has adequate
    resources to cope with the critical issues in the near future--
    especially funding issues.
        GOS grants are structured efficiently to stretch limited funds as
    far as possible. For example, GOS grants span two years, can be no more
    than 15 percent of a museum's budget, are capped at $112,500, and must
    be matched. GOS grants are in high demand; in the 1997-98 grant round
    only 202 out of 1,061 applications received awards. Due to this high
    demand and the agency's limited funding, the OMS instituted a new
    measure that prohibits successful applicants who have received
    consecutive grants from applying the following year (i.e., a museum
    that receives a grant for 1996-97 and 1998-99, cannot reapply until
    2001). OMS's budget was significantly cut in 1995, which has resulted
    in a cumulative loss to the field of $20 million or 245 grants over
    three years, while the demand in terms of museum applicants has not
    fallen off despite a rigorous application process.
        For fiscal year 1998, the OMS was funded at $23.28 million. By
    contrast, the Office of Library Services within the IMLS received
    $146.3 million--a $10.3 million increase above fiscal year 1997.
    General operating support funds for museums, though fundamental, are
    very difficult to obtain from foundations or corporations, which
    generally prefer to fund higher profile programs.
        GOS grants, especially critical to small and medium-sized museums,
    help a broad spectrum of institutions serve their communities in
    numerous ways. For example, The Silver City Museum in Silver City, New
    Mexico, a repository of local history for the southwestern part of New
    Mexico, is primarily using its current General Operating Support grant
    to make its photograph collection more accessible to the public. The
    Museum has a collection of 11,000 historical photographs, which are in
    great demand, but are very difficult to access. The images get used by
    a large variety of people ranging from students to genealogists to
    authors to scholars. With the GOS funds, the Museum has been able to
    catalog the photographs, and is in the beginning stages of digitizing
    the entire collection. When this process is complete at the end of the
    summer, the entire collection will be available to the public from a
    computer at the local history research library. It is the largest
    collection, and also most requested, but without digitization it's
    hardest to get access to--it currently requires an individual
    appointment with the curator.
        Another example, The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center in Haines,
    Alaska, a history and ethnographic museum focusing on Tlingit Indian
    Culture, has used GOS funds over the last decade in various ways to
    help bring it from a ``mom and pop'' museum to a professional AAM-
    accredited institution. The museum's director told us that OMS GOS
    grants have been the museum's ``life's blood'' and are the most
    valuable type of funding because they allow the flexibility to
    accomplish a wide array of necessary tasks. The museum's most recent
    GOS grant allowed it to contract with professional curator to
    computerize its collections data and bring the collections cataloging
    and archives up to date--a task too overwhelming for its full-time
    three-person staff. The funds also brought a conservator up from a
    museum in Juneau to work for a week to provide a healthy start for the
    museum's program of transcribing oral history preserving it for many
    generations to come. Similarly, the Crested Butte Mountain Heritage
    Museum in Crested Butte, Colorado, received a Conservation Assessment
    Program grant. It is a small institution in transition from ``home-
    grown to professional,'' and the CAP grant helped it figure out its
    most pressing needs, and what the responsibilities of a curator will be
    once he or she is hired. Small institutions such as the Mountain
    Heritage Museum do not have the personnel or time to investigate
    private grant opportunities for such a specialized project. The
    availability of federal funds, even in such small amounts--their grant
    was only $6,000--makes a huge difference to small, rural institutions.
        Education.--In 1992, AAM issued a landmark policy report, entitled
    Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums,
    reaffirming museums' place in the education enterprise.
        To explain the role museums now have in education, I can do no
    better than to quote the report itself: ``Museums have a vital place in
    a broad educational system that includes formal institutions such as
    universities, schools, and professional training institutes and
    informal agents of socialization such as the family, workplace, and
    community. Museums have the capacity to contribute to formal and
    informal learning at every stage of life, from the education of
    children in preschool through secondary school to the continuing
    education of adults. They add a tangible dimension to learning that
    occurs in formal settings.''
        Museums are actively engaging students of all ages in educational
    experiences that transcend the stereotypical after-school program or a
    one-time field trip. For The Museum of Art at Washington State
    University in Pullman, Washington, which serves the citizens of that
    state and beyond, as well as the residents of the surrounding rural
    area, GOS grants have enabled the museum to afford better exhibits,
    improve exhibit presentation, offer more open hours to the public, and
    promote the use of museum exhibitions in local schools. In addition,
    GOS grants have funded free art workshops for schoolchildren, who are
    given the opportunity to visit the museum and work with a professional
    artist. Unfortunately, if this museum is successful in the next grant
    round (1999/2000), it will be precluded from reapplying until 2002.
        Museums have developed extensive curricula working closely with
    schools, for use in the classroom and on-line. For example, at the
    Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, GOS funds support the
    museum's art educator, who brings art programs and projects into
    schools, working with teachers and providing them with the tools to
    continue art education in the classroom. GOS support enabled The
    Children's Museum of Portsmouth, New Hampshire to hire a full time
    education director. With this new staffperson, the museum for the first
    time had the resources to reach out and establish several off site
    museum-quality exhibits for schools with Head Start programs and at-
    risk youth in addition to developing hands-on arts and science
    educational programming for area schools. Another example is The Health
    Adventure, Asheville, North Carolina, which uses GOS funds to help it
    reach 95,000 children each year. According to the museum's director,
    without the funding, approximately 12,000 children from disadvantaged,
    low income, rural Appalachian areas could not attend important health
    education programs at little or no cost, and teaching props, materials,
    and supplies would be limited; it would not be able to keep quality,
    degreed educators; and/or maintain transportation for outreach programs
    to the far reaching, low-income counties of western North Carolina.
        Unless a museum is strong, it cannot fulfill its potential in
    education. OMS-GOS grants allow museums to realize their potential.
    They have supported numerous museums with education programs, helping
    to reach millions of children, adults, and families.
        One point I want to make clear about these examples: Museum
    education programs and regular school instruction are not fungible
    commodities. They are synergistic. Museum educators need and want to
    work with teachers in the schools.
        Cultural tourism.--Tourism is a $473 billion industry in this
    country, and museums and other cultural organizations are primary
    contributors to its robust success. According to the Travel Industry
    Association's Travel Industry Fast Facts 1998: ``Cultural and Historic
    Tourism is one of the more popular sectors of the travel industry. A
    recent TIA survey found that 53.6 million adults said that they visited
    a museum or historical site in the past year * * *. Cultural and
    historic travelers spend more, stay in hotels more often, visit more
    destinations and are twice as likely to travel for entertainment
    purposes than other travelers.'' Museums are becoming increasingly
    sophisticated in their ability to collect hard data and assess the
    economic impact of cultural tourism on their communities. For example,
    the 1996, three-month Cezanne exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of
    Art injected an estimated $86.5 million into the Philadelphia's
    economy; the 1997, two-month Faberge in America exhibition at the
    Cleveland Museum of Art had an economic impact of nearly $11 million in
    the eight-county regional area; and while all the details are not yet
    in, the Picasso exhibition at the Woodruff Arts Center, which includes
    the High Museum of Art, in Atlanta, Georgia, is expected to have an
    economic impact of at least $30 million.
        AAM recognized the impact in cultural tourism and took a leadership
    role in establishing a working partnership among a number of national
    cultural, preservation, and heritage organizations. AAM last year
    conducted a series of regional cultural tourism leadership forums
    intended to initiate local, state, regional, and national strategies to
    promote cultural tourism. These forums enabled the leadership of
    America's cultural community to participate in a dialogue and planning
    process with state tourism directors, convention and visitors bureau
    officials, tour operators and destination management organizations. I
    have here the report, Partners in Tourism: Culture and Commerce, based
    on the findings of the forums, that I would like to submit for the
    record. It details the issues that surfaced at the forums, highlights
    some of the action steps to which individual states committed, and lays
    out the challenges for the future. We continue to receive reports about
    numerous public/private partnerships the forums and the report have
    spurred.
        OMS, NEH, and NEA provided the seed money for the national
    organization of these forums and provided invaluable input in their
    planning. They also helped disseminate this report to state and
    regional arts and humanities groups; state and regional museum
    associations; major heritage and culturally specific organizations;
    local arts agencies; state tourism directors; convention and visitors
    bureaus; and, key travel industry contacts.
        This is an example of the national leadership the cultural agencies
    provide in response to the developments in the field, making them a
    critical partner in attracting and coordinating with state, local, and
    especially private funders to sustain and enhance our nation's cultural
    life.
        GOS funds also play a role in cultural tourism. The director of the
    Western Carolina University, Mountain Heritage Center in Cullowhee,
    North Carolina, the major museum west of Asheville, which portrays
    Southern Appalachian history, culture, and natural history, tells us
    that GOS funds are critical to the region's cultural development. He
    stressed that OMS funding is especially crucial for museums located in
    rural areas, which attract a very large number of visitors through
    cultural tourism.
        In closing, the OMS is of enormous support to the museum field
    beyond providing GOS grants. OMS provides much needed funding for
    conservation, professional development, and also funds a critical
    program to improve individual museums' standards and performance--the
    Museum Assessment Program, which is produced by AAM. This year, the
    agency's National Leadership Grants will inaugurate an invaluable
    opportunity for museums to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate
    information about model programs of museum cooperation with libraries
    focusing on community service, technology, or education. And OMS will
    explore more deeply the issue of community by holding a forum,
    ``Museums in the Community,'' this spring that will include hands-on
    training sessions for working with community groups and access to
    successful community-based models.
        Finally, I again respectfully ask that you recommend funding for
    the Office of Museum Services (OMS) within the Institute of Museum and
    Library Services (IMLS) $40 million and recommend funding for the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA) at the modest levels requested in the President's
    budget.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Able, Edward H., Jr., president and CEO, American Association of
      Museums, prepared statement....................................   586
    Allen, W. Ron, tribal chairman and executive director, Jamestown
      S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement............................   502
    Altmeyer, Thomas H., Sr., vice president, government affairs,
      National Mining Association, prepared statement................   557
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement..   540
    Armstrong, Hon. Bennie J., tribal chairman, Suquamish Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................   506

    Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................    39
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Barnett, Jack A., executive director, Colorado River Basin
      Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.....................   463
    Beard, Daniel P., senior vice president, National Audubon
      Society, prepared statement....................................   445
    Beck, James A., president, Seneca Resources Corp., prepared
      statement......................................................   567
    Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah..................35, 44
        Questions submitted by.......................................   209
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared
      statement......................................................     2
        Questions submitted by.......................................   198
    Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas...................    25
    Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Prepared statement...........................................   315
        Questions submitted by................................167, 278, 305
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   560
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia...........41, 340
        Questions submitted by.....................................185, 423

    Cagey, Henry, chairman, Lummi Nation, prepared statement.........   514
    Callahan, Kateri, executive director, Electric Transportation
      Coalition, prepared statement..................................   564
    Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado.......43, 312
        Questions submitted by.......................................   226
    Capoeman-Baller, Pearl, president, Quinault Indian Nation,
      prepared statement.............................................   525
    Chicks, Robert, chairman, Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of
      Mohican Indians, prepared statement............................   543
    Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi................    24
        Questions submitted by................................278, 299, 402
    Council for Chemical Research, Inc., prepared statement..........   583
    Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, questions submitted
      by......................................................179, 312, 404

    Darguzas, Joseph N., Sargent & Lundy, prepared statement.........   578
    Davis, Julia A., chair, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
      Board, prepared statement......................................   491
    Dean, Henry, chairman, Interstate Council on Water, prepared
      statement......................................................   489
    Dombeck, Mike, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture..   309
        Prepared statement...........................................   335
    Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
      submitted by.................................................169, 299
    Dorgan, Hon Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
      submitted by............................................204, 306, 438
    Duncan, Jennifer, Evaluator, General Accounting Office...........   231
    Duncan, Roger, director, Planning, Environmental and Conservation
      Services, city of Austin, TX; chair, Urban Consortium Energy
      Task Force, Public Technology, Inc., prepared statement........   579

    Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement....   486

    Ferris, William R., Chairman, National Endowment for the
      Humanities.....................................................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29

    General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement...............   571
    George, Merv, Jr., chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe of California,
      prepared statement.............................................   496
    Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington........1, 39, 231, 309
        Prepared statement...........................................   233
    Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of
      Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.....................   231
        Biographical sketch..........................................   257
        Prepared statement...........................................   250
    Gregg, Hon. Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire................    35
    Guenthardt, Robert, chairman, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
      of Michigan, prepared statement................................   527

    Havatone, Earl, chairman, Hualapai Tribe of Arizona, prepared
      statement......................................................   552
    Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared statement...........................   499
    Hooper, Helen, director of public policy, Land Trust Alliance,
      letter from....................................................   484

    Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
      submitted by...................................................   193

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   499
    Janger, Stephen A., president, Close Up Foundation, prepared
      statement......................................................   465
    Jones, Gerald J., tribal chairman, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................   529
    Judd, Joe, commissioner, Kane County, UT, prepared statement.....   461

    Lewis, Dr. Robert, Deputy Chief, Research, and Development,
      Department of Agriculture......................................   309
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   495
    Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement..........................   499
    Lyons, James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........   309
        Prepared statement...........................................   329

    Mallory, Kenny, chairman, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, prepared
      statement......................................................   547
    Manuel, Hilda, Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs, Bureau of
      Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.....................   231
        Biographical sketch..........................................   257
    Marques, Jose, executive director, Children's Forest Association,
      prepared statement.............................................   486
    Mason, Donald, president-elect, Ground Water Protection Council,
      prepared statement.............................................   570
    McArthur, Eugene ``Bugger,'' tribal chairman, White Earth Band of
      Chippewa Indians, prepared statement...........................   531
    McConnell, Joseph F., president, Fort Belknap Community Council,
      prepared statement.............................................   553
    Mejia, Margie, chairperson, Lytton Rancheria/Lytton Band of Pomo
      Indians of California, prepared statement......................   545
    Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, prepared statement............   499
    Miller, Tom, administrator, Hannahville Indian Community Tribal
      School, prepared statement.....................................   533
    Morris, Joann Sebastian, Director, Office of Indian Education,
      Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior...........   231
        Biographical sketch..........................................   258

    Naiberk, Sue, Assistant Director, Energy, Resources, and Science
      Issues, General Accounting Office..............................   231
    National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, prepared statement.....   584
    National Association for State Community Services Programs,
      prepared statement.............................................   573
    National Indian Child Welfare Association, prepared statement....   492
    Novack, Yvonne, NIEA president, National Indian Education
      Association, prepared statement................................   534

    O'Leary-Higgins, Hon. Kathryn, Acting Chairman; Deputy Secretary,
      U.S. Department of Labor, National Endowment for the Arts......     1
        Biographical sketch..........................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Old Bear, David, Sr., tribal council chairman, Sac and Fox Tribe
      of the Mississippi in Iowa, prepared statement.................   528

    Pandolfi, Francis, Special Assistant to the Chief, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................   309
    Parker, Margaret A., president, Meigs County Historical Society,
      prepared statement.............................................   468
    Penney, Samuel N., chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive
      Committee, prepared statement..................................   537
    Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........   576
    Phillips, Randle, Budget Coordinator, Department of Agriculture..   309

    Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement.......................   499

    Rainwater, Stephanie, president, Ketchikan Indian Corp., prepared
      statement......................................................   518
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted
      by.............................................................   439
    Rezendes, Victor S., Director, Energy, Resources, and Science
      Issues, General Accounting Office..............................   231
        Prepared statement...........................................   236
    Runnels, Bruce, chief conservation officer, The Nature
      Conservancy, prepared statement................................   455

    Sac and Fox Nation, prepared statement...........................   499
    Shanklin-Peterson, Scott, Senior Deputy Chairman, National
      Endowment for the Arts.........................................     1
        Biographical sketch..........................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Stevens, Hon. Ted., U.S. Senator from Alaska.....................   231
        Questions submitted by.......................................   167
    Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys professor of environmental
      engineering, University of Tulsa; Director, Integrated Public/
      Private Energy and Environmental Consortium [IPEC], prepared
      statement......................................................   563

    Thomas, Edward K., president, Central Council of Tlingit and
      Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, prepared statement..............   522
    Tice, R. Dean, executive director, National Recreation and Park
      Association, prepared statement................................   443
    Trent, Dr. Robert H., director, School of Mineral Engineering,
      University of Alaska, Fairbanks, prepared statement............   582

    Werner, Gary, chair, Partnership for the National Trails System,
      prepared statement.............................................   449
    Whitener, Dave W., chairman, Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared
      statement......................................................   510
    World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement..........................   458
    Wright, Mervin, Jr., chairman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................   554
    Wynne, Bruce, chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   550

    Zimmerman, Gerald R., executive director, Colorado River Board of
      California, prepared statement.................................   461
    Zunigha, Curtis, chief, Tribal Council, Delaware Tribe of
      Indians, prepared statement....................................   520

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                                 Forest Service

    Accountable decisionmaking.......................................   361
    Additional committee questions...................................   373
    Allocation criteria............................................358, 359
    Backlogged maintenance...........................................   352
    Bipartisan solutions.............................................   314
    Bridge safety....................................................   326
    Budget request...................................................   309
    Chief's reviews..................................................   365
    Communications plan..............................................   310
    Conservation philosophy..........................................   371
    Control board....................................................   362
    Coopers & Lybrand report.........................................   364
    County commissioners.............................................   367
    Course to the future.............................................   325
    Custodial forest management......................................   329
    Dutch John transfer, town of.....................................   356
    Decisionmaking...................................................   363
    Financial:
        Friction.....................................................   366
        Management...................................................   349
    Forest Service:
        Appreciation for personnel...................................   355
        Staff........................................................   340
    Forestry research related issues.................................   344
    Former Chief's quote.............................................   372
    Four corners development proposal................................   353
    Franklin County Lake...........................................311, 346
    GAO accountability report........................................   310
    Hardwoods technology center......................................   341
    Hot shots........................................................   347
    ICBEMP:
        Apprehension of..............................................   367
        Congressional directive......................................   368
        Environmental impact statement for...........................   368
        Private property impact of...................................   369
        Public participation in......................................   369
        Reaction to..................................................   368
    Idaho Department of Environmental Quality........................   348
    Interior Columbia basin ecosystem management project.............   366
    Land:
        Acquisition................................................351, 360
        Exchange.....................................................   352
    Litigation and multiple use......................................   354
    Long-term roads policy...........................................   360
    Management:
        Action taken.................................................   334
        Business...................................................333, 362
        Problems.....................................................   313
    Mississippi forestry research..................................343, 345
    National:
        Forest Foundation............................................   358
        Forest System management.....................................   324
        Recreation strategy..........................................   325
    Natural resources agenda.........................................   324
    New England forest recreation use................................   358
    Olympics 2002....................................................   355
    Overhead costs.................................................364, 366
    Personnel:
        Flexibility..................................................   362
        Reductions...................................................   366
    Plum Creek land exchange.........................................   370
    Pulling punches..................................................   363
    Red Butte Dam....................................................   356
    Regional budget declines.........................................   348
    Research:
        New Mexico...................................................   352
        West Virginia forestry.......................................   342
    Riparian proximity grazing.......................................   353
    Roads:
        Heavy-use....................................................   329
        Decommissioning..............................................   327
        Maintenance and reconstruction backlog.....................327, 350
        Moratorium.......................................310, 326, 327, 349
            Impact on timber.........................................   355
        Recreation use...............................................   326
    Routt National Forest windstorm..................................   312
    Seneca Rocks Visitors Center.....................................   341
    Sustainable forestry principles..................................   325
    Taos drainage problem............................................   352
    Thompson Creek mine..............................................   371
    White Mountain National Forest...................................   357
    Working together.................................................   373
    West, frustrations in the........................................   346

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                            Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Additional committee questions...................................   278
    Education.................................................258, 259, 267
        And unemployment.............................................   268
        Instructional programs.......................................   265
    Federal:
        Funding for Indian programs..................................   270
        Indian policy................................................   270
    Funding for Indian programs......................................   273
    Indian:
        Affairs leadership...........................................   269
        Country, unemployment in.....................................   258
        Gaming.......................................................   272
    Needs based analysis.............................................   267
    Private sector business on Indian reservations...................   274
    Profits from business ventures...................................   273
    School facilities..............................................262, 265
    TPA task force distribution....................................260, 275
    Tribal:
        Community colleges and vocational schools....................   268
        Priority allocations.........................................   266
            System...................................................   262
    Tribes:
        In Alaska....................................................   261
        With small populations.......................................   264
    Water rights negotiations........................................   266

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional committee questions...................................    79
    Budget request...................................................    39
    Columbia basin ecosystem management plan.........................    55
    Completing the necessary review..................................    59
    Concessions reform...............................................    64
    Corridor H.......................................................    56
    ESA and money for private landowners.............................    62
    Federal highway system funds.....................................    67
    Fee demonstration project........................................    54
    Financing mechanism..............................................    70
    Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument......................    44
    Haskell versus SIPI..............................................    71
    Indian:
        Colleges.....................................................    71
        School repair................................................    69
    Mescalero Elementary School......................................    73
    Natchez Trace Parkway............................................    66
    Presidio.........................................................    55
        Buildings status.............................................    61
    Reductions in heritage efforts...................................    60
    Reinventorying of lands for wilderness...........................    44
    Role of State historic preservation officer......................    57
    San Raphael Swell Heritage Area..................................    44
    Sand Creek Massacre Site.........................................    60
    Southwest Fisheries Technology Center............................    74
    State historic preservation office...............................    58
    Surplus BLM land.................................................    77
    Tribally controlled colleges.....................................    71
    Vanishing treasures initiative...................................    76
    Virgin River.....................................................    62
    Yazoo complex NWR................................................    65

                        NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

    Amount of grants.................................................    22
    ArtsREACH initiative......................................8, 14, 20, 25
    B-2 bomber grant proposal........................................     9
    Budget:
        Administrative...............................................     9
        Increase, proposed use of requested..........................     8
        Request......................................................     1
    Education:
        Arts.........................................................    16
        Importance of arts...........................................     8
    Hearings, House appropriations...................................    24
    Multistate grants................................................    15
    National Council on the Arts.....................................    19
    NEA presence in North Dakota.....................................     4
    New council members..............................................     3
    Office of Enterprise Development.................................    23
    Priorities, fiscal year 1999 funding.............................    22
    State:
        Arts agencies................................................    22
        Fifteen percent cap for......................................    20
    Underserved States...............................................    21

                     NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

    Funding of Regional Humanities Centers...........................    36
    Geographical distribution of grants..............................    37
    Public/private partnerships......................................    33
    Relationship with State humanities councils......................    36
    Summer seminars and institutes...................................    34

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    Additional committee questions...................................   277
    Impediments to getting information...............................   241