[Senate Hearing 105-866]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-866
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT 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. 4194/S. 2168
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR SUNDRY INDEPENDENT AGENCIES,
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, CORPORATIONS, AND OFFICES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Corporation for National and Community Service
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Office of the President
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
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
46-124 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-058137-0
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 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
TED STEVENS, Alaska PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado TOM HARKIN, Iowa
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Jon Kamarck, Clerk to Subcommittee
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Minority Staff
Andy Givens
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 5, 1998
Page
Federal Emergency Management Agency.............................. 1
Corporation for National and Community Service................... 55
Thursday, March 12, 1998
Department of Housing and Urban Development...................... 93
Department of the Treasury: Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund.............................................. 155
Thursday, March 19, 1998
Department of Veterans Affairs................................... 169
Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial Expenses, Army.......... 277
Thursday, April 23, 1998
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 287
Thursday, April 30, 1998
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 331
Thursday, May 7, 1998
National Science Foundation...................................... 559
Executive Office of the President................................ 589
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 647
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 647
Department of Housing and Urban Development.................. 746
Department of Veterans Affairs............................... 788
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT 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 10:38 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond and Mikulski.
Also present: Senator Bumpers.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. GOLDIN, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY MALCOLM L. PETERSON, COMPTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee will come to order.
The subcommittee meets today to review the budget request
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA],
and we welcome Dan Goldin, NASA's Administrator, and his staff.
NASA's budget request totals just under $13.5 billion,
nearly $200 million less than the fiscal year 1998 enacted
level. Once again, NASA is proposing to do more with less and
to make its missions smaller, cheaper, and better. We
appreciate NASA's willingness to step up to the plate and
actually to do more with less, instead of just talking about
doing more with less sometime in the future.
Last year at this hearing, I believe we talked about the
excitement that NASA was generating--the awe-inspiring visions
allowing us to picture the far reaches of the universe, to see
the birth of stars and galaxies, and to imagine the possibility
of life existing throughout the universe. This past year has
continued that excitement--the landing of the Mars Pathfinder
on the Fourth of July and the explorations of Sojourner, the
little rover that could, which captivated the Nation. I also
commend NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science, Wes
Huntress, for a job well done, and wish him well in his new
endeavors.
On the other hand, the past year has also done little to
alleviate some of the concerns we expressed last year,
particularly over the construction of the International Space
Station. The problems we discussed last year, both those with
the U.S. contractors and with the commitments from our Russian
partners, have continued. The opportunity that we gave NASA and
the contractor in last year's conference report to reexamine
the funding profile, schedule, content, and efficiency of the
program, only has been given lip service and NASA has not used
this review effectively in my view. Instead, NASA has only
reiterated the need for transfer authority, which was denied
last year.
I continue to remain concerned over the exploding cost of
the International Space Station in which the overall cost of
the program will grow from $17.9 billion to some estimates of
$23.3 billion, perhaps even more at completion. I do not think
it appropriate to rob other programs and initiatives to pay for
the space station and how we balance the space station with
space and Earth science programs is of grave concern.
Obviously, these are areas which we will wish to explore during
this hearing.
We also have questions remaining concerning NASA's use of
uncosted carryovers. Last year we were surprised that the
shuttle program, which had allegedly been cut to the bone, was
able to come up with an excess of $200 million in fiscal year
1997 to be used as part of the shortfall in the space station
program. We expressed concern that NASA was using an internal
bank of uncosted carryovers to allow the agency to bail out
other programs, despite the purposes for which Congress had
appropriated the funds.
This year uncosted carryovers seem to be the answer for all
of NASA's cost overruns and also a way to start new programs in
the existing budget. However, if the funds which were
appropriated by Congress have already been obligated for their
intended purpose, they cannot be spent again merely because the
agency has not yet costed the obligation. Now, this committee
needs to understand NASA's use of uncosted carryovers both for
NASA's credibility and for us to understand the actual funding
costs of the programs.
In addition, this is another difficult year for funding
decisions for this subcommittee. The President again has
submitted a budget that raises expectations by not structuring
spending decisions according to fiscal requirements and program
needs. We have significant funding needs that we must address,
ranging from medical care for veterans to climbing costs
associated with housing for low-income Americans to relief for
victims of disasters. We are not far enough along in the budget
process to have an allocation for the subcommittee. So, it is
premature to discuss absolute levels of funding that might be
available to NASA, but we can be sure, as in the past, that the
allocation will be tight. Therefore, we need to understand
NASA's funding priorities for its programs.
We are living in a rapidly changing world and possibly also
in a rapidly changing universe. We count on agencies like NASA
to inspire us to explore and understand not only the world, but
also the universe. We also count on NASA to use its vision to
serve the Nation and to benefit life on Earth.
Let me now call on my distinguished ranking member, the
Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for her opening
statement. Senator.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to welcome the Administrator, Dr. Goldin, and look forward
to our conversation today.
I also want to note the presence of the new Associate
Administrator for Human Exploration and Development in Space,
Joe Rothenberg, who was the former Director of Goddard, a
Maryland resident. We have a light in the window for you.
[Laughter.]
And I also want to extend my greetings to the new Goddard
Director, Mr. Al Diaz, and to the new Associate Administrator
of Earth Science, Ghassem Asrar. Welcome.
Let me start by saying that it is good to see that the
proposed funding level of $13.46 billion in the fall to see--I
am pleased to see the amount that finally got into the budget.
I was deeply concerned that there would be less money this
year, that the promises that had been negotiated would fall
short, and that we would again have very stringent funding
issues.
I do believe that we have very stringent funding issues
because I believe that when one looks at the overall increased
funding at various science agencies, that NASA is not moving
ahead in the way that others are.
I want to thank Mr. Bond and Mr. Goldin for the work that
they did to ensure that the out-year funding for NASA did not
dip to a level that would essentially begin to hollow out or
downgrade NASA.
NASA has done many wonderful things. Its mission to explore
new frontiers with new technologies is essential in our
everyday life. NASA has been good for science, good for
business, and good even for human health in the protection of
our environment. We know that investing in NASA's science and
technology has been good for business and that new industries
have been built on space exploration, such as personal
computers, communication satellites, and weather forecasting.
Space exploration has generated more than 30,000 product
spinoffs. It has been good for science by providing improved
scientific knowledge about other planets and life here on
Earth.
I have been really pleased that in the last year there have
been incredible discoveries. The landing of the Mars Pathfinder
suggests the possibility of hidden subsurface water. The Hubble
telescope discovery of 1,000 bright young star clusters,
resulting in the collision of two galaxies, and just this week
the discovery of the birth of a solar system that suggests that
there is even other life to be considering. These outstanding
discoveries help us better understand the universe and help us
develop predictive environmental, climate, and natural
disasters.
Our investment in NASA has been good for human health. It
has saved lives with the techniques that we have developed, and
what is going on in the work of new x-ray technology and new
opportunities on tumor research is outstanding.
Though I am a strong supporter of NASA, let me tell you,
though, Mr. Goldin, I have some yellow flashing lights that I
would like to discuss.
First, I would like to note my very strong concern about
NASA's future role in the Federal Government's overall science,
research, and technology efforts. I do not want, as we talk
about 21st century research and science funding, that NASA will
be left behind.
Second, I am concerned about the funding of the space
station and the schedule of its ongoing operation. In
particular, I am particularly concerned about the fragile
nature of the Russian participation. As I stated at last year's
hearing, my concern is more with the Russian financial
situation, not with their technical competency. In our
conversation, I want to hear more about what is the Russian
participation, particularly in the light of the departure of
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.
I also want to know how the Russians are dealing with the
impact of the proliferation of missile technology that could
lead to the manufacture of the weapons of mass destruction.
Third, I am concerned about--in addition to the missile
technology transfer from Iran, closer to home, I want to hear
how NASA will be meeting the needs of adequate funding for the
Space Telescope Science Institute and what is the status with
respect to implementing the WOBS 2000 plan.
Last, but also very important, is my concern about the
agency's year 2000 readiness. In a GAO report, I note that NASA
itself got a D in terms of being ready to deal with the Y2K
problem and I look forward to hearing your comments on that.
As always, I view these conversations as enormously
constructive and look forward to hearing your response both
here in the hearing and our ongoing work and cooperation.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
Now, Mr. Goldin, we will make your full statement--oh,
excuse me. Senator Bumpers.
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to abuse your
hospitality----
Senator Bond. We are delighted to have you here.
Senator Bumpers [continuing]. By taking up the committee's
time. I just wanted to come by and hear Mr. Goldin's testimony,
and with your permission, I might have a couple of questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. It is great to have you at the NASA
hearing.
statement of daniel s. goldin
Senator Bond. Now, Mr. Goldin, if you would give us your
statement. We will make the full statement a part of the
record, as always, and invite you to make such comments as you
think are appropriate for the oral presentation.
Mr. Goldin. Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, Senator
Bumpers, I am very pleased to be here today.
This week we have not only seen what the work of our
Nation's space program does, but the incredible scope of that
work. Yesterday, as Senator Mikulski pointed out, newspapers
were filled with pictures of a solar system revolving around a
young star that is 13 trillion miles away. And, at the same
time, we are peering out at the infinite vastness of space, our
brave astronauts on the shuttle, working with researchers at
the NIH, are looking inward at the infinite complexity of the
human brain.
These projects would not be possible without this
committee's support of the origins program and the life science
program. So, I want to begin today by thanking all of you for
that support, especially Senator Mikulski who was responsible
for bringing NASA and NIH together back in 1992.
Mr. Chairman, my message today is this: NASA brings the
same sense of commitment and conviction that led to this week's
events to making our budget work. We continue to do more with
less and we continue to do what we say we will do.
Since 1993, NASA's budget has come down, but we have made
those reductions work for us and for the American people. Mr.
Chairman, we have explored new worlds. We have enhanced life
here on Earth and we have already saved the American taxpayer
$25 billion, and by the end of fiscal year 2000, we will have
saved the American taxpayer $40 billion. We are a high
performance agency and our budget cuts have not changed that.
Nothing says it better than this: The 1999 budget is down, yet
we started 10 new programs.
Let me share with you another example. In the 1980's we
launched only two interplanetary probes. In the next year or
so, we will have launched one about every 10 weeks.
We are doing some exciting things in aeronautics and space
transportation too. Over the past year, we joined forces with
the aviation industry, the FAA and DOD and made an important
new commitment to Americans in air travel, cutting the crash
rate by a factor of 10. With this budget, NASA will help build
a stronger America by committing to air and space travel that
is not only faster, better, and cheaper, but cleaner and much
safer.
In the area of Earth science, you will notice that the
budget is lower in its 5-year projection than last year. There
is a good reason for that and we are very proud of it. We now
have lower-cost spacecraft that meet or exceed our toughest
requirements. This lower budget not only fully funds our
current programs, it also provides funding for two new programs
and complements a third. This is a balanced aeronautics and
space program.
We feel good about where NASA is today and where the agency
is going. We will be working closely with you on all aspects of
our budget, especially the International Space Station. We are
all concerned about the cost overruns and schedule slips. I am
not going to sugar-coat them. There have been some problems,
even more so for our Russian partners, but we are getting it
done. We are moving with confidence toward the first element
launch this year. We are building the station and we will
enrich our children's lives in ways we cannot even begin to
imagine.
A final word about the station. To date, with the exception
of $100 million that the Congress gave us, we have accommodated
all the additional space station requirements within our own
decreasing budget and at the same time, as I mentioned, we have
strengthened all our other enterprises. This is because the men
and women of NASA are doing an extraordinary job and I want to
thank them and salute them. They represent the very best of
America.
prepared statement
I want to thank you again for your support. I began by
talking about the vastness of space and the complexity of the
brain. Perhaps the only thing more infinite than those two
things is our imagination. At NASA we tapped that imagination.
We opened the air and space frontiers. Our mission is to
pioneer the future. This is what we do for America, but this is
not something NASA does by itself, not by a long shot. This is
something the administration makes possible. This is something
that you make possible. This is something we must do together.
Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel S. Goldin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here to present to you NASA's budget request for fiscal year 1999. I
look back at 1997 in pride at what the NASA team has accomplished. It
was an incredible year, one in which discoveries from NASA missions
filled the calendar, the front pages of our Nation's newspapers and
magazines, and television screens around the world: images of rocks,
nicknamed ``Scooby Doo'' and ``Barnacle Bill,'' from the surface of
Mars; images of the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa, suggesting the
possibility of hidden, subsurface water; spectacular images from the
Hubble Space Telescope of a galactic collision and the resulting birth
of 1,000 bright young star clusters; the image of the El Nino weather
phenomenon underway in the Pacific, combining information taken from a
variety of earth observing satellites and instruments; and the image of
the Space Shuttle Endeavor, lighting up the night sky, on another trip
to the Mir Space Station, where U.S. and Russian astronauts are gaining
experience in space operations that will prove invaluable in the
assembly and operations aboard the International Space Station.
This is what NASA is all about. Our vision says it best. NASA is
about exploring, about innovation, about pushing the frontiers of
aeronautics and space. NASA's Strategic Plan defines this vision and
poses fundamental questions of science and research that provide the
reason for why we exist and the foundation for our goals. These
questions are fundamental for everyone:
--How did the universe, galaxies, stars and planets form and evolve?
How can our exploration of the universe and our solar system
revolutionize our understanding of physics, chemistry, and
biology?
--Does life in any form, however simple or complex, carbon-based or
other, exist elsewhere than on planet Earth? Are there Earth-
like planets beyond our solar system?
--How can we utilize the knowledge of the Sun, Earth, and other
planetary bodies to develop predictive environmental, climate,
natural disaster, and natural resource models to help ensure
sustainable development and improve the quality of life on
Earth?
--What is the fundamental role of gravity and cosmic radiation in
vital biological, physical, and chemical systems in space, and
how do we apply this fundamental knowledge to the establishment
of permanent human presence in space to improve life on Earth?
--How can we enable revolutionary technological advances to provide
air and space travel for anyone, anytime, anywhere more safely,
more affordably, and with less impact on the environment and
improve business opportunities and global security?
--What cutting-edge technologies, processes, and techniques and
engineering capabilities must we develop to enable our research
agenda in the most productive, economical, and timely manner?
How can we most effectively transfer the knowledge we gain from
our research and discoveries to commercial ventures in the air,
in space, and on Earth?
This is the first NASA budget formulated in response to the goals
of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). To demonstrate
our commitment to the achievement of the goals of GPRA, we have
implemented a Strategic Management System. This system assigns
guidelines and responsibilities for program development including
planning, implementation, execution, and performance evaluation.
Central to the system are the four NASA Strategic Enterprises that
encompass the programs and activities that support our goals, and are
responsible for answering these fundamental questions and satisfying
our customers' requirements.
The NASA Strategic Plan defines our vision, mission, and goals for
the future. While GPRA requires 5-year plans, NASA has laid out a
course of proposed opportunities for the next 25 years. The NASA
Performance Plan provides evaluation measures and performance targets
for selected programs and activities for our Enterprises and
Crosscutting Processes. We will hold ourselves accountable to achieve
our goals and performance targets and do what we say we will do. We
have established challenging, though realistic, achievement targets and
will inform you of our progress when we publish the Performance Report
in March 2000.
We at NASA will celebrate our 40th anniversary this year. I am
proud of the NASA team that has reinvented NASA to make it better than
ever. NASA's transition over the past several years has been
incredible. The amount of upheaval, uncertainty, and challenge to every
aspect of the way we do business has touched every corner of NASA. It
has been hard, incredibly hard. But the NASA team has met that
challenge and emerged stronger, more flexible, for the fight. And the
results are obvious. Faster, better, cheaper is not a slogan--it is
routine. The fiscal year 1994 budget included funding for 11 Space
Science missions; the fiscal year 1999 budget request contains funding
for 28 missions. The original Earth Observing System envisioned a few
large and expensive spacecraft. The current EOS program encompasses
many much smaller missions at a significantly lower cost. This will
enable the infusion of new technology development and is responsive to
emerging scientific discoveries. The NASA Aeronautics Program is at the
forefront of the Administration's National Partnership in Aeronautics
Research and Technology. And all the while, the size of our workforce
has been reduced by 5,700 FTE since 1993, and is on target for a total
complement of about 17,800 by fiscal year 2000. We have reduced the
size of Headquarters by over half in this time.
One thing has not changed--NASA's commitment to a space and
aeronautics program that is balanced, relevant and stable. Let us go
back two years. In the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the outyear
planning numbers were disappointing, but we knew they were not cast in
stone. In 1996, the President's National Space Policy committed to
stable funding for NASA. In the fiscal year 1998 budget request, the
President gave NASA a stable funding level of $13.5 billion for fiscal
year 1998 and an outyear baseline of $13.2 billion. The fiscal year
1998 budget request was a vote of confidence from the President and the
Administration. It was a vote of confidence that NASA had done what it
needed to do--technically, scientifically, and organizationally--for
the Nation's space and aeronautics program.
Once again, in the fiscal year 1999 budget request, NASA has been
given a vote of confidence from the President. NASA has pledged to meet
its commitments, and with the fiscal year 1999 request we will continue
to deliver on our promise. Total funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002 represents an
increase of $442 million over last year's runout. This budget is a
resounding success for NASA. It also expands our horizons in two
areas--Space Science and Future Space Launch.
Last year's incredible achievements of NASA's Space Science Program
significantly advanced our understanding of the Universe and posed even
more daunting questions. The landing of the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft
on the surface of Mars and exploration of the surrounding terrain by
the Sojourner rover captivated the Nation for several months. The
Hubble Space Telescope discovered over 1,000 bright, young star
clusters resulting from the collision of two galaxies. The launch of
the Cassini spacecraft will result in the first landing of a probe on
one of Saturn's moons. Examination of images and data from Galileo is
adding to our knowledge of Jupiter and its moons. The early pictures
coming back from the Mars Global Surveyor are amazing in their depth
and detail and add to the knowledge gained from Mars Pathfinder.
NASA's fiscal year 1999 budget includes a major funding increase
for Space Science that will capitalize on this success. These funds
will support an augmentation to the Mars Surveyor Program to enhance
the Mars 2001 lander and the initiation of a series of Solar
Terrestrial Probes to track solar phenomena and their impact on the
Earth. We will also be able to initiate mission development for the
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope that will investigate the end
states of stars' lives and to seek out the most extreme environments in
space. The budget also continues NASA's commitment to the search for
the origins of life. In response to evidence of possible subsurface
oceans discovered by the Galileo mission on Jupiter's moon Europa, we
will begin planning for a mission to launch in 2003 to enable closer
investigation of this possibility.
The second area that holds enormous potential for the future is the
next generation of launch vehicles. In order to achieve significant
savings in the cost of space missions, we must lower the cost of going
to orbit by orders of magnitude. The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
program is addressing the critical technologies needed to achieve major
leaps forward to meet the challenges and lower the costs of future
space missions. In fiscal year 1997, the X-33 and X-34 programs both
successfully passed critical design tests.
Funding requested in fiscal year 1999 will continue hardware
fabrication and testing in preparation for flight demonstration of both
these technology demonstrators in 1999. The RLV program is a
partnership between NASA and industry, built on industry-led
cooperative agreements. Phase II of the X-33 program, encompassing both
flight and ground tests, is underway and is expected to lead to a
decision by the Government and our industry partners whether full-scale
development of an RLV should be pursued. New funding is included in the
NASA budget runout to support a decision at the turn of the century on
what type of operational launch systems NASA should invest in that will
reduce the costs of access to space.
The International Space Station (ISS) development effort is at its
most critical point. During 1997, the program focused on the continued
qualification testing and manufacture of flight hardware. We are only a
few months away from the scheduled first element launch and subsequent
assembly flights throughout 1999. Node and Laboratory module
fabrication is complete and the node and pressurized mating adapter
have been delivered to the Kennedy Space Center for launch preparation.
Activities are well underway to support crew training, payload
processing, and hardware element processing. Our international partners
have continued development of flight hardware in support of their
commitments. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request includes
revised outyear estimated for ISS to address important future needs,
including funds to provide a long-term solution to the safe return of
the full complement of Station crew members. Without the additional
funds included in the fiscal year 1999 submission, short-term fixes
would likely result in very expensive outyear problems. I have included
a comprehensive status of this ambitious program later in this
statement.
NASA has stated from the outset that this program was not going to
be easy. The size and complexity of the ISS is unprecedented. Our
continuing work with the Russians is providing an invaluable foundation
for the assembly and construction activities of the Space Station that
are now only a few months away. Despite the concerns surrounding the
condition of Mir last year, the experience we are gaining through our
cooperation with the Russians will be instrumental to the success of
this program. NASA remains firmly committed to building the
International Space Station on time and at the least cost to the
American taxpayer. President Clinton has been unwavering in his
commitment for the United States to continue to play a leadership role.
NASA will deliver on this commitment. NASA is grateful that the
Congress appropriated $230 million of the additional $430 million
sought by NASA in fiscal year 1998 to meet program requirements and
maintain an adequate level of program reserves. Adequate program
reserves must be available to enable accommodation of unforeseen
technical developments inevitable in a program of this complexity. The
pending fiscal year 1998 appropriations transfer authority is sought in
order to maintain planned assembly schedule for the U.S. and its
international partners, react to new program requirements as the need
arises, and control outyear costs. We continue to seek the support of
this Committee to address this need.
Our highest priority continues to be the safe launch, operation,
and return of the Space Shuttle and crew. NASA's proposed fiscal year
1999 budget will enable the continuation of Shuttle upgrades, including
work on the Main Engine and the Orbiter. In addition, improvements to
Shuttle performance, such as the Super Lightweight External Tank,
remain on track. Over the next two years, Space Shuttle operations will
continue the transition to a single prime contractor. In sum, the Space
Shuttle team remains committed to delivering on its promise: meeting
the flight rate for less money and with improved safety.
Research progress on the Mir space station, the Space Shuttle, and
on the ground continued expanding our understanding of fundamental
physical and biological processes while pointing the way to the most
productive areas of research for the International Space Station. In
addition to biomedical data, Mir research produced the first multi-
generation plant experiments in space and expanded the duration of in-
flight tissue culture experiments from two weeks to over four months.
On the Space Shuttle, the flight and reflight of the first Microgravity
Space Laboratory mission foreshadowed the flexibility and regular
access our research communities will enjoy on the International Space
Station. The mission yielded the first measurements of specific heat
and thermal expansion of glass-forming metallic alloys, and the crew
were able to sustain the weakest flames ever burned either in space or
on Earth and studied the longest burning flames ever ignited in space.
Combustion research in space may lead to applications that help reduce
pollution and increase energy efficiency on Earth.
NASA's fiscal year 1999 request for the Earth Science Program,
formerly the Mission to Planet Earth Program, will continue to provide
valuable data right now to improve our understanding to the Earth
system. Data from missions underway, including the Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite, TOPEX/Poseidon, and SeaWIFS, as well as data from
the recent NASA Scatterometer mission, is contributing to an integrated
understanding of the El Nino phenomenon that is affecting weather
patterns around the world. The commercial implications of this weather
condition are profound--stretching from the commercial fishing industry
to record storms and snowfalls across the Nation. The Earth Observing
System (EOS), the centerpiece of NASA's contribution to the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, has undergone a profound transformation. As a
result of this summer's Biennial Review, the program is now positioned
to respond quickly to new advances in instrument technology and
scientific breakthroughs, which will be complemented by a series of
small, rapid development Earth System Science Pathfinder missions.
Funding included in NASA's fiscal year 1999 request for Aeronautics
and Space Transportation Technology will continue to contribute
significantly to the needs of the Nation. In the summer of 1997 over
the sands of Kauai, NASA's solar-powered aircraft Pathfinder set an
altitude record for propeller-driven flight of over 71,500 feet. In
1999, we will begin flights of the Centurion, which is designed to
reach 100,000 feet. This type of technology will enable high-altitude,
long-endurance for affordable, unpiloted science missions. The fiscal
year 1999 budget also continues our commitment to the Administration's
Aviation Safety Initiative. NASA will invest $.5 billion over the next
five years to develop, in partnership with industry and other Federal
agencies, breakthrough technology for safer, more reliable air
transportation.
These are the highlights of NASA's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Enclosure 1 of my statement discusses the fiscal year 1999 plans of
NASA's Enterprises in detail, and the manner in which NASA's budget
request supports the Agency's continuing efforts to deliver better
programs for less.
enclosure 1
human exploration and development of space
NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) Enterprise
includes the International Space Station, Space Shuttle, and Life and
Microgravity research. HEDS seeks to bring the frontier of space fully
within the sphere of human activity for research, commerce, and
exploration.
International Space Station
In 1993, we undertook the significant challenge of building and
integrating the world's largest and most advanced orbiting laboratory
with the combined resources and mutual interests of fifteen nations,
now sixteen. We are ready to launch this year and we plan to achieve 6-
crew capability in November 2002, just 5 months later than originally
planned. This performance is a tribute to thousands of dedicated NASA
civil servants and contractor employees across this Nation.
As a partner, the U.S. is performing well in meeting milestones and
overcoming issues. The U.S. Node 1 was delivered to the Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) nine months ago, and is undergoing final preparation and
checkout along with two Pressurized Mating Adapters. Several other key
elements have also been delivered to KSC, including the ZI Truss and
the third Pressurized Mating Adapter, in preparation for launch early
next year. A very complex piece of equipment, the Integrated
Electronics Assembly, is now being outfitted at KSC with critical
components of the power system in preparation for a mid-1999 launch. We
expect the U.S. Laboratory module and the remaining flight hardware for
the first six flights to be delivered to their respective launch sites
by the end of 1998.
The dedication of our workforce has enabled this impressive
performance in the face of unforeseeable difficulties. A large majority
of our international partners are also performing well. By the end of
1997, the partners had completed over 100,000 pounds of flight
hardware; another 50,000 pounds is to be completed by the end of 1998.
To date, those partners have invested over $4.5 billion in their
contributions to the program.
Together, the United States and our partners had produced over
368,000 pounds of flight hardware at the end of 1997; by the end of
1998, this amount will almost double. When the Station is complete, we
will have a research facility on-orbit exceeding one million pounds.
We are clearly in a position to move forward to begin the on-orbit
assembly of the International Space Station. To help us do so more
proficiently, the knowledge gained on the Phase 1 Shuttle/Mir program
will be used to the fullest. This preparatory step to the assembly and
operation of the ISS continues to be a dramatic success. Our seventh
and last U.S. occupant, astronaut Andy Thomas, has now been on board
Mir for 89 days. By the time he returns to Earth, the United States
will have accumulated a total of 804 days of uninterrupted presence in
space. Adding to this the 115 days which Dr. Norman Thagard spent on
Mir prior to that time, U.S. astronauts will have spent over 919 days
in space aboard a space station by the end of Phase I. This exceeds by
almost five months the total time accumulated by all 91 Shuttle flights
since the beginning of the Shuttle program in 1981.
This unprecedented experience has taught us how to work across
international boundaries on complex space operations, including on-
orbit rendezvous and docking, rapid turnaround resupply, and on-orbit
maintenance and repair. Our understanding of long-term space research
has also improved with new appreciation in many areas, from
physiological effects of the microgravity environment, to crystal
growth, to space radiation effects on electronics. The Shuttle/Mir
experience has been equally valuable on the ground. ISS operational
plans and mission control procedures, documentation and integration
have been refined as a direct result of Phase 1 experience. The
knowledge and experience gained from the Shuttle/Mir program is
contributing materially to the ISS in terms of reduced risk, and safer,
more proficient assembly.
Development Phasing Down/Utilization and Research Increasing.--As
we near the end of our Phase 1 activities and begin to complete major
ISS hardware modules, the development effort is entering a downward
curve in terms of manpower and resources, and efforts in preparation
for the utilization of the Station's research facilities are ramping
up. The ISS utilization program has been restructured to better phase
the on-orbit deliveries of research equipment to be more in concert
with the actual availability of the on-board resources for research,
particularly during the assembly sequence.
The fiscal year 1999 multi-year budget plan reflects a lower annual
funding level for the Research Program for fiscal year 1999 in
recognition of the revised timeline for the ISS assembly schedule. At
the same time, the Research Plan reflects an increase in annual funding
levels for fiscal year 2002-2003 above levels assumed in last year's
budget. All priority research facilities will be onboard the ISS by the
completion of assembly. NASA remains fully committed to meeting Space
Station research requirements and will accommodate the funding
requirements for those research capabilities in the funding runout of
the program.
In addition to improved synchronization of planned utilization with
on-orbit research support capabilities, another significant benefit
from the rephasing of the Research Program has been to allow research
facility designers additional time to infuse new technology into their
designs to improve the facilities' operations and reduce operational
expenses. This will result in an even more capable and effective
research capability than that originally planned after the 1993
redesign.
Our plan calls for taking advantage of research opportunities as
early in the assembly sequence as possible. There are recognized
difficulties in performing research during ISS assembly, but we are
committed to taking maximum advantage of all opportunities during that
period, as we did during the early flight tests of the Space Shuttle
program. Facility-class research payloads will begin being delivered to
the Space Station on flights 7A.1, Utilization Flight-1, and
Utilization Flight-2. Development of research facilities for UF-1 and
UF-2 is well under way including the Human Research Facility, Express
Racks, and Microgravity Science Glovebox. Deployment of the Express
Racks is concentrated early in the assembly sequence to allow multiple
research opportunities.
Most research during the early assembly phase and up to Utilization
Flight-3 in late 2001 will be concentrated in small-scale experiments
such as those compatible with EXPRESS-rack and Middeck locker-class
accommodations. We will take advantage of opportunities on assembly
flights to transport Middeck-class payloads to the ISS and return
research products.
Examples of research during the assembly phase include protein
crystallization to aid in structure-based drug design; three-
dimensional cell tissue culturing to better understand normal and
abnormal cell growth; plant growth to investigate genetic engineering
potential; and zeolite crystal growth to improve materials for chemical
processing.
Further activities to support assembly-period research include:
--deployment of ISS facility-class payloads and accompanying research
hardware, beginning with one internal pressurized utilization
rack in 1999, and building to 27 racks and 14 external
equivalent payload sites for NASA by the end of assembly;
--utilization of external attached payload sites, beginning with
Utilization Flight-4 in early 2002;
--addition of dedicated Space Shuttle research flights for the U.S.
and international life and microgravity research community in
October 1998 (STS-95) and possibly May 2000 (STS-107), and
possible development of stand-by research missions and payloads
to fly on an ``as-available'' basis during assembly to further
support continued access for space research; and,
--increased Shuttle middeck locker capability, from 4 to 17 lockers,
beginning with Utilization Flight-3.
ISS Research Capabilities Improved.--While maximizing research
opportunities during assembly, we will continue our efforts to ensure
the best possible research capability is aboard the completed Station.
The following are examples of these ongoing activities:
--continued selection of world-class investigations for both ground-
and space-based research opportunities. NASA is working to
increase the number of Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications Principle Investigations (PI's) with research
grants from 700 PI's in 1997 to 900 PI's by 2001;
--increasing opportunities for commercial involvement with the ISS,
working through NASA's 11 Commercial Space Centers (CSC),
coordinating between NASA, industrial affiliates, and academic
and government partners to advance commercial space interests.
These CSC's represent over 136 industrial affiliates and more
than 50 university affiliates;
--continued pursuit of a capability for commercial use and operation
of the ISS;
--continued efforts to take advantage of any opportunity to enhance
research capability in the course of making changes in schedule
and configuration of the ISS; for example:
--improvements made to the ISS platform itself have resulted in
indirect positive impacts in research capacity, such as
improvements in resource provisions and functional
reliability;
--Russian-driven ISS changes have provided early power with the
photovoltaic module, increased external thermal control for
attached payloads; a new flight attitude for better power
generation, and additional control authority and refueling
capability for the Control Module (FGB);
--several ISS changes have improved the capability of research
facilities, such as: the addition of the Early
Communications System; the ISS Systems Integration Lab;
Multi-Element Integrated Testing; enhancements to the
Portable Computer System; and the active rack isolation
system;
--the addition of wiring scars to the U.S. Laboratory module
enhances communications capability for data transfer, and
the addition of a Communications Outage Recorder ensures
that no research data is lost during communications
dropouts;
--the addition of an Environment Monitoring Package to characterize
the external environment for attached payloads ensures that
designs adequately address environmental effects on
attached payloads; and,
--definition of ISS telescience communications requirements,
including Ku uplink and downlink bandwidth, plus video
improvements.
The research capability resulting from these items will be robust
in providing opportunities for life and micro-gravity sciences, Earth
sciences, space sciences, engineering research and technology
development, and the commercial development of space. The ISS will also
provide a learning experience for living in space, and will demonstrate
the technology required to provide the capability to further explore
the space frontier.
Development Challenges Remain.--Although significant progress has
been made, we still face a number of development challenges as we
approach the initial phases of assembly of this enormous vehicle.
The U.S. Laboratory module is currently 6 weeks behind schedule,
having improved its schedule position over the last few months. The Lab
team continues to meet milestones intended to recover schedule to meet
the target launch date of May 1999. Their performance against several
key milestones in the near term, including installation of the Lab
hatch and additional racks, and the performance of element
qualification testing, will contribute to a more accurate assessment of
schedule risk.
Software development and testing is expected to remain a key issue
throughout this year. The software development and testing schedules
are tightly linked with the schedules for system and element level
testing, operations planning and crew training. As difficulties develop
in any area, a broad range of affected parties will need to tightly
coordinate corrective actions to prevent the problem from developing
into a schedule slip.
Subcontractor parts delivery issues continue to be a challenge for
a variety of reasons. We expect to continue to struggle with this issue
due to the enormity of the program and multitude of potential problem
areas at the subcontractor level. Our continued close monitoring of
this issue includes measurement of subcontractor cost, schedule,
technical, quality and recovery.
As reflected in the President's request for fiscal year 1999, a
requirement has been added for development of a Crew Return Vehicle
(CRV) which is intended to be continuously present at the Station while
it is occupied; a ``placeholder'' estimate has been included in the
proposed budget, which we will refine further. A CRV capability is
required to have capability to transport up to 7 crew members. The
Russian Soyuz capsule, which can carry three persons, is currently
being modified to accommodate more diverse physical sizes of
astronauts. It will serve the CRV function until the U.S. CRV is
delivered in 2003. The X-38 is a system technology demonstration
program which should provide the primary design basis to satisfy the
crew return requirement. An internal study is currently being conducted
to verify X-38 capability to CRV requirements. The CRV requirements
will also include be examined as part of a larger future launch study
being undertaken by NASA and industry. The production of CRV
operational vehicles is planned to begin in fiscal year 2000.
As we work to mitigate these key issues and continue our diligent
management of this massive program, the performance of our prime
contractor, Boeing, remains under close scrutiny. Boeing has projected
their variance at completion (VAC-their estimated increase over the
originally contracted budget) to be $600 million, rebaselining their
performance plans to incorporate this amount. They have been performing
according to this new plan, but some deterioration has occurred. There
is a $50 million threat to Boeing's cost mark for fiscal year 1998, but
this is within NASA's fiscal year 1998 operating budget, NASA having
estimated more conservatively for prime performance by including budget
coverage for a Boeing VAC of $817 million.
Pending Fiscal Year 1998-1999 Requests Address Current/Future
Requirements.--NASA's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal and proposed
fiscal year 1998 appropriations transfer authority address these kinds
of issues, and others, in meeting current ISS requirements and
addressing important future needs.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, in September 1997, NASA outlined for the
Congress a requirement for an additional $430 million in fiscal year
1998 for the International Space Station, which NASA indicated could
largely be accommodated within NASA's overall budget. The requirement
for additional funding for ISS was driven by:
--Russia's announced delay of their Service Module from May 1998 to
December 1998;
--the emergence of significant cost growth in the prime contract
effort;
--necessary technical program changes which had not been definitized
at the time of the formulation of the fiscal year 1998 budget
request; and,
--the need to provide an adequate overall funding level sufficient to
avoid risk and address unforeseen problems and technical
developments.
We are grateful that Congress accommodated $230 million of the $430
million requirement through reallocations of NASA funding and an
additional appropriated amount above the President's request. On
February 20, 1998, the Administration forwarded to Congress a request
for enactment of fiscal year 1998 appropriations transfer authority for
NASA as part of the proposed fiscal year 1998 emergency/non-emergency
supplemental appropriations to address the $200 million ISS shortfall.
This provision would permit NASA to transfer a total of $173 million in
uncosted funds from NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Technology and
Mission Support appropriations accounts to the Human Space Flight
account for the Space Station; the remaining $27 million would be
reprogrammed within the Human Space Flight account.
The total $430 million estimated additional requirement for ISS in
fiscal year 1998 was developed in recognition of the critical
importance of maintaining both adequate prime contractor funding levels
and adequate reserves to address unanticipated requirements in the
major hardware and software integration effort currently in progress.
With the $230 million made available to date, the ISS program has
funded all prime contract requirements and changes that have been
definitized; however, without the additional funds, the additional
liens and threats already identified for fiscal year 1998 place the
program at high risk. In fact, the ISS program is today in a deficit
posture for fiscal year 1998; that is, the program has identified liens
and threats the costs of which, if all occur, will exceed available
fiscal year 1998 funds.
NASA's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the ISS was developed
with the assumption that an additional $200 million in fiscal year 1998
would be made available. These additional funds would help the program
to maintain its developmental activities and maintain a reasonable
level of program reserves to accommodate unplanned technical
developments over the remainder of the year. Fortunately, since the
submission of the fiscal year 1999 budget and fiscal year 1998 budget
supplemental requesting appropriations transfer authority, the program
has performed well, thus reducing the immediate urgency for the $200
million in additional fiscal year 1998 funds. We still believe,
however, that funds are needed for uncertain fiscal year 1998 risks as
well as budget threats that exist for fiscal year 1999. To the extent
that budget shortfalls arise and additional funds are not available,
NASA would need to protect near-term development activities to avoid
costly disruptions and, therefore, would be forced to reduce:
operational readiness activities; activities for Phase III of ISS
assembly; and/or, ISS research projects and utilization support.
NASA believes it is imperative that up to $200 million be made
available to the ISS program, and is prepared to work with the
Committee to secure an acceptable plan to identify these resources.
In October 1997, NASA established an independent Cost Assessment
and Validation Task Force, chaired by Mr. Jay Chabrow, under the
auspices of NASA's Advisory Committee (NAC) on the International Space
Station. The Terms of Reference call for the Task Force to provide
advice and recommendations for cost effective modifications to the
present business structure and cost-management practices of the ISS
Program, and for determining total ISS cost over the program life. The
report is expected to be released for general review in the immediate
future; in public sessions the CAV has highlighted cost and schedule
concerns with a variety of risk areas in the Program. The team has also
commended NASA on its management of this incredibly complex project.
While we may differ on the level of criticality of specific issues
raised, I believe the CAV team has captured important risk areas for
NASA and the ISS Program to consider.
The President's fiscal year 1999 request provides multi-year
funding through an advanced appropriation for the complete development
of the Station, with Station assembly beginning in 1998 and estimated
to be complete by late 2003. The additional funding included in the
fiscal year 1999 proposal for fiscal year 1999-2003 totals $1.4
billion, including the pending request for appropriations transfer for
fiscal year 1998. This increased estimate provides necessary funding
for:
--Boeing performance-NASA's estimate of remaining resources required
to accommodate prime contractor cost growth (the majority of
resources required to address this requirement has already been
incurred in prior years);
--Changes-includes an estimate for changes definitized to date, plus
a planning estimate for future changes;
--Sustaining Engineering-incorporates negotiated value with prime
contractor for sustaining engineering and projections for
outyears;
--Logistics-incorporated negotiated value with prime contractor for
spares and projections for outyears;
--Crew Return Vehicle-formally incorporates a requirement for
development of this capability to the budget profile; and,
--Reserves-provides for restoration of reserves to accommodate
anticipated future challenges.
Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that only a fraction of these
revised outyear estimates are tied to actual ``overruns.'' The greatest
challenge for any development program is to minimize the occurrence of
such overruns. They are tolerated only to the extent that they result
from our technical objectives proving to be more difficult to reach
than originally believed. Overruns for lack of effort, lack of due
diligence, or any other avoidable cause are unacceptable. However,
certain increases in program costs can be prudent and necessary if they
result in ensuring the success of the program mission.
Development of the Interim Control Module is an example of a
prudent additional expenditure, in this case, to guard against costly
schedule delays evoked by Russian Service Module issues. Implementation
of a Multi-Element Integration Test program (MEIT) is another example
of a decision to make an additional expenditure which adds very
important capability. Conducting integrated testing and verification of
elements on the ground greatly increases our confidence in successful
on-orbit operations and greatly reduces risk of increases in future
costs.
Russian Funding Commitments Must Be Met.--The positive
accomplishments I have outlined and the budget discussed above could
both be threatened by any further performance difficulties on the part
of our Russian partners. The concern is not one of quality; our
confidence in Russian technical capability remains unshaken. In fact,
when provided with necessary resources, the Russian Space Agency has
performed in an excellent fashion. The issue is uncertainty in Russian
Government funding for ISS, which impedes not only the ability of the
Russian Space Agency to meet the development schedule of the Service
Module, but also the ability to produce the Progress and Soyuz vehicles
which provide logistics supply and crew rescue capability for both the
Mir space station and the ISS.
I can report several recent developments concerning Russian
Government funding for their contributions to the ISS Program. The
Ministry of Finance transferred $20 million to RSA the week of March 9;
it has been reported that an additional $15 million was transferred to
RSA, leaving $44.5 million to be transferred prior to the end of May.
RSA also received $40 million in 1998 funds earlier this year to pay
suppliers in critical areas. The approved 1998 Russian Government
budget, passed by the Duma the week of March 4, includes $100 million
for the ISS Program; this budget was signed by President Yeltsin on
March 27. This, however, does not cover the full funding required in
1998. An additional $240 million is required through off-budget funding
to fully support the Russian contribution to ISS. We will closely
monitor the actual distribution of these funds.
Considerable technical progress with respect to Russian
contributions has been made as well. The Service Module (SM) test and
flight hardware are much further along than one year ago. We have
received reports from NASA officials in Russia that 95 percent of all
Service Module components have been installed, with an additional 2-5
percent to be installed in the next two weeks. The Complex Stand test
article electrical cable installation is complete, with autonomous
testing having been performed since November. Stage 2 of the electrical
cable installation has been completed for the Service Module Flight
Article. Lifetime testing on major components is progressing with no
significant problems. Although progress has been steady, the Russians
acknowledge that the Service Module is three to four months behind the
baselined December launch date.
Because of the important role played by the Service Module in early
command and control and habitation capability, any serious delay in its
development clearly impacts the entire ISS Partnership. We will
carefully monitor the progress of the Russian Government in allocating
funds, Russian progress in the integrated testing of the Service Module
test article, and flight article hardware and software deliveries.
Given the critical decisions we are currently facing, NASA's near term
decision criteria are firmly established. On April 28 there will be a
Russian General Designers Review and on April 29 a Joint Program
Review. NASA will use information from these meetings to assess Service
Module milestone progress and technical issues, funding status and
impacts on schedule. In May, NASA will assess SM and U.S. Laboratory
status and finalize a recommendation to manifest the Interim Control
Module or confirm SM, FGB and Node launch dates. On May 25, the Space
Station Control Board will approve a new assembly sequence with
concurrence of all International Partners. Finally, on May 29, a Heads
of Agencies meeting is scheduled to validate the baselined assembly
sequence.
In addition to these requirements, we remain extremely concerned
about the status of RSA plans to de-orbit the Mir space station. The
total number of Progress and Soyuz vehicles required to support ISS,
continued Mir operations, and Mir deorbit exceeds Russia's current
annual production capability. This anticipated vehicle shortfall will
occur during the most intensive period of ISS assembly operations and
the shortfall could cause significant risk for the ISS. We will
continue to work to secure a commitment from RSA to a timely de-orbit
of Mir.
Mr. Chairman, I have discussed the real technical progress of our
ISS team, both here in the United States and in our partner countries.
Over the last four years we have made great progress with the support
of the President and the Congress. Each year, we have made progress in
overcoming problems and meeting new challenges. I believe that the
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the ISS Program, combined with the
request for fiscal year 1998 transfer authority, represents a fair and
realistic, but admittedly ambitious, budget that will enable us to
complete development of a world-class, orbiting research facility, with
minimum cost to the U.S. taxpayer. It should be emphasized that NASA's
fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for the International Space Station
assumes that the appropriations transfer will be approved. We seek the
support of this Committee for the additional fiscal year 1998 resources
as outlined and for full funding of the President's request for fiscal
year 1999.
Space Shuttle
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Space Shuttle program
supports two major activities: Safety and Performance Upgrades ($571.6
million) and Space Shuttle Operations ($2.487 billion). Safety and
Performance upgrades funding supports the modifications and
improvements to the flight elements and ground facilities, which are
expected to expand safety and operating margins, enhance Space Shuttle
capabilities to meet customer requirements, and provide replacement of
obsolete systems primarily through the Upgrades Program. Two of our
most critical Phase I upgrades have recently passed major milestones.
First, STS-89, our most recent Shuttle flight, was launched using
the new large throat main combustion chamber in the Space Shuttle Main
Engine which was designed to allow the engine to operate at a lower
chamber pressure while maintaining performance. The lower chamber
operating pressure reduces operating temperatures and pressures
throughout the engine system, resulting in improved reliability and
safety margins. The wider throat accommodates more cooling channels and
an accompanying reduction in hot gas wall thickness, thereby increasing
chamber life. This design is less labor intensive to produce and
maintain. The performance of the new hardware was excellent during the
flight. This new hardware will help to improve Shuttle safety,
reliability and maintainability. Second, the first Super Lightweight
Tank designed to support assembly of the International Space Station
was officially certified for flight and rolled out of its assembly
facility. The tank is 7,500+ pounds lighter than its predecessor and
will allow the Shuttle to carry heavy cargo to an orbital inclination
of 51.6 degrees.
Shuttle Operation funding supports hardware production, ground
processing, launch and landing, mission operations, flight crew
operations, training, logistics, and sustaining engineering to maintain
and operate the Shuttle fleet. The main operational contract, the Space
Flight Operations Contract with United Space Alliance, successfully
completed a first year of transition and consolidation while supporting
eight missions in fiscal year 1997. Phase II of the consolidation,
began in fiscal year 1998 and will continue in fiscal year 1999. Six
Shuttle flights are manifested for fiscal year 1998, including our
first assembly flight of the International Space Station, a truly
historic landmark. However, because of technical problems at the
contractor facility, there is a possibility that the launch of AXAF
could be delayed until early fiscal year 1999. Space Station assembly
will dominate fiscal year 1999 with eight scheduled flights.
The Shuttle program will continue to focus on flying safely,
supporting the manifest, improving support to our customers and
reducing cost.
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications
NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications
looks forward to important flight- and ground-based research
opportunities in 1998 and 1999 which will prepare NASA and its research
communities for the transition to research operations on the
International Space Station. Laboratory research on Station will
include biotechnology, biomedical research, combustion science, fluid
physics, gravitational biology, and materials science. The Station will
serve as a platform for Earth observation as well as for space physics
research. It will support engineering research as well as testing and
research for an array of advanced technologies in scientific, medical,
and life support operations and engineering research. We are working to
facilitate commercial participation in Station research to help to
bring new findings and products to markets on Earth. The fiscal year
1999 budget request for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications
is $242 million.
1998 will see the end of both the Shuttle/Mir program and the
Shuttle/Spacelab combination. Each of these platforms has played a
significant role in preparing NASA for research operations on the
International Space Station. Fourteen years of Spacelab-based
experience have identified the most promising fields of research, while
operations on Mir have prepared us for long duration research aboard
the Station.
Research highlights of the Shuttle/Mir missions include the first
successful seed-to-seed-to-seed plant experiments in space; that is,
two generations of plants were grown in the Mir greenhouse from seeds
transported from the ground. New measurements were made of the change
in position of the South Atlantic Anomaly, a location where the trapped
radiation belts dip closest to Earth, related to long-term drift of
Earth's magnetic field. Researchers demonstrated a new technique for
protein crystal growth that produces many times more crystals per
mission. Analysis and publications of results from Mir will continue
through 1999. Over 15 research papers have been published to date; 30
are expected to be published by next year. An element of the final U.S.
Shuttle mission to Mir in May 1998 is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer,
a payload sponsored by the Department of Energy. Proposed by Nobel
Laureate Dr. Sammuel Ting, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer will search
for cosmic sources of antimatter and dark matter. Detection of either
would have far-reaching research implications concerning the origin of
the universe and the fundamental structure of matter itself. The Alpha
Magnetic Spectrometer also will be deployed on the International Space
Station for long term operations after the turn of the century.
On April 17, NASA launches Neurolab, the last scheduled Space
shuttle/Spacelab mission. Neurolab brings together the research efforts
of three U.S. government organizations and five international space
agencies to conduct an outstanding set of 26 research investigations.
Peer review for the mission was conducted by the National Institutes of
Health, and the broad participation of the research community has
ensured scientific excellence on the mission. Neurolab focuses on the
most complex and least understood part of the human body--the nervous
system. The goals of the mission are: (1) to understand how the brain
and nervous system interpret and adapt to new environments; (2) to shed
light on how gravity influences the development and function of the
nervous system; and (3) to use this knowledge to address nervous system
afflictions on Earth.
Neurolab will expand the knowledge base available to researchers
and physicians studying human physiology on the ground. For example,
research on balance, blood pressure regulation, sleep, and the
adaptability of the nervous system could make contributions to our
understanding of medical problems that affect millions of Americans.
Neurolab has a significant place in NASA's long-range plans. Long-
duration space flights will become common as the ISS is built and
occupied. This makes an understanding of how the human body functions
in microgravity vital; Neurolab is expected to contribute key answers,
clarifying the requirements for our future residency on the ISS and for
improving health on Earth.
In order to ensure continued access to flight research during the
assembly of the International Space Station, NASA has added dedicated
Space Shuttle research flights for the U.S. and international life and
microgravity research community in October 1998 and possibly May 2000.
The 1998 mission, STS-95, will include a SPACEHAB module and
payloads in the payload bay. SPACEHAB is under contract to integrate
and support operations for payloads in the pressurized volume of the
module and Shuttle middeck, and is responsible for marketing a large
portion of the accommodations. Microgravity investigations in the
module and middeck on STS-95 will include research in biotechnology,
biomedical, biological, and fluid physics. Biomedical research includes
the aging process as developed under a NASA-National Institute on Aging
agreement. Associated with the flight of Senator John Glenn on this
mission, NASA is discussing with the National Institute on Aging how to
maximize the scientific benefits of this unique opportunity. Both
agencies want to conduct parallel ground-based studies with aged
subjects who remain on Earth but undergo pre- and post-flight testing
comparable to the STS-95 crew. These control subjects will enrich this
project and greatly facilitate comparisons of responses to space flight
with normal aging on Earth. A significant part of the research on STS-
95 will be conducted to further the objectives of the commercial
development of space. This will include research in support of new
pharmaceuticals, separation techniques to facilitate developments such
as blood element replacements, cell research to reduce host rejection
of transplants, research on synthetic bone, a drug to block cancer
metastasis, new antibiotics, micro-encapsulation techniques for
enhanced drug delivery, and enhanced plant-derived products.
The May 2000 mission, STS-107, is another mission of opportunity
for multidisciplinary and internationally sponsored research. The
carrier for this mission will consist of a double module developed by
Spacehab especially for research purposes. The STS-95 approach will be
used as a template for the management and operation of this mission.
The HEDS Enterprise is currently developing the research themes for
this mission; considerations are being given to peer-reviewed and
commercially sponsored research in biotechnology, materials sciences,
biology and biomedicine. NASA will continue to seek partnership with
NIH, NSF and other organizations in accomplishing this research.
In 1998 and 1999, NASA will expand its ground-based research
program on the biological effects of space radiation. The radiation
environment in space is substantially different from the radiation
environment on Earth, and its biological effects are not well
understood. Investigations will continue using proton and high-energy
ion beams, including research using facilities at Loma Linda University
and Brookhaven National Laboratory. This research focuses on the
mechanisms by which space radiation modifies cells and tissues to
become cancerous. Some of this work is sponsored jointly with the
National Cancer Institute. A new collaborative effort will begin with
the Space Flight and Space Science Programs to include radiation and
soil/dust measuring devices on robotic missions to Mars beginning in
2001.
The newly established National Space Biomedical Research Institute
(NSBRI) selected thirty-two research proposals in early 1998 and is
working to complete a plan for developing advanced countermeasures for
controlling the effects of space flight. Working with the Johnson Space
Center, the NSBRI has begun a process to define the critical elements
necessary to develop and validate procedures to assure crew health in
orbit and on return to Earth. These procedures will be defined in 1998
and implemented in 1999 so that they will be fully functional by the
time of International Space Station operations.
NASA conducts its research activities in close cooperation with
commercial, academic, and government researchers. With the launch of
the first elements of the International Space Station this year, our
primary research focus will be to prepare this diverse community for
efficient and effective operations using the Station's expanded
laboratory research capabilities.
space science
NASA's Space Science Program is a shining example of the new way of
thinking at the Agency. In the last few years, we have removed billions
of dollars from planned spending and have reengineered all aspects of
how we do business. Expensive missions are a thing of the past. The
size, complexity and cost of spacecraft missions have been reduced
significantly, while increasing or maintaining their scientific
capability. The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 of
$2.058 billion supports a strong and well-balanced program that will
enable us to reap the benefits of this revolution.
NASA's Space Science Enterprise has embraced the philosophy of
``faster, better, cheaper,'' and the results have been dramatic. The
average development time for Space Science missions in 1990-94 was over
8 years; it is now about 4 years, and we expect the decline to
continue. The average spacecraft development cost at the beginning of
the decade was $553 million--compared to the current level of $165
million, and the projected 2004 level of $50-$75 million. In the early
1990's, the Space Science Program averaged fewer than 2 launches a
year. This year, we have 10 launches planned, the first of which--Lunar
Prospector--lifted off flawlessly in January and has begun its year-
long, in-depth study of our Moon. Lunar Prospector has already
fulfilled one of its main objectives by confirming the presence of
water ice at the Moon's polar regions.
Perhaps nothing in recent memory embodies the concept of ``doing
more with less'' better than last year's dramatic July 4 landing of
Pathfinder on Mars. After more than 20 years, we returned to the Red
Planet. Once again, we captured the world's attention, but this time we
did it for a total cost of $266 million and with an operational staff
of 50. That is NASA's new way of doing business.
And by no means was Mars Space Science's only success story.
Discoveries from the Hubble Space Telescope, Galileo, the Compton Gamma
Ray Observatory, and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)--to
name just a few--are broadening our understanding of the Universe and
our place within the cosmos. For example, Hubble uncovered over 1,000
bright, young star clusters bursting into life in a brief, intense,
brilliant ``fireworks show'' at the heart of a nearby pair of colliding
galaxies. Galileo sent a probe into the heart of Jupiter and returned
amazing pictures of icebergs on Europa, suggesting the possibility of
hidden, subsurface oceans.
The Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous spacecraft gave us our first up-
close look at Asteroid 253 Mathilde, which scientists believe dates
back to the beginnings of the Solar System. Also in 1997, we realized
the long-awaited launch of NASA's last ``big'' planetary mission,
Cassini/Huygens. Cassini, along with its ESA-built Huygens probe, is on
a 7-year journey to study Saturn, its moons, and its rings. Scientists
using the NASA-ESA SOHO mission have discovered ``jet streams'' of hot,
electrically-charged plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun.
These new findings should help scientists understand the famous 11-year
Sunspot cycle and associated increases in solar activity that can
disrupt the Earth's power and communications systems. Astronomers using
NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer spacecraft have observed a black
hole that is literally dragging space and time around itself as it
rotates. This bizarre effect, called ``frame dragging,'' is the first
evidence to support a prediction made in 1918 using Einstein's theory
of relativity.
These successful Space Science missions are having an immense
impact being felt not only in college lecture halls, but also in
newspapers, on television, and in the textbooks of tomorrow. We are
heightening the sense of accomplishment and adventure that is a
hallmark of our Nation's Space Science program.
As NASA approaches its 40th birthday, it is an inspiration to look
back and marvel at all we have learned in the area of Space Science.
What lies ahead in the next 40 years and beyond are detailed studies of
the various mysteries we have so far uncovered. A new,
interdisciplinary approach has been developed to make the next great
strides possible. In Space Science, we have identified four basic
themes around which we will operate and organize ourselves. The four
science themes are: Sun-Earth Connection, Exploration of the Solar
System, Structure and Evolution of the Universe, and Astronomical
Search for Origins. In addition to these main themes, the Space Science
program includes an Astrobiology Initiative, which is a research and
analysis program that cuts across the four themes. This Initiative will
focus on the origin and distribution of life in the Universe.
The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 budget will
enable continued study of the Sun, the Solar System, and the Universe.
It maintains support for the Origins Initiative approved by Congress in
the fiscal year 1998 budget to search for planets around other stars,
to study galaxies as they are born, and to look for evidence of life
elsewhere in the Solar System and the Universe. The President's budget
adds funding to fulfill much of the promise of the new Space Science
Strategic Plan with new initiatives to investigate the evolution and
destiny of the Universe, complementing the Origins initiative begun
last year. Some examples of programs in the new initiatives are:
continuing the ISTP missions through Solar Maximum in order to obtain a
comprehensive set of data throughout the 11-year solar cycle;
continuing Solar-Terrestrial Probes after TIMED, with Solar B and Solar
Stereo as the next two missions; joining with ESA on the FIRST mission
to observe the Universe in the far-infrared and submillimeter region of
the spectrum; building GLAST, a follow-on to the Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory to observe the highest-energy objects in the Universe; and
initiating a program to develop technology for the next X-ray mission
that would follow AXAF. These efforts support a balanced program
addressing each of the four quests that form the Space Science
Enterprise mission: Solving Cosmic Mysteries, Exploring the Solar
System, Searching for Extrasolar Planets, and Searching for Life Beyond
Earth.
Through continued exploration, NASA's Space Science Enterprise
brings the benefits of Space Science to the American public and to the
worldwide scientific community. The primary products of Space Science
are knowledge and discoveries about the Universe in which we live. The
process by which we acquire knowledge and make discoveries is through
exploration. Whether physical, using space probes and planetary landers
and orbiters, or remote, using telescopes and other observatories, our
exploration will continue opening the frontier of space in exciting and
productive ways. We strive to make the wonders of the Universe
accessible and relevant for all Americans.
earth science
This is an exciting time for the Earth Science Enterprise, formerly
known as Mission to Planet Earth, because we soon begin the Earth
Observing System or ``EOS'' era. With launches of EOS-AM-1 and Landsat-
7, we will begin to collect the necessary data to answer many critical
questions about the Earth. We will launch the QuikScat mission late
this year, using a ``faster, better, cheaper'' development approach to
replace valuable ocean winds data set lost with the failure of Japan's
ADEOS spacecraft. With EOS, we seek to understand how land and coastal
regions are changing over time, how to forecast precipitation a year in
advance, how to determine the probabilities of floods and droughts, how
to predict changes in the Earth's climate a decade to a century in
advance, and monitoring ozone depletion to determine if efforts to
control harmful chemicals are effective.
The President's budget request for Earth Science for fiscal year
1999, $1.372 billion, will also enable the Earth Science Enterprise to
increase research funding for our Commercial Remote Sensing program and
grants funding. We will endeavor to form an industry-Government
collaboration on a low-cost, high-performance radar mission that will
produce quality science data to enhance understanding of floods,
earthquakes, and sea level rise while at the same time contributing to
valuable applications such as managing forests, measuring soil
moisture, and finding potential oil and coal reserves.
We are developing a series of light-weight, low-cost science
missions, Earth System Science Pathfinders: the first will measure the
three-dimensional structure of the Earth's vegetation cover, and the
second will provide a new model of the Earth's gravity field which in
turn will enable more precise studies of ocean circulation and ice
sheet changes. We are also demonstrating next-generation technologies
as part of NASA's New Millennium Program, a series of small, rapid
development missions to flight test promising new instruments. For the
first mission, which is scheduled to fly in 1999, we are developing an
advanced land imager and for the second mission we will demonstrate
technology to improve weather forecasting abilities.
The success of these small missions is part of the new paradigm of
the Earth Science Enterprise, which focuses on front-end technology
development investments that will lead to smaller, lighter, and less
costly missions which will not compromise the program if a satellite is
lost. Another component of this paradigm involves a ``catalogue'' of
procurements of commercial spacecraft buses which will lead to lower
costs and quicker development. We are in the process of defining the
next series of Earth Science missions based on this new paradigm: our
scientists and technologists are working side-by-side to provide the
science we need using the latest technology.
While we look forward to the future of NASA's Earth Science
Enterprise, we are producing valuable data today. While the effects of
El Nino are apparent to us all, we need to recognize the valuable role
that a joint NASA-French satellite (TOPEX/Poseidon) played in the
monitoring of the warm water mass in the tropical Pacific six months
before it began to affect the weather of the Americas. We launched a
joint mission with the Japanese (TRMM) a few months ago to make precise
measurements of rainfall in the tropics, which is critical in the
understanding of the Earth's climate. Also last year, a private company
launched a satellite to provide scientific data on life in the oceans
which NASA will purchase from them--data which this company will also
sell to the fishing, oil, and shipping industries.
The critical system required to capture the raw data from these
missions, process it into geophysical parameters for scientific
research, and provide the necessary distribution and archival
functions, is the EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Central to
the development of this system is the development of the scientific
algorithms to enable the conversion of the raw data into geophysical
parameters. The development and delivery of these algorithms is on-
track, as is the calibration/validation effort that supports it. The
science data processing aspects of this system are being developed in
increments, allowing us to better determine the performance of our
contractors, while also obtaining the approval of the scientific users
along the way. At the same time, we are opening up the future
implementation of this system to innovative thinking from experts
within NASA, academia, and industry across the country. In this way,
the American people can be assured that we get the maximum use possible
from the data to be provided from these groundbreaking missions.
As in all R&D efforts, unexpected events occur which sometimes
cause delays. There are difficulties with the power supply of Landsat-7
which will delay the launch until early next year. The Flight
Operations Segment of EOSDIS for AM-1, which is designed to control
operations of the major EOS spacecraft, has experienced software
problems which will delay the launch of AM-1 at least until the end of
this year. While such setbacks are a disappointment, we have every
confidence that these problems will be solved quickly and decisively.
With the launches of these two spacecraft, we will collect the data
necessary to enable future discoveries and advances in Earth Science.
In addition to great science, the Earth Science program is
providing direct, practical benefits to the American people. Farmers
and commodity traders are able to detect healthy vegetation based on a
continuously updated ``green report.'' NASA data is also being used to
demonstrate the beneficial effects of urban forests which lessen the
impact of ``urban heat islands,'' bubble-like accumulations of hot air,
that have developed as cities have grown during the past 20 years.
Sport and commercial fishing fleets are using NASA data to more
efficiently locate areas with the best fishing potential, such as
locations with certain temperatures and water clarity characteristics.
With the help of NASA science data, a private firm is providing
solar power cheaply and efficiently for people of the world without
electricity who may spend the entire day searching for fuel. In 1996,
88,000 wildfires burned over 6 million acres at a cost of over $1
billion in fire control activities. NASA data has been used to develop
a series of fire potential maps in the western U.S. to assist
firefighters in fire planning and assessment. Municipalities across the
country will soon be able to manage their tax mapping and building
permit process by comparing current digital aerial photography and high
resolution satellite imagery with that from prior years, using
sophisticated computer ``change detection'' software. NASA data is also
being used to create ``Nowcast'' weather forecasts to assist drilling
in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling activities cannot proceed in currents
stronger than 2 knots, because of the difficulty in dynamic position-
keeping as well as the stresses imposed on the drill itself as it
extends through the water column. Accurate, localized weather
forecasting reduces the cost of drilling operations.
But this is just the beginning of a growing commercial remote
sensing industry that will grow and mature in the next century. Earth
Science data from future NASA missions will not only allow us to answer
critical questions such as climate change and natural hazards, but will
also spur the development of commercial uses of scientific data. This
data will assist farmers in measuring crop yields and assessing soil
conditions. Foresters will be able to measure timber health and assess
fire hazards. The fishing industry will be able to monitor ocean winds
and determine ocean plant and sediment concentrations. Insurers will be
able to assess damage caused by floods, droughts, landslides, and beach
erosion as well as use improved weather forecasting to mitigate damage.
We are proud that we can provide these types of benefits to the
global community while achieving our mission to collect and analyze
scientific data concerning the Earth. With the start of the EOS era, we
will begin to more comprehensively address critical questions about the
Earth that will benefit us all.
aeronautics and space transportation technology
NASA's Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Enterprise
is revolutionizing the science and technology that sustain global U.S.
leadership in civil aeronautics and space transportation. Our program
is focused on three ``Pillars'' for success--Global Civil Aviation,
Revolutionary Technology Leaps, and Access to Space--and a set of ten
enabling technology goals to address current and future National needs.
By developing pre-competitive, long-term, high technical risk
technologies, we contribute to market growth, safety, increasing air
system capacity, consumer affordability, environmental compatibility,
and opening new opportunities in space. Because our work must be
transferred to industry and other Government agencies to meet these
National goals, we work in close partnership with these groups in
formulating and implementing our programs. The Enterprise includes
three major program areas: aeronautics, space transportation technology
and commercial technology. The President's budget request for
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology for fiscal year 1999 of
$1.305 billion will enable us to aggressively pursue our technology
goals in space and aeronautics.
The Aeronautics program focuses on the long-term safety,
efficiency, and environmental compatibility of aircraft and the systems
in which they operate.
We have restructured the Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) program
in order to aggressively address the goals of the ``Global Civil
Aviation'' and ``Revolutionary Technology Leaps'' pillars. We have
realigned the previous eight program elements into five: safety;
environment; capacity; affordability; and general aviation. By working
in partnership with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry, we
ensure that the high-payoff technologies we develop will be used to
enable a safe, highly productive global air transportation system that
includes a new generation of environmentally compatible, operationally
efficient U.S. subsonic aircraft. In 1997, we successfully demonstrated
cockpit systems for landing and aircraft rollout and taxiing at Atlanta
Hartsfield Airport. These systems aid pilots in viewing the runway and
taxiways during night or adverse weather, improving airport safety and
capacity. We also tested advanced fuel injectors, which in laboratory
tests demonstrate a greater than 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide
pollutants. Other tests showed three-decibel fan and jet noise
reduction and a 25 percent nacelle acoustic liner improvement; combined
with additional NASA research in airframe noise reduction these
advances may result in future technologies that could reduce perceived
noise levels at the nation's busiest airports by 50 percent.
The High-Speed Research (HSR) program, a key contributor to
``Revolutionary Technology Leaps,'' is making tremendous progress in
addressing the high-risk, make-or-break environmental and economic
``barrier issues'' associated with any future High Speed Civil
Transport (HSCT). Successful U.S. leadership in this next-century
market could mean a difference of $200 billion in sales and 140,000
high-quality jobs for domestic aircraft manufacturers. In 1997, we
completed initial External Vision System flight tests, including 90
approaches and landings in day and night on the NASA 737 research
vehicle. These tests are important in developing future synthetic
vision technologies for pilots so that a future HSCT would not require
a drooped nose such as today's Concorde. Synthetic vision technologies
may also have a safety benefit to subsonic commercial pilots by
providing additional visibility in adverse weather, and may find
application in a future reusable launch vehicle. In another advance,
HSR researchers fabricated advanced titanium 4 and 5 sheet Superplastic
Forming and Diffusion Bonding panels. If this technology is applied to
a future HSCT, it will dramatically reduce aircraft weight, increasing
performance and affordability.
Building on the successful results in the existing HSR program, we
are proposing an extension beyond Phase II, Phase IIA. Beginning in
fiscal year 1999, HSR Phase IIA will focus on answering some of the
remaining technology questions for a viable, economical and
environmentally sound HSCT. Our first priority is propulsion, but as
our confidence grows in that area, we will pursue additional airframe
work as well.
We continue to invest in the Aeronautics Research and Technology
(R&T) Base, which is the vital foundation of expertise and facilities
that meets a wide range of aeronautical technology challenges. By
providing a high-technology, diverse-discipline environment, we enable
the development of new, even revolutionary, aerospace concepts and
methodologies for applications in industry. We are doing exciting
things in the R&T Base. In 1997, NASA's solar-powered aircraft
Pathfinder set an altitude record for propeller-driven flight of over
71,500 feet. This type of technology will enable high-altitude, long-
endurance for affordable, unpiloted science missions. Also in 1997, we
successfully completed a critical design review of the Hyper-X launch
vehicle, which will begin flight testing in January, 2000 and is the
essential next-step for airbreathing hypersonic flight. Work within the
R&T Base also lays the foundation for future focused programs to
address the long term goals of the Enterprise's three pillars. For
example, in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, NASA's efforts to
achieve the goals of the Administration's Aviation Safety Initiative
are supported from reinvestments made within the R&T Base. We
anticipate that in fiscal year 2000, as technologies for safety
advance, a new focused program for safety will emerge.
NASA is an integral part of the multi-agency Large-Scale Networking
and High-End Computing and Computation (LSN/HECC) program, aiming to
boost supercomputer speeds one thousand-fold to at least one trillion
arithmetic operations per second--one teraflop--and communications
capabilities one hundred-fold. As part of this program, NASA is one of
several agencies making contributions to the Next Generation Internet
(NGI). NGI allows NASA essentially to ``live in the future'' in
emerging applications such as advanced aerospace design and test,
telemedicine, earth sciences, astrobiology, astrophysics and space
exploration. This effort is also funded in the Space Science, Earth
Science and Education programs.
The Advanced Space Transportation Technology program supports our
``Access to Space'' pillar. Our goal is to completely revitalize access
to space by reducing launch costs dramatically over the next decade,
increasing the safety and reliability of current and next generation
launch vehicles, and establishing new plateaus of performance for in-
space propulsion while reducing cost and weight.
NASA is taking the lead in developing the technology for next
generation reusable space transportation systems. The fiscal year 1999
Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Program includes both ground-based
technology development and flight demonstrators--the X-34 small
reusable demonstrator and the X-33 large-scale Advanced Technology
Demonstrator. Each portion of this program contributes to the process
of validating key component technologies, proving that the technologies
can be integrated into a functional vehicle, and demonstrating the
required operability to make low-cost access to space a reality. We are
requesting funds to initiate the Future-X ``Pathfinder'' flight
experiments for demonstrations of technologies which can further reduce
the cost and increase the reliability of reusable space launch and
orbital transportation systems.
The Advanced Space Transportation Program (ASTP) focuses on
technological advances with the potential to reduce costs beyond RLV
goals, as well as technology development required to support NASA
strategic needs not addressed by RLV. The ASTP includes a base of
technology investments which, like the Aeronautics R&T Base, lays the
foundation for future focused programs. Each element of the ASTP
addresses a recognized need for near- and long-term reductions in space
transportation costs by taking bold steps forward in innovative
technologies and vehicle configurations. The Advanced Space
Transportation Program also includes funding for industry-led trade
studies of options for the next-generation launch decision at the end
of the decade. We want smart people outside the Agency to help us make
the right decision, because America's future in space is at stake.
An important part of the Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology Enterprise is the Commercial Technology program, which
serves the entire Agency. Since its inception in 1958, NASA has been
charged with ensuring that NASA-developed technology is transferred to
the U.S. industrial community to improve its competitive position in
the world community. Our commercialization effort encompasses all
technologies created at NASA centers by civil servants as well as
innovations from NASA contractors. The technology commercialization
program consists of conducting a continuous inventory of newly
developed NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable database of this
inventory, assessing the commercial value of each technology,
establishing R&D partnerships with industry for dual use of the
technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA technology
opportunities to the private sector, and supporting an efficient system
for licensing NASA technologies to private companies. The amount
requested for NASA commercialization efforts includes $100 million to
carry out the provisions of the Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) Act, which requires a set-aside of 2.5 percent of NASA's total
extramural R&D spending for small business research grants, along with
an additional set-aside for the Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) Program of 0.15 percent of NASA's total extramural R&D spending.
The NASA SBIR program has contributed to the U.S. economy by fostering
the establishment and growth of over 1,100 small, high technology
businesses.
Taken together, this Enterprise provides powerful fuel for advances
in aeronautics and space transportation, leading the Nation in a
position of strength into the next century.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, NASA's vision statement begins ``NASA is an
investment in America's future.'' For 40 years we have provided our
country and the world with startling scientific discoveries and ground-
breaking new technologies that have enriched our lives, expanded our
horizons and fueled our imaginations. NASA is committed to upholding
this tradition in the next 40 years.
We will explore new worlds as well as gaining a better
understanding of our own fragile planet. We will help make air travel
safer and faster. We will reduce the cost of access to space, and open
new doors of opportunity for research and technology in Earth orbit. We
cannot predict exactly what we will learn and accomplish in the next 40
years, but we know from past experience it will exceed our
expectations.
The future begins now. This year, we will all have the opportunity
to stand together as proud Americans, along with our Russian, Japanese,
European, and Canadian friends, as the conceivers and managers of the
largest international science and technology program ever attempted,
and look into the night sky at a tiny speck of light streaking from
west to east at some 17,000 miles per hour. This will be the awesome
sight of the first elements of the International Space Station. I look
forward to that night as I hope you do.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL YEAR 1999 ESTIMATES
[In millions of real year dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999
1997 past current budget 2000 2001 2002 2003
year year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPACE STATION...................... 2,148.6 2,501.3 2,270.0 2,134.0 1,933.0 1,766.0 1,546.0
US/RUSSIAN COOPERATIVE PROGRAM..... 300.0 50.0 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
SPACE SHUTTLE...................... 2,960.9 2,922.8 3,059.0 2,998.0 3,049.0 2,989.0 2,989.0
PAYLOAD UTILIZATION AND OPERATIONS. 265.3 205.4 182.0 180.0 174.0 175.0 180.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT........... 5,674.8 5,679.5 5,511.0 5,312.0 5,156.0 4,930.0 4,715.0
============================================================================
SPACE SCIENCE...................... 1,969.3 1,983.8 2,058.4 2,207.4 2,308.4 2,387.4 2,568.4
LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES AND 243.7 214.2 242.0 257.0 266.0 264.0 264.0
APPLICATIONS......................
EARTH SCIENCE...................... 1,361.6 1,367.3 1,372.0 1,492.0 1,494.0 1,449.0 1,407.0
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 1,339.5 1,470.9 1,305.0 1,092.0 1,026.0 1,057.0 1,071 0
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY.........
MISSION COMMUNICATION SERVICES..... 418.6 395.8 380.0 382.0 382.0 380.0 380.0
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS.................. 120.4 120.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
FUTURE PLANNING (SPACE LAUNCH)..... ......... ......... ......... ......... 150.0 280.0 330.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND 5,453.1 5,552.0 5,457.4 5,530.4 5,726.4 5,917.4 6,120.4
TECHNOLOGY..................
============================================================================
SAFETY, MISSION ASSURANCE, 38.8 37.8 35.6 35.6 35.6 39.6 39.6
ENGINEERING AND ADVANCED CONCEPTS.
SPACE COMMUNICATION SERVICES....... 291.4 194.2 177.0 136.0 125.0 151.0 121.0
RESEARCH AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.... 2,078.5 2,033.8 2,099.0 2,079.0 2,087.0 2,171.0 2,254 0
CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES......... 155.3 122.4 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSION SUPPORT.............. 2,564.0 2,388.2 2,476.6 2,415.6 2,412.6 2,526.6 2,579.6
============================================================================
INSPECTOR GENERAL.................. 16.8 18.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
============================================================================
TOTAL........................ 13,708.7 13,638.0 13,465.0 13,278.0 13,315.0 13,394.0 13,435.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.029
space station total cost
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldin.
According to NASA, the space station is to go from a total
cost of $17.9 billion to $21.3 billion at completion. In
addition, according to press reports on the Chabrow independent
cost assessment, costs could go to some $24 billion and take 10
to 38 months longer than NASA anticipates. There has long been
a symbolic cap on the space station program, a total
development spending of $17.4 billion, with annual expenditures
of $2.1 billion.
Now, assuming that Congress and the administration were to
enforce the yearly cost cap, how many more years would it take
to complete the space station and what will be the total cost
at the end of the development phase? What would be the impact
on our international partners?
Mr. Goldin. I do not know that I could answer it off the
cuff, but I would say that there would be a significant impact
in schedule measured to the tune of 1 to 2 years.
In terms of impact on our international partners, the
partners in Canada, Japan, and Europe have already expended
almost $5 billion, and they are on track to deliver their
hardware on time. In fact, the Canadian arm is almost done and
it will be ready for delivery pretty soon. So, it would have a
significant impact.
With regards to the Russians, I think it would even have an
impact on the Russians too because it would stretch it so far
downstream.
Senator Bond. Can you tell us today definitively that
except for contingencies that may be introduced by Russian
performance slippage or nonperformance, the space station can
be completely built for $21.3 billion, including all hardware,
software, scientific facilities, outfitting flights, and
utilization flights that now appear in your last year's
September 30, 1997 assembly sequence?
In other words, does NASA's fiscal year 1999 budget request
anticipate the new $21.3 billion funding target for the space
station, or do you expect to restructure these funding targets
over the next 5 years and request additional funding?
Mr. Goldin. First let me say in response to issues raised
by this committee in last year's hearings, we talked to the
administration. We did an internal review and we found that we
saw a cost growth of about $1.6 billion, which was included in
the fiscal year 1999 budget.
That cost growth was broken up into two parts: $900 million
in overrun, which was lack of performance by our contractor,
and that was about 5 percent of the total value of the program.
And then we made a decision to add about $700 million for a
crew return vehicle because we had experiences with the Shuttle
Mir that indicated our approach to crew return using Russian
vehicles would not be adequately safe. So, we added that to the
program in a conscious effort because we felt safety was
important.
We, with the exception of the Russians, are on track to
have six-person occupancy of the space station by November
2002. At that time, we will have 80 percent of our research
equipment and we will be ready to really start the operational
phase. In fact, at that point in time, only 20 percent of the
space station budget will be associated with development and 80
percent will be operations. So, in our minds, we have a very
good chance of doing it. The issue and the variable is what
will the Russians do.
If you use that point with a six-person habitability,
because we added a third node and that gives us the habitation,
we believe, for the most part, development will be done by
then. In fact, by the end of 1998, we expect 80 percent of our
hardware work to be done. In fact, at the Cape, we will be
ready to launch the node and the payload mating adapters on
time. We are within 6 weeks of the laboratory schedule and all
the other hardware appears on time.
The number of $21.3 billion is a number that we have talked
to the GAO about. That assumes that there is no research done
between November 2002 and December 2003, so there is an
additional amount of money put in for that schedule time,
giving no credit for the research that is being done.
But those are the numbers that we believe and the big
variable to us is the Russian activity. However, I have had 14
hours to review the Chabrow report. We take it very seriously,
and within 30 days, we will get back to this committee on what
we believe. And if we believe we need more resources, we will
so state.
status of boeing contract
Senator Bond. Let me just ask before I turn to my ranking
member. You have mentioned the Russian problems. What is the
status of the Boeing contract with regard to the development of
the space station? We have heard about cost overruns, $600
million, $800 million. How will these costs be covered and is
Boeing required to absorb these costs?
Mr. Goldin. We have seen substantial improvement by Boeing,
in part, as the result of these hearings that we had last year.
They have made major restructuring to their organization. They
have brought in outstanding people, and for the last 6 months,
we have been very, very pleased with the progress they have
been making.
I did not get the second part of the question.
Senator Bond. The cost overruns.
Mr. Goldin. Yes; Boeing estimated last year at this time
about a $600 million overrun. We were concerned that it was too
low, so our reserves carry up to $817 million for a Boeing
overrun.
Senator Bond. And will they be required to absorb any of
those costs?
Mr. Goldin. It is a cost type contract, but their overrun
is reflected in the profit that they will make. If you will
recollect, last year at this time, they received a zero award
fee, and I think they responded in a very professional manner
to that rating.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Goldin.
Senator Mikulski.
russian commitments
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin, I would like to pick up on the issue related to
the space station. I am sure Senator Bumpers will ask
additional funding questions. Mine goes directly to the
Russians: No. 1, their ability to keep their commitment in this
post-Chernomyrdin era; and also, No. 2, what they are doing to
really honor their commitment that they are not continuing a
relationship with Iran to spread the technology ability to
manufacture--the missile technology to deliver weapons of mass
destruction.
Now, when the Russians and the United States got involved
together in the space station--and I was the prime mover of
that--it was in a post-cold war atmosphere to make best use of
the Soviet space technical ability, which is considerable, and,
at the same time, show that it was a new world order in terms
of this.
Now, where are we? Where we are is the Russians do not pay
the bill internally, and No. 2, we have to continue to develop
a duplicate system for them. This is not good.
And here is my question. Based on space news reports that
the Russians--that you have a 10-week delay in terms of the
station launch because of the Russian problem. The Russian
problem seems to stem from the fact that the Russian Government
still has not paid the contractors building the country's space
station hardware and that most of the $79.5 million allocated
by the Russian parliament has not been delivered.
I understand that you were told that that money would be
paid to those contractors by mid-April. It is now near the end
of April.
My question to you, has the Russian government actually
paid their bills internally and kept their commitment to us,
and do you believe the Russian government will continue to do
that or, as is reported, that they will continue to face, No.
1, unpaid bills internally, No. 2, that they are going to cut
their own budget, and No. 3, they ultimately will continue to
fall behind? And should we then begin to develop other
strategies both diplomatic and in terms of space science?
Mr. Goldin. Let me start with the last part of your
question. Mr. Rothenberg and a team is going to leave tomorrow
for Russia to review exactly what the status is technically and
financially. Sometime mid-to-late next month, I will be having
a meeting with the leadership of the Russian space community.
We will then meet with our international partners at the end of
May, confer with the administration, and we will have a very
specific position on what direction we ought to go based on
that information. That is the process.
Second, where are they? At the Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting,
we felt we had a resolution of the funding situation and then
Mr. Chernomyrdin was fired from his position and the Russian
government fell apart. In the vacuum of not having a new
government, I do not believe we made progress with but one
exception. They have sent $15 million more since the time I had
talked to you, but that is woefully inadequate from our
position, that they should have completed the funding of the
full $79.5 million.
The Russian government will either form or not form on
Friday of this week. There is very significant communication at
the highest levels of our Government and the Russian government
on this issue. In fact, last week the State Department brought
a very significant message to President Yeltsin. Within 1 to 2
weeks of the formation of the new government, within this
timeframe of our process, I believe we will be able to answer
your question.
With regards to missile technology, there has been an
intense----
Senator Mikulski. Would--well, go ahead. Go on with the
missile technology because that is all part of the same story
here.
Mr. Goldin. Yes; there has been an intense effort during
this past year at the highest levels of government to
strengthen our position with the Russians. The Russians took
action and the Russian government strengthened their approach
with a new export control process that is very, very good. We
like it.
Now, while NASA is not directly involved in these important
discussions, I have frequently and continually emphasized to
Mr. Yuri Koptev how crucial it is that his agency adhere to the
missile technology control regime and their support
contractors. There are new discussions going on right now in
Russia and I understand they are going well and I am hopeful
they will be resolved. But at this point in time, further
discussion needs to be referred to the National Security
Council and the State Department, as NASA is not a player in
this.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Dr. Goldin, I know that I raise the
issues that are at a very serious level at the highest
diplomatic levels of our Government. I would like to just
comment about the station and then about the Iranian missile
technology issue.
russians honoring their space commitment
First of all, I really want to insist that the crisis that
now is maturing and even deepening over the Russians honoring
their space commitment needs to be not only addressed through
an evaluation. We continue to go talk to the Russians to see
where we are. Then we find out where we are, and then that is
where we are. We need to talk about the progress.
What I think the committee will look forward to hearing is
the assessment led by Mr. Rothenberg, what will happen to the
Russian government on Friday. But Secretary Albright and the
National Security Council, as well as Cohen, need to know the
results of this because this is now moving beyond a space
station problem, though it is very difficult to ask the
American taxpayer to pay double dutch, one in paying for a
duplicative system and then paying and being involved with the
Russians in terms of being able to deliver on their part of the
bargain. We can only pay for the space station once. We cannot
pay for it twice and then not get what we are paying for.
Now, it is my observation with my colleagues and with
myself we are running out of patience here. There is always one
more promise and then there is one more crisis and one more
promise. I think that we are really now--quickly in this
appropriations, we could move to a crisis. I do not want to see
a crisis either related to diplomacy, the ability of the space
station to continue, and the leaching that is going on in our
own budget.
iranian missile technology
Second, in terms of the Iranian missile technology, I know
that this is not the forum to go into that in detail. But this
then must be addressed at the highest level. One of the reasons
we encouraged the Russians to work with us is that the future
belongs to the West. If they then want to fund enemies of the
United States of America, be duplicitous in really providing
direct and specific information to build enhanced capability of
weapons of mass destruction, we have got a major diplomatic
crisis on our hands.
I look forward to hearing more about that in another forum,
but if the Russians do not deliver on the station, how in the
hell can we believe that they are going to deliver on Iranian
missile technology?
Now, I know the Secretary of State talks with the Prime
Minister of Russia--talks with the Russian government about
three times a week. She assured us that at a democratic crisis.
I am going to put this on the agenda. When you come back, we
are going to put this on the agenda, when Joe comes back,
because this could sink the space station.
Mr. Goldin. I understand.
Senator Mikulski. This could sink the space station and it
could also create a very serious diplomatic situation. I would
like to play a constructive role in both. I think there has to
be a real sense of urgency and a real acknowledgement of what
the stakes are, and I know you have it.
So, anyway, I know my time is up, and I have other
questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski, for
raising the questions which trouble all of us. I think you are
right on point in raising those questions. We do have serious
concerns about it.
Now, it is my pleasure to turn to Senator Bumpers for his
questions.
chabrow report
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all,
yours and Senator Mikulski's questions are very thoughtful. You
have obviously tuned in to the same information I have and are
concerned about it, and I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Goldin, did I understand you to say that you have only
had the Chabrow report 14 hours?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, sir.
Senator Bumpers. We got most of that off the Internet a
month ago.
Mr. Goldin. This is the final report and I was waiting for
the final report----
Senator Bumpers. You have not seen the charts that were on
the Internet?
Mr. Goldin. I looked at the final report. I was waiting for
the NASA Advisory Council to review it, comment on it, and then
I reviewed the final report last night.
Senator Bumpers. On page 1 of that report, this is what the
Chabrow report says, ``The program's size, complexity, and
ambitious schedule goals were beyond that which could
reasonably be achieved within the $2.1 billion annual cap, or
$17.4 billion.'' So, they start off saying the $17.4 billion
was never realistic.
Let me also say, Mr. Goldin, this report has some
exculpatory information in it too. They say there are no show
stoppers. All these programs are subject to overruns. They are
immensely complex. And they are not blaming anybody in
particular. There is certainly no malfeasance, none of that.
That is not what we are talking about. But they say that the
promises were not realistic in the first place.
Then they say, ``The fiscal year 1999 budget submission to
Congress is not adequate to execute the baseline ISS program to
cover normal program growth and address the known critical
risk. Additional annual funding of between $130 million and
$250 million will be needed. Completion''--and this is really
key. ``Completion of the international space station assembly
is likely to be delayed from 1 to 3 years beyond December
2003.'' If the Chabrow report turns out to be correct, we could
be looking at a 2006 completion date. I assume that you saw
that in your perusal of the report.
Mr. Goldin. Yes; I did.
Senator Bumpers. And then I am sure you also saw their cost
projections, which are at such considerable variance from the
figures we have always been given by NASA--Senator Bond alluded
to this earlier. The $17.4 billion never was realistic, and you
have heard me on the Senate floor screeching about that for
some time.
But in any event, you have asked for budgeting now in
contemplation of a $21 billion completion, not $17.4 billion,
but $21.3 billion. Now, the Chabrow report says $21.3 billion
is not realistic. As a matter of fact, they say the figure
should be $24.756 billion.
Now, we are still looking at a 2005-6 completion timeframe.
We are looking at over $7 billion, or a 30-percent cost
overrun, to complete the assembly of the ISS, and Lord only
knows what will happen between now and then.
What is your comment for this additional cost overrun? We
heard about $3 billion not too long ago. The Los Angeles Times
I think wrote the story and then everybody began to talk about
it. And now we have the Chabrow report which adds another $3
billion plus, and we are looking at cost overruns of well over
$7 billion.
Mr. Goldin. First, I want to say that I think there was an
outstanding team on the Chabrow group. They worked very, very
hard, and they were very, very thorough. I also want to point
out that when we noted the problems last spring, I personally
asked that this be done. The next point I would like to make is
the vest committee, when we went forward with the redesigned
space station, we believed that the $17.4 billion number was
real, and I do not take issue with this panel's makeup looking
backward. But I do not want to give you the impression that we
did not believe in that $17.4 billion number when we went
forward. In fact, some of the members of the Chabrow panel were
also members of the vest committee when we went forward with
the $17.4 billion. Now, there could be disagreements, but the
important thing for you to understand is we really believed it.
The next point I would like to make. We have had issues and
problems with the Russians, and one of the major issues that we
have had is that we assume we get a $2 billion savings from the
Russians and because they have not paid their bills, we have
been impacted by almost $2 billion which ate up a significant
portion of our reserves.
Senator Bumpers. If you will pardon me for interrupting,
you ain't seen nothing yet.
Mr. Goldin. When we look at the overall program, we have
made great progress. I have confidence to a high level on our
part.
Now, Mr. Chabrow has suggested we put in additional
reserves above those we have. Based upon what I saw last night,
I have directed Mr. Rothenberg to look at what level reserves
we should have, if our reserves were adequate. Mr. Chabrow's
main concern was if you do not spend the money that is needed
now, it could lead to much bigger problems downstream with
regards to cost and schedule. We are going to evaluate that,
and as I indicated, in 30 days we will be ready to report out
to this committee.
proceeding with the space station
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Goldin, let me interrupt you. My time
is almost up and I have a couple of questions I want to ask
you.
Do you have a figure in mind beyond which you think we
should not proceed with the space station? Is there any cost
figure that to you would make it really unwise to proceed with
it? Any figure that would make it implausible to continue with
it, $50 billion, $100 billion,?
Mr. Goldin. I do not feel at the present time I could
answer that question off the cuff.
Senator Bumpers. Let me ask another question with your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Senator Bumpers, after conferring with my
distinguished ranking member, we have decided to give you a
special dispensation. [Laughter.]
space station launches
Senator Bumpers. Well, I would have pursued those others a
little longer if I had known that.
But let me ask you this. How many launches is it going to
take to deploy the space station?
Mr. Goldin. I believe 47. That is correct.
Senator Bumpers. 47?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Senator Bumpers. How many of those are Russian?
Mr. Goldin. I think about 13 to 15.
Senator Bumpers. I am talking about assembly and logistics
flights in deploying the space station. How many flights is
that going to take?
Mr. Goldin. 47.
Senator Bumpers. And how many of those are Russian?
Mr. Goldin. I believe 13 to 15. They are trying to validate
that number now.
Senator Bumpers. What kind of degree of confidence do you
have that they will be able to do that?
Mr. Goldin. The Russians have an outstanding capability,
and, in fact, had we not had the Shuttle Mir, we could not do
what we are doing. The only issue is will the Russians fund the
Russian Space Agency, and that issue is being taken up by the
senior levels of this administration. If the Russians commit to
that funding, I believe we will be able to do it with a very
high degree of probability.
russian delays increases cost overruns
Senator Bumpers. You would agree that every time the
Russians delay, every time the timeframe on completing ISS is
moved back because of Russian delays, that increases the cost
overruns, does it not?
Mr. Goldin. Yes; it does.
Senator Bumpers. Now, here is a press release where the
House Science Committee, chaired by James Sensenbrenner and his
ranking member, met with Russian officials on this, and the
Russian officials told him--and incidentally, we are talking
with the Minister of Finance, the head of the Russian Space
Agency, the Duma, and President Yeltsin's Space Advisor, whose
name I cannot pronounce.
Mr. Goldin. Shaponikov.
Senator Bumpers. But in any event, those officials told the
House Science Committee that there will be likely delays on the
launch of the first two space station elements. Now, we already
knew--this was April 9. We have known since the last
appropriation period that they were going to be late, but we
were looking at a different timeframe. In June of last year,
NASA put out a publication saying that the functional cargo
block would be up by June 1998. We are now looking at August.
Is that realistic, or do you know?
Mr. Goldin. I will not take a position on what that date
is. The August date is not a date that is official that came
out of our offices. We are going to review where they are and
understand what the schedule is going to be. It could be
delayed, yes.
service module
Senator Bumpers. On node one, the launch vehicle. Of
course, that is the U.S. orbiter.
But let's see, on the service module, which is also
Russian----
Mr. Goldin. That is the key element.
Senator Bumpers. They are building it.
Now, last year we were told that that would be ready for
deployment by December of this year. We are now looking at
March 1999 apparently.
Mr. Goldin. We at NASA are carrying a 4-month pad on the
service module delivery. So, if they are as late as 4 months,
we can accommodate it within our program we believe. We are
going to review this, and at the end of May/beginning of June,
we will be able to take a firm position.
But I want to come back and go through what we have done so
far. First, the Russians have performed very well when they had
the funding. They are transitioning from communism to
democracy, and they are having a very tough time, a very tough
time. We are trying to work with them.
This is an issue of international leadership. The United
States of America was asked by 16 nations to step up and lead
this international group. I have been to Europe, Japan, and
Canada, talked to our partners, and they are looking for United
States leadership. This is a very, very tough problem, but we
need to look very hard at this.
Another point I want to make is that in the midst of
building the Mars Pathfinder, NASA selected Jim Martin, who was
the biggest critic of the program, to oversee it and he said it
could never be done. It would be impossible. We would have all
these problems. And at the landing on Mars of that Mars
Pathfinder, Jim Martin walked over to me and said, Dan, you did
something at a tenth the cost and a quarter of the time. I did
not believe it and I have to tell you you pulled it off. Now,
we take on really tough stuff.
Another point I want to make to you is we have downsized
this agency and turned back $25 billion to the American
taxpayer already. We have trouble here. We are going to figure
out how to work our way through it, and we are going to deliver
a space station to the people of America and the world in a
very responsible fashion.
space station cost overruns
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Goldin, I could not agree more with
you on the last statement. Not to denigrate the U.S. Congress,
I can tell you that you will fund the space station, but I can
also tell you that the $7.3 billion cost overrun we are looking
at right now is just the tip of the iceberg. But I can tell you
we are not going to kill the space station. You have absolutely
nothing to fear. I have been at this now for 7 or 8 years and
this is my swan song. I am sure you hate to see me retire.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Goldin. No; I would like to make a comment to you which
I told you in the Senate at one point in time. Senator Bumpers,
you make us operate better because you press into us and hold
us accountable. I thank you----
Senator Bumpers. I remember that conversation and I thank
you very much. It is a compliment and I take it as one.
But on this I obviously believe that NASA and Congress are
intent on building this space station regardless of the cost.
My position all along is I have no objection to the space
station. The Russians have had one-half dozen, maybe seven, up
there from time to time. In my opinion they have got nothing
out of it. We are not going to get anything out of this to
speak of.
For example, you could hire 5,000 scientists at the average
rate that NIH hires scientists. You could hire 5,000 for the
annual cost of operating the space station, and in my opinion
you will get a hell of a lot more medical research out of that
than you will out of the space station. That is my whole point.
We all have some obligation to the taxpayers.
The Russians cannot afford this, Mr. Goldin. This is not
just a temporary thing in Russia. They are struggling. They are
having a terrible time. They are broke. They cannot do this. If
they could do it, they would be doing it. They cannot do it and
I see nothing on the horizon that says they are going to find
the money to do it. I am not demeaning or denigrating their
technical expertise. They obviously have some. I do not think
it is nearly as sophisticated as ours, and I do not think you
do either. All I am saying is we are putting an awful lot of
faith in the Russians' ability to pay their share. It is not
going to happen, and every time they default--and they are
going to default a lot--the cost overruns go up and the
American taxpayers are going to pick up the tab.
Mr. Goldin. I would just like to respond to a number of
those points. First, I do not acknowledge or accept a $7
billion overrun at this point.
Senator Bumpers. That is what the Chabrow report says. I do
not know whether that is good or not.
Mr. Goldin. I do not know whether I want to accept that or
not, and I will take time personally to take a position on
that.
This is a team that was told by the President to cut its
budget by 30 percent and our productivity went up 40 percent.
We do what is impossible and I am not ready to give up or
concede because I have such a pride in the people that work at
NASA and our contractors.
Second, contrary to belief, when I came onto this program,
I was a cold warrior and for 25 years I designed weapons aimed
against Russia, and I thought they had nothing. I could
testify, as one of the experts in space technology in the
world, that the Russians have taught us more in the 3 years of
the Shuttle Mir program in extended duration space flight than
we have developed over a 20-year period, and that if not for
the Shuttle Mir flights, we would not be able to do the things
we are doing.
Finally, I will accept the fact that we cannot justify the
space station on science alone. One of the main purposes of the
space station is for exploration to extend beyond Earth orbit
and explore worlds like Mars and the Moon and perhaps Europa,
to involve commerce, to involve education.
And the last point I want to make is that every time there
is new science, there is always a reluctance to take a look at
the new science. There was reluctance to build the Hubble space
telescope because people were accustomed to going to the top of
a mountain. The same kind of arguments that we see today on the
space station from well-meaning people in the science community
we saw in Hubble, and we have the Space Telescope Institute
sitting there in Baltimore bringing back data that has enriched
us and no one could have believed.
These are the things that NASA is about and we have got to
go on and we have got to go on and we have got to take risks
and we have got to press forward. So far, with the exception of
$100 million, we have been able to reprogram our own funds and
not come back to the American people. And we have been at this
now for 5 years and we are going to look even tighter at that.
I would like to see one other agency that has had their
budget continuously go down that tripled the number of
spacecraft they are building, and while all this is going on,
we have built a research community that was almost zero and we
are going to have 900 principal investigator grants in
microgravity and life sciences. That has continued.
There are Nobel Laureates that are working with us on this
space station. I was just down there at Cape Kennedy with
Professor Sam Ting of MIT who told me without the space
station, he will not be able to explore whether there are
antimatter galaxies or dark matter in our universe. These are
important things.
Now, some researchers could say, well, let us use the
existing approach. It is something that this Nation has
committed to and this is a question of U.S. leadership. I want
to once again assure you we manage tough. I do not win
popularity contests at NASA. We have downsized by tens of
thousands of people, and we will continue to do the right
thing. But what I ask you to consider is we are not ignoring
the issues and we take them head on.
And the final point I want to make is the Russian people
are struggling for democracy. This will not happen overnight.
The one major thing they have left that separates them from
developing countries is the pride in their space program. They
have statues all over their country. They wanted to join
America. They canceled their own space station to join an
American-led program. The implications of our saying we want to
be a partner only in good times and dropping them--I would be
concerned that we are going to go back to a situation that will
feed the fears of the hate mongers in Russia.
These are very considerable, significant issues and we
focus on the problem areas. But I am very committed. I am
convinced that the team we have is the best team in the world
and somehow, some way we will make it work. And I will be back
to this committee within 30 days with our assessment of where
we think we ought to go and how we ought to address your
concerns, Senator Mikulski's concerns, and Senator Bond's
concerns.
senator bumpers support for nasa
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Goldin, let me just say I could not
agree with you more. You are preaching to the choir. I am not
going to vote for NATO for the very reasons you just set out.
The Russians have got plenty of problems over there and I do
not want to debate NATO here today, but I am certainly going to
speak loudly and clearly on the floor of the Senate on why I am
opposed to expanding NATO, because I am convinced doing so will
hurt our relations with Russia.
We want Russia to democratize. We would like for Russia to
be able to participate in this in a timely manner, and I do not
want to pursue that.
Mr. Chairman, you have been most kind.
I want to conclude with this, Mr. Goldin. I am a NASA
supporter. I would vote for money and did vote for money for
the Hubble space telescope. I think Rover and Pathfinder was an
absolute scientific coup. I applauded it. I applaud most
everything NASA has done. They discovered the hole in the ozone
layer in the Antarctic 9 years after I tried to stop the
manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons in this country and could
not do it because people said this is just a wild theory. Nine
years later the National Academy of Sciences and NASA
discovered the ozone hole was there already. So, NASA plays a
major role in future science, discovering other galaxies, all
of those things.
That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about
the space station and what we get out of it. And the Chabrow
report says, No. 1, that we are looking at a $24 billion plus
cost to assemble it. That is a $7.3 billion cost overrun, a
flat 43 percent. That is just today. They further say that it
will take 1 to 3 years longer than you say it is going to take,
and the cost overrun is obviously going to be much greater if
that turns out to be true.
Now, those are my final remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for your indulgence.
space station science
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Bumpers.
Let me run through a couple of things. We have got a lot to
cover here. We have a vote coming up before noon. Obviously, we
will keep the record open and submit further questions, and
some of our other members may have those questions. Thank you
very much, Senator Bumpers for joining us.
NASA has moved $819 million into the construction of the
space station between 1996 and 1998, and of that $819 million,
some $416 million was already part of the space station program
allocated for science activity. Does NASA intend to reinvest an
additional $819 million into space station science, and if so,
how and where are the funds coming from?
Mr. Goldin. Let me start off, Mal, and then you can jump
in. Recognizing the change in the assembly sequence, we felt to
go build some of that research equipment and have it sitting
there, while we are trying to get the space station built would
not be appropriate. However, we are continuing to fund all the
scientists and build up the capability.
The second issue that we had is when we took a look at that
research equipment, it was 10, 15 year old vintage technology
and there was a significant amount of time to build it. So, we
restructured it and now we have much better equipment, much
higher performance, much wider band. The researchers will be
able to do virtual presence from any place in the country.
We are committed to deliver every single thing we said we
would do in terms of research facilities plus some, and for the
record, I will submit all the additional things we are doing.
In terms of total dollars, as part of some of the offsets
we have negotiated with some of our international partners,
they are going to supply some of the equipment so the U.S.
taxpayer does not have to cover that equipment. But we will be
pleased to submit for the record what we promised to deliver
and everything we will deliver and the schedule for that
delivery.
transfer authority
Senator Bond. With respect to transfer authority, I am
concerned about upsetting the balance, as we have discussed, in
NASA between manned space flight and the space science. I am
also concerned that the administration's rhetoric of support
for the station is questionable when they do not actually step
up to the plate to ensure that the ISS is adequately funded.
With respect to the transfer authority, the administration
requested $200 million: $173 million from science and mission,
$27 million from within human space flight. How much is
actually needed this year as opposed to requirements for
funding that will occur in fiscal year 1999?
Mr. Goldin. The $200 million figure is an assessment made
by the space station program office that they felt their
reserves were short to that level. It is not money designed for
any specific activity. In all probability, the lion's share of
that money would be expended in 1999.
Senator Bond. So, this is really something that we could
and should be dealing with in the fiscal year 1999 budget. We
ought to be finding that money. If we are going to spend it in
1999, then we need to have some truth in budgeting and say this
is the 1999 expenditure, should we not?
Mr. Goldin. Well, there could be some expenditure this
year. We are not through the year, and it is very difficult to
keep track of exactly where we are. But I would say that a good
portion of the money would be spent in 1999 and in candor I
wanted to tell you that as a fact. The budget process gets
complex, and if we start the fiscal year and we do not have
these resources and people have to commit things and the
Congress does not reconvene until the following year, we are
afraid we may have some problems.
But I cannot honestly tell you specifically what they may
be, only the concern that the reserves are not adequate. When
Mr. Chabrow talked about the reserves that we needed, it was
assumed in the baseline that we had that $200 million. The
timing of it we are prepared to work with you on.
useful life expendency of space station
Senator Bond. I understand latest indications are that the
space station will have a useful life of 8 and a half years. At
$21.3 billion and counting, that makes it rather expensive. How
did you come up with an 8 and a half year useful life and what
does that mean?
Mr. Goldin. I did not come up with 8 and a half years. The
space station has--let me go back to tell you how the program
was designed. The President put a sunset clause on the station
as a result of the redesign process and said at the end of 10
years of operation, we would have a national peer review to see
if the space station was meeting its exploration, commercial,
scientific, and educational goals, and if it did, it would
continue for a further time. So, in terms of life of the
station, it is well beyond 10 years.
I do not yet acknowledge the $21.3 billion because to get
to $21.3 billion, you assume that between November 2002 and
December 2004, you are doing no research.
If you go to the charts that I have supplied and go to the
fourth chart which looks like this and the fifth chart which
looks like this. In fact, let me stick with the fifth chart for
1 minute.
Senator Bond. OK.
Mr. Goldin. When you look at that chart, you will see that
there is a point which says three-person capability, cum cost
through January 1999, $12 billion. That is in 1999. Again, this
assumes the Russians will deliver the service module within 4
months of when they said.
Then you see development, complete six-person capacity,
$19.7 billion. We added a one-third node to the program. It is
additional hardware that we added so we could get the six-
person capability as early as possible. This is because the
Italians are delivering this for us. We will have 80 percent of
the research capability there.
Now, when you go from November 2002 to December 2003 to get
to $21.3 billion, it assumes no research is going on and you
charge the operational costs to the space station.
If you go back to this chart over here, you will see that
we are already on the down slope in purple of the development
activity, and the operational activity is already beginning.
So, it is a question of how we are approaching this, but we
do not feel it is appropriate, if we get it up by 2003 with a
six-person capability and have research ability to do 80
percent of the research, to say that all the money is being
charged to development. So, right now we believe if the
Russians will be able to get their hardware to us in time,
November 2002, we think we have a good chance of doing that.
Now, if that slips, then the course will begin approaching
this $21.3 billion. The GAO felt that $21.3 billion was the
right number and we are at $19.7 billion. And I just wanted to
point that out.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Goldin.
Senator Mikulski.
effects of downsizing
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Goldin, I am not going to continue
the conversations on the space station. I am going to move to a
few others.
First of all, I do want to acknowledge that the agency was
asked to really bring enormous disciplines into its system and
that when you say how proud you are of the workers and that
they have done the impossible, I want to agree with you. I have
seen it in my own State at Goddard not only because Mr.
Rothenberg is here, and I know that at every other facility
that has been so.
What I am concerned about, though, is now impossible cannot
continue as a management practice. Impossibility cannot
continue as a management practice. So, I want to acknowledge
everything that you said, and I share your pride too and a
certain amount of even amazement.
But I feel that NASA in some ways is like where Defense is.
We better be real careful about what we are doing because we
could reach a point where in downsizing and so on, we could
downgrade and not have readiness, modernization, and other
things that we need to do. So, just know that is why we are
raising these concerns.
Mr. Goldin. Can I respond to that? I agree with you. I
agree with you, and let me assure you if we had additional
funds, we would know how to spend it.
I also want to make you aware of the point at some point in
time NASA is going to require additional funds because we
cannot go for 10 years without any increases.
future funding of nasa
Senator Mikulski. That goes to my next point. When you
talked about Hubble took everyone out of the box, if you will,
in thinking about the telescope, but Hubble could have been a
major disaster because of the mirror, the dysfunctional nature
of the Hubble mirror, where we got the Congress to agree to the
greatest contact lens in world history.
Now, but we cannot afford this. There is less and less
elasticity in the budget. We cannot underestimate what the
significance of the balanced budget agreement was. We are not
going to keep going into debt to compensate for mistakes. This
is a leader in the balanced budget amendment. I am a Janey-
come-lately to it, but I voted for it. OK? And now that is
where we are. So, this is why we are talking about the prudent
nature of it.
I do worry about the future funding of NASA and I worry
about NASA in relationship to other scientific programs. We
could go through how EPA is to get more money. The National
Science Foundation is being discussed, doubling the NIH budget,
all of which I think we would like to support presuming the
finding of a revenue stream. But I am concerned that NASA is
never on that list, and we got to get it on that list. I think
we need to hear the thoughts about you and then really a
conversation with the administration on this and then how to
accommodate that within our current balanced budget
environment.
y2k problem
Now, but let me go to something else. I was really troubled
to read that a report commissioned by the House on the Y2K
problem in which there was an evaluation done like a report
card that Congressman Steve Horn asked for and that NASA got a
D and that NASA got a D in saying that of the 459 mission
critical systems, the agency had identified 40 percent as
compliant, 60 percent as noncompliant. Of the 218 systems that
were out of compliance, only 214 had been renovated.
I do not want to go through all the numbers here, but my
gosh, you are the high tech agency. You are one of the flagship
high tech agencies, and if you are getting a D for being ready
for Y2K, that is troublesome. In what areas? Is it on
management and procurement and personnel? Is it Y2K problems in
computer technology with the shuttle with integration with
other international agencies, even western European? Let us put
the Russians aside. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Goldin. To be quite candid, Senator Mikulski, I am
flabbergasted that we have such a score----
Senator Mikulski. I was too.
Mr. Goldin [continuing]. Because I met with the President's
special advisor on Y2K and he saw what we were doing. I
believe--and I am not sure--that part of the----
Senator Mikulski. Go ahead. Just keep talking.
Senator Bond. Do not worry about us.
Senator Mikulski. I have got a Y2K beeper. [Laughter.]
Mr. Goldin. I believe the way the scoring system goes is
they take a look at the rate at which you are achieving things
and in the November to February timeframe, I think we closed
out seven critical systems. So, they extended that rate out and
it went beyond the March 1999 timeframe. But that is working to
our plan. We have the whole agency at battle stations and have
been that way for a number of years. We believe we are doing
all the right things.
In fact, we have taken further steps. I am sending letters
to 3,500 of our suppliers. We are renegotiating our contracts
with our suppliers, and in house and contractor-wise, we think
we are on track. We have a plan that beats or exceeds the Y2K
problem, and we will communicate with Mr. Horn. I expect that
we are going to be there.
There are two concerns that we have. One is our
international partners. Only 2 of our 16 international partners
are really focusing and addressing this issue, and I do have
some concern about some of our contractors.
But with those two exceptions, I believe we are right on
track, and for the record, I will submit the plan we are on,
the accomplishments we have made, and why I believe we are
doing the right thing.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think this is critical and I
think what we are committed to is making sure that you are on
target and that you have the resources to be on target.
Senator Bond. This is a prime concern of this subcommittee
and all of the agencies. I would certainly hate to be on an
airplane when the year 2000 arrives if all the computers think
that it is 1900.
Senator Mikulski. That is exactly right.
Now, you will be interested to know Agriculture and EPA get
a B. They're your pals, and FEMA gets a D minus. I know they
are all your friends, but some are more friendly than others.
But, Mr. Goldin, what I would like to do is share with you
what I have been working off of as I raise this issue. May I
give this to one of your staff so that then you know the paper
that I looked at that really raised my eyebrows when I saw
NASA. You know, the Department of Ed gets a D.
Mr. Goldin. I saw that and I will get you material that I
think will build your confidence that we are doing the right
thing.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
uncosted carryovers
Senator Bond. Mr. Goldin, I am going to try to hurry
through a couple of things that are important enough that I
want to mention here before we leave for the vote, and I do not
expect that we will come back. We will have to submit the rest
for the record.
But the uncosted carryovers are of grave concern. It seems
to be the answer to everything. We have got an uncosted
carryover. What troubles me, if we appropriate the funds
through the Congress for an intended purpose, can the agency
spend them for another purpose because they have not been
costed or actually spent?
I would like you to explain the use of uncosted carryovers.
What happens to the programs when the funds are shifted from
their intended purpose, and why do some programs, such as space
science and earth science, carry such large uncosted
carryovers? Are these funds we need for the programs? How will
they affect future funding and how will the deficit be made up?
Mr. Goldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say that
NASA itself brought this issue forward. I raised this issue a
year and a half ago.
Let me tell you the reason that it occurred. NASA underwent
more change than most Federal agencies and contractors, and let
me give you an example of Mission to Planet Earth. When I took
over, for the 1990's Mission to Planet Earth had $11.4 billion.
That was appropriated by the Congress. We went in there and
over the last 5 years we brought that number down to $6.8
billion. We have been slashing budgets and making changes.
Our people rightfully held up procurements so the money
would not get spent. So, I give them an A for good management,
but they did not recognize the buildup of the backlog in cash.
Senator Bond. Backlog in actually budget authority.
Mr. Goldin. Budget authority.
So, when we identified the problem, we had $4.8 billion of
carryover funds. We are now down to $3.5 billion, and within 1
year we will be at $2.8 billion which we believe is the
carrying level necessary for an agency like NASA.
We have put this into the goals of our executives. They
earn their bonuses based upon not just managing efficiently,
but being cognizant of the cash flow.
There was another problem that came out as a result of this
carryover issue and that was that our grants process and our
working with the universities needed reinvention. And this is
in the earth science and the space science area. We put the
responsibility at NASA Goddard. They have a terrific person
leading that activity. We work with the universities, and we
think within 1 year we will be able to be much more efficient
in how the money is delivered to the universities.
So, we found efficiencies in our own system. We are one of
the few agencies who manages the uncosted because we are
concerned about this issue, but I can assure you we have
reduced it by $1.3 billion and within 1 year we will be at the
running level of $2.8 billion.
Senator Bond. Are you saying that because you have made
efficiencies and economies, you are not going to need this
money, that you are going to be able to accomplish what the
money was appropriated for without the money?
Mr. Goldin. We just reprogrammed the money for a variety of
resources.
Senator Bond. Yes; but I mean when you take it out of one
area, it is an uncosted obligation. Does that mean you are just
not ready to spend the money? You are not ready to have the
cash flow go out this year and you will need it next year? Or
does it mean that because of better, cheaper, smaller, you are
not going to need it?
Mr. Goldin. The people did not want to prerelease RFP's so
we would get the wrong response. For example, the common
spacecraft buy was delayed because we changed the whole
approach based upon our advisory committee structure. So, they
rightfully held up because of all the change going on, and then
we released the RFP and we have the resources to do it.
Senator Bond. Are you going to need to replenish those
funds?
Mr. Goldin. Malcolm?
Mr. Peterson. Sir, if I may. What is being reflected in the
drawdown of uncosted is materializing in outlays. This is
spending, of course, that we are in excess of our budget
authority levels. Our future plans assume that we will stay
about at the end of the 1998 level and continue on from there.
We do not have any surpluses in this account.
Senator Bond. Are you going to have to come back to the
areas where you found uncosted carryovers and seek additional
appropriations in the future?
Mr. Peterson. I believe not, sir.
Senator Bond. OK.
subcommittee recess
With that, Mr. Goldin, we will look forward to continuing
our discussions. I thank you very much for an informative
hearing, and the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., Thursday, April 23, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:38 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Burns, Campbell, Mikulski, Leahy,
and Lautenberg.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
FRED HANSEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
SALLYANNE HARPER, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Good morning.
The Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of
the Appropriations Committee will come to order.
This morning we are going to take the testimony on the
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency. We welcome Administrator Browner, Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen, Ms. Harper, and other EPA officials.
EPA is requesting a fiscal year 1999 budget of $7.8
billion, an increase of $400 million or 6 percent. Major
increases are proposed for Superfund, which would rise by $600
million; the climate change technology initiative, which would
increase $116 million, or 130 percent; and particulate matter,
or PM-2.5, monitoring, which would receive an increase of $29
million for a total of $65 million.
While clean water activities as part of the new Clean Water
Action Plan would increase $150 million, the State revolving
fund for clean water in the President's request decreases by
$275 million, for a net decrease of $125 million for water
quality activities.
The President's budget proposes to fund much of EPA through
the extension of the Superfund tax. Specifically, the
Environmental Resources Fund would fund $4.6 billion of EPA's
budget request and would be funded in part by Superfund taxes.
The budget would also be funded in part by the proposed tobacco
settlement.
Clearly, the extension of the Superfund tax this year is
unlikely at best. The committees have worked on Superfund, but
the progress has not been good. Moreover, Superfund taxes
should not be used to fund programs other than Superfund, and
revenues accruing from the proposed tobacco settlement
undoubtedly will not be funding discretionary spending.
These are but a few of the unrealistic assumptions included
in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 1999. To put
it in context, the President's fiscal year 1999 budget exceeds
the discretionary spending caps by nearly $12 billion in
outlays, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Therefore, we have to say the expectations raised by the
President's budget request simply are not realistic.
I would note that EPA's budget has been reformatted
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. It
includes, for the first time, performance goals and measures
and in many instances focused on results. These changes are
encouraging. I commend EPA for its work in this area.
However, there are a number of concerns.
First, there continues to be a strong emphasis in some
areas on outputs, rather than outcomes. In the enforcement
area--a goal in and of itself which is puzzling, since
enforcement should be a tool for environmental results rather
than a goal--virtually all of the performance measures are
traditional inputs, such as the number of inspections to be
conducted.
To comply with the intent and spirit of the Results Act,
the emphasis should be squarely on outcomes--protection of and
improvements to the environment and public health.
Second, the inspector general earlier this year provided a
list of the top 10 areas of concern within EPA. According to
the inspector general, ``an overarching issue that relates to
many of EPA's problems is a lack of accountability.''
The GPRA's focus is on accountability for results. Yet
accountability has been among EPA's weakest areas, as the
inspector general, the National Academy of Public
Administration, and others have pointed out in the past.
According to the inspector general,
One of the most significant challenges EPA faces in
implementing the Results Act is developing an accurate baseline
of environmental data for planning, budgeting, implementing,
and evaluating EPA's programs. Without accurate data, EPA's
managers cannot assess EPA's progress in carrying out its
environmental mission.
While EPA has paid lip service to the issue of
environmental data quality and information gaps, it simply has
not risen to the top of the priority list. In its September
1997 report, NAPA said, ``The agency has not yet established
the institutions it will need to ensure that data are reliable,
objective, credible, and consistent across programs and
media.'' While NAPA called for a one-stop shop for
environmental information, EPA has ignored this recommendation.
There continue to be too many offices involved without real
accountability in any one place.
EPA's budget cites again and again the agency's intended
reliance on its environmental data systems to determine whether
goals are being met. This makes imperative the need to improve
the quality of EPA data. We must have accurate information in
order to know whether programs are working, whether dollars are
being invested wisely, and to hold EPA accountable for meeting
the goals it has set forth.
Furthermore, the issue of data quality is critical in view
of EPA's emphasis on so-called right to know activities. The
information EPA provides to the public absolutely must be
accurate and reliable, and presented in an appropriate and
meaningful context.
Finally, despite the new budget format for fiscal year
1999, we do not see a new budget discipline in which EPA has
made hard choices, disinvested in lower priority activities,
and made budget priorities based on the greatest opportunities
for risk reduction.
In a letter to me dated April 23, which I ask to be
included at the end of my statement, GAO indicates that a key
management issue facing EPA is the need to improve its
performance in establishing priorities that better reflect the
risks to human health and the environment and that compare
risks and risk reduction strategies across programs and
pollution problems.
The most significant reduction proposed by EPA is the clean
water State revolving fund, despite the fact that the
administration has claimed clean water is a top priority. This
program, as I believe we both agree, Ms. Browner, is one which
works well. It leverages Federal resources significantly and
helps meet a $130 billion national need for water
infrastructure financing, including nonpoint source pollution
controls.
In addition, EPA proposes to cut its research and
development office despite the critical importance of adequate
scientific research for sound environmental decisionmaking. In
particular, EPA proposes to cut in half its particulate matter
research program, despite the fact that this is a top human
health concern about which there are many questions.
Significant additional research on particulate matter is
needed in the next few years to ensure that we understand which
components of particulate matter are affecting human health, in
essence, which constituent particles of particulate matter are
the ones which are the most problematic, and the mechanisms by
which human health may be impacted.
The most significant increase in EPA's proposed budget
would go to Superfund. But this is an area which clearly does
not provide the greatest opportunities for risk reduction. This
is a program which is badly flawed and seriously in need of
revision.
As we discussed last year, I do not believe a $650 million
increase is warranted for Superfund, given that reauthorization
is not expected to occur in time for fiscal year 1999
implementation. This is despite a major effort by the
authorizing committees. I would say that Senator Chafee, whose
credentials are solid in this area, has worked long and hard to
bring to the floor a Superfund reauthorization vehicle. There
may be questions and there may be alternatives. The
administration may have views on it. But we have been blocked
from moving forward on it.
Superfund, let us emphasize, continues to be designated as
a high risk program by the General Accounting Office; and the
funds invested in Superfund afford little reduction in actual
human risk, environmental risk, compared to investments in
other environmental problems.
GAO indicated in its April 23 letter that it considers
cleanup of hazardous waste sites a key management concern at
EPA.
GAO says, and I quote again,
Our work has identified several management problems in the
program, including that EPA has not allocated cleanup resources
to the most significant threats to health and the environment,
has recovered only a small percentage of its costs from the
parties responsible for the pollution, has had difficulties in
controlling the costs for contractors, and has not established
performance goals needed to monitor the success of the agency's
efforts to reduce the time cleanups take and to control the
amount of funds for activities besides the actual cleanups,
such as the expenses for legal fees.
GAO found in an October 1997 report that EPA's fiscal year
1998 Superfund budget was potentially overstated by $205
million because EPA used historical cost data as the basis for
its request, rather than the more recent cost information that
was available to the agency when it prepared its budget
request.
This report confirmed our suspicion that the budget request
for Superfund may have been inflated and represented political
``one-upmanship'' rather than an analytical, risk based
approach to an environmental problem.
The Superfund budget has become mired in politics rather
than reality. When scrutinized objectively, it clearly does not
merit the increase which is being proposed.
As an example of where our Superfund dollars are going and
just how broken this program is, a recent inspector general
report found that at the Austin Avenue radiation site in
Pennsylvania EPA spent, on average, over $650,000 to replace
houses that had an average market value of $147,000.
In one case, EPA spent more than $900,000 to custom build a
house while the appraised market value of the original house
was $200,000.
I find it difficult to understand why EPA is in the
business of building houses. I am appalled at the findings of
the inspector general's report. Madam Administrator, this
report suggests an outrageous example and exemplifies why many
of us have no confidence in the program until it is reformed.
I ask the agency to provide us for the record a full and
detailed accounting for the record of the abuse and misuse of
taxpayer dollars which occurred at the Austin Avenue site.
The concerns I have raised with the budget generally are
not dissimilar to concerns I have raised in previous years. I
would hope we could work together to make more rational the
allocation of EPA resources, establish accurate baselines
against which EPA progress can be measured, and improve the
agency's accountability for results.
On a positive note, EPA seems to have made progress in the
last year in its common sense initiative, particularly in the
metal finishing sector. I understand that the administration
finally has come around to the need for alternative compliance
legislation, essentially the codification of Project XL which
we have discussed in this committee previously. This is
significant progress in and of itself and I thank you for those
efforts.
While there continue to be some concerns with the pace of
progress in both CSI and XL, we have seen improvements.
However, last fall's NAPA report found that much of the
progress in the so-called reinvention area in the last few
years has been of only marginal importance. EPA has not made an
explicit effort to learn from these initiatives and then change
core operations accordingly.
As you move forward with the reinvention efforts, I
strongly encourage the Agency to evaluate carefully the
successes and failures of efforts under the commonsense
initiative and other programs and incorporate the lessons
learned into the Agency's programs.
As you know, we commissioned NAPA in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations bill to work with EPA in this area, including
developing mechanisms for evaluating Agency activities.
Incidentally, it is my understanding that EPA still has not
signed a contract with NAPA despite the fact that NAPA has
submitted a detailed work plan several months ago. I would hope
EPA would get off the dime on this important work so that the
work could get underway. I would be interested in hearing what
the status is.
With respect to issues concerning EPA's relationship with
the States, I would note that some progress has been made in
the National Environmental Performance Partnership System. More
than 40 States now have performance partnership agreements with
EPA.
In addition, an agreement was finally signed with the
States which provides the framework for approving innovative
regulatory projects. I hope EPA will move expeditiously to
review and approve State reinvention projects when they are
submitted.
In the past, States have raised concerns that they are
consulted too little and too late, all too often.
Unfortunately, we are still seeing instances of this. For
example, EPA announced the Sector Facility Indexing project
without consulting the States despite the important
implications for the States, and EPA announced the title VI
interim guidance without any involvement by the States.
I hope the agreement on regulatory innovations is a signal
that the EPA-State relationship is evolving into more of a
partnership. And I encourage EPA to keep the concerns of the
States front and center because it is at the State level where
implementation of environmental programs in most cases takes
place and to focus on environmental results rather than
programmatic bean counting of inputs.
Let me acknowledge, before I turn to my ranking member,
that the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E) project recently
concluded after 18 months of work at developing a proposal to
improve the environmental protection system. This project
involved a large and diverse group of highly qualified,
experienced individuals, headed up by Bill Ruckelshaus and
including former EPA administrators, industry executives,
leaders of environmental organizations, State environmental
commissioners, community activists and others.
We acknowledge the significant contributions made by EPA's
deputy, Fred Hansen, who put in substantial time and energy on
the project.
The report did not prescribe a very specific set of
recommendations for change, but it did set some very important
principles which all participants agree on. These principles
included adapting policies, strategies, and systems based on
experience and new information; generating, disseminating, and
relying on the best available scientific information; offering
flexibility of means coupled with clarity of responsibility,
accountability for performance, and transparency of results;
and placing authority, responsibility, and accountability at
the appropriate level of Government.
E4E called for a performance-based, information rich,
flexible, and accountable system. I believe these principles
are at the core of some of the issues we will discuss today.
I might also note that E4E calls for a ceasefire to the
fear, divisiveness, and lack of trust that characterize the
national debate about environmental policy. I have to say that
when I saw some of the press releases handed out by the
administration on Earth Day, which talk about Republican
leadership ``dirty deals,'' a whole stack of scatological
political fingerpointing, it does very little to raise the
level of debate to the high ground.
I hope that the EPA appropriations and personnel are not
expended in support of this form of partisan nonsense.
This concludes my opening statement and I now turn to my
ranking member, Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to yield my time so that Senator Leahy may make his
statement. Then I will follow on Senator Burns. Senator Leahy
has other appropriations responsibilities.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
We are delighted to hear from Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you,
Senator Mikulski, for your usual courtesy. I appreciate it. I
will be very brief.
I do want to welcome the Administrator. You have survived a
lot of battles over the past year, battles that I think have
helped us move our country forward. You did not rest on your
environmental laurels and I compliment you and your Agency for
that. We are very proud of that.
I also want to thank you for including Lake Champlain
within the budget request this year. In the past few weeks,
Lake Champlain has received a great deal of attention and I
think this is just one more chance to explain one of the
threats we face with toxic pollutants.
The mercury report to Congress that you released is very,
very important. The steps that you take to address mercury and
other coal-fired power plants will not only protect Lake
Champlain but will protect the Chesapeake Bay, will protect the
five Great Lakes, will protect the Everglades, and will protect
everything east of those plants.
As I look at it, I can see why a lot of people had worked
to keep the report from coming out. I have long been worried
about the impact mercury pollution from sources outside of
Vermont is having on our land, rivers, and lakes.
This year, I introduced comprehensive legislation to
eliminate mercury from our environment.
The more I read about it, the more I am convinced that we
have to address some loopholes in the Clean Air Act that allow
some of these older plants to spew out pollutants with little
control.
We had assumed they would retire, like the older fleets of
cars and a lot of the tailpipe emissions we have seen have
disappeared. But newer, cleaner, more efficient plants are not
replacing the older ones. Some in the administration are saying
that they expect utility deregulation actually to reduce
emissions from power plants.
I do not take that same conclusion. I would encourage the
administration to take a much harder and I believe more
realistic look at the environmental impacts of deregulation.
Vermont has been the dumping ground from these power plants
for decades. It is time to face the issue headon. I think if we
are going to have utility deregulation, we also should use it
as an opportunity to clean up theses older plants.
So I would look very, very closely at this because if we
are going to continue to face these older plants spewing out
pollutants, none of us will benefit from it in the East.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to the ranking member, I will
be brief. I would put my whole statement in the record and
would also ask the permission of the committee to submit some
questions for the record.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. Your full
statement will be made a part of the record. We will keep the
record open for additional questions and this looks like it is
going to be quite a series of questions.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement submitted by
Senator Hagel be included as part of the record. We will make
that available. He has questions that he wishes to submit.
prepared statement
Also Senator Craig cannot be here but said he would submit
questions for the record. Senator Campbell had to chair another
hearing and he, too, will be submitting questions for the
record, along with his prepared statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
epa's fiscal year 1999 budget
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Ms. Browner for
appearing before the Subcommittee today. I know that back in my home
state of Colorado some of the EPA's proposals and workings have roused
some concern. From regional haze to Colorado's environmental self-audit
program, all have come under fire from numerous groups, and I would
like to address these and other EPA issues at the appropriate time.
Colorado and many other Western states have unique situations when
it comes to the environment. One size fits all cannot take precedence
any longer. Local and state environmental problems need to be remedied
at that level, not from Washington. It is difficult to correct local
problems from here, when the remedies are out there.
Also, when it comes to the environment, education is the key. Our
children need to be taught that hard work, science and technology can
help fix our environmental problems, but all sides need to be addressed
in this crucial field. Apparently, this does not seem to be the case
and I hope that this discrepancy can be addressed here today.
There are some other issues that I will pursue during our time for
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Bond. Now I turn to Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Browner, welcome now that we got your chair this
morning adjusted so that you can comfortably answer all of the
questions that most of us have for you today.
I am going to submit my statement, Mr. Chairman. But there
are a couple of areas that I want to talk about just a little
bit this morning.
food quality
As we try to find money to do those things that are high on
our priority list, and environment has to be on that list, I am
wondering about this. Between you and the FDA and the
Department of Agriculture, do you all carry collision
insurance? I'll bet you run over one another out there.
You have 18,000 folks running around out there. And I
notice in your statement this morning, which I just read, you
mentioned children so many times it is a wonder any of us ever
got to adulthood before there was an EPA. I am really concerned
about the redundancy, especially in the area of food quality.
You place a lot of emphasis on this, on food quality, and
we have an FDA that does the same thing, a USDA that does the
same thing. I am wondering if you have ever assessed how many
people we have running around in this Federal Government where
all of them are doing the same thing and are reaching,
sometimes, different conclusions. This leaves us up here to be
a little bit cynical and, of course, also the American public
about coming up with $7.771 billion just to do something that
somebody else already is doing.
Also, I want to dwell this morning on this--and when I
mentioned the fact down there that you have a hard time getting
that John Deere tractor running with the direction in which you
are running as far as air and particulates, we may outlaw John
Deere tractors. Then I will want to know where you are going to
get your bread. But we have already figured that out, too.
I also want to dwell on haze a little bit this morning. But
I am more concerned with redundancy than I am with anything
else. We just absolutely waste money. This Austin Avenue thing
in Pennsylvania, has that person that did that, that made that
decision, is he still working for the agency? If he is, why is
that? If not, has he been branded or tagged so that he does not
get another job somewhere else? But that will come later
because I want to hear the statement of the ranking member.
prepared statement
I want to submit my statement and will thank you for coming
this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Chairman for
calling this hearing today, as Administrator Browner comes before this
committee to explain the budget for fiscal year 1999 for the
Environmental Protection Agency. Like most appropriations hearings I
have been to this year, I am not sure that we will see eye to eye with
the Administration on the number of dollars and the use of the dollars
in the budget for this agency. I honestly don't understand the way that
the Administration put together the budget for the coming year, and I
have yet to hear any real good defense of the proposed budget in any
hearing yet. I would like to think this one might be different, but in
reviewing what is there so far, I can't honestly say that I believe I
will see any radical departure from what has occurred so far.
I am as concerned with this budget as I am in all that I have seen
come down from the Administration this year. I am worried about where
the money is coming from the number of new projects and the amount that
is being spent on them. In addition to that I am very concern about how
and where all the money in the EPA budget is being allocated. This does
not reflect the needs of all the people, only those categories which
this Administration has determined to place in a role of importance.
This is a great concern, for like in many things that this
Administration is doing the dollars are going in areas that Congress
has had little or in many cases no input on.
On those issues where Congress has had a say, the work is not
proceeding in an expeditious manner. Take the implementation of the
Food Quality Protection Act, as an example. There are a number of
products out there that could and should be approved by the EPA, but
you and your agency have not come to grips with meeting with these
folks. They are still waiting to hear from you as instructed by the
Vice President.
The concern among both the user groups and the manufacturers in
this instance is that unrealistic assumptions are being made in
relation to EPA decisions. It also appears that EPA has reduced work on
experimental use permits and Section 3 registrations. Which requires a
dependence on Section 18 emergency use permits.
Basically if EPA does not get off the dime here, the FQPA will not
serve the needs and concerns of Congress and the people. Added to this
it will fail to serve its important public health mission and may
seriously harm U.S. Agricultural production. This at a time when our
producers are experiencing extremely difficult times in the market
place.
On another issue of great importance to me, Regional Haze rules. It
once again appears that EPA has gone the long hard route instead of
working within the guidelines established by Congress. It appears you
have done everything you could possibly do to make this a western
regional issue. Not only neglecting the will of Congress, but also
ignoring the work of the individual states and Governors in the western
states.
This is again another case of the arrogance of this Administration
in dealing with states and Governors on issues related to their economy
and public safety. You have ignored and overridden both state, local
and federal statutes in proposing the rules and regulations we are
seeing today. I cannot and will not tolerate this any more. As long as
things are going your way, life is fine and dandy, but the minute it
appears to be creating an obstacle you either swerve around the issue
or completely ignore the law.
Ms. Browner, Mr. Chairman. I could continue you on here forever,
but it is important that we hear from the Administrator and have time
to ask the serious questions we need answers to. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Burns.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to welcome EPA Administrator Carol Browner and her very able
team.
This is Ms. Browner's sixth appearance before this
subcommittee and I want to thank her for her efforts and her
leadership over the last 6 years.
Administrator's Browner tenure has been neither boring nor
uneventful. Budget cuts and Government shutdowns have made Ms.
Browner's job and the jobs of EPA employees often quite
challenging.
In addition, there has often been a very prickly climate
toward environmental protection in the Congress as a whole, and
I think sometimes the authorizing committees have sometimes not
been as helpful as they could be to create the climate of
dealing with environmental problems and then often leave it to
the Appropriations Committee to iron out the details, one of
which, of course, is the Superfund reauthorization, for which
this committee has been waiting even now for a number of years.
This has not always been the most constructive climate to
move an agenda.
But to move on, as we move forward in today's hearing, let
me note a few things that I am pleased to see in EPA's fiscal
year 1999 budget. I am pleased to note that the President has
requested an increase of $400 million for EPA, much needed and
a rather prudent request. This is in line with the President's
commitments, one of which I have advocated for years, to ensure
that we do have a safe and healthy environment, not only for
our own Nation but for the planet as we move forward to the
year 2000.
The question is how will we focus on the coming millennium
and what will be the very constructive role that the EPA and
the Congress, working with EPA, will have.
I believe that supporting EPA could be one of our most
important millennium projects along with doubling the NIH
budget in terms of investment, public investment in science and
technology.
I am pleased to see that the President has requested nearly
$200 million for an increase for the Environmental Programs and
Management Account, an increase also that includes $38 million
for clean water action plan activities. This is on top of the
large increase in other accounts for the clean water action
plan.
I believe that the clean water action plan is absolutely
significant to improving water quality to those of not only
coastal States with estuaries but to those of us with rivers
and lakes.
I would like to thank you, Ms. Browner, and then the very
able responsiveness of Mr. Hansen and, particularly, Mr.
Perciasepe, for the very quickstep way EPA responded to our
Governor and delegation's bipartisan 911 call when pfiesteria
hit the Chesapeake Bay and the Pocomoke River. Whether it was
Representative Wayne Gilchrist or Senator Barbara Mikulski, you
responded on a very quick and collegial way and we are very
appreciative.
In the hearing, I will want to probe in more deep detail a
plan for not only pfiesteria, which hit my State, the marine
biotoxins, which I believe are a national problem, even a
global problem.
In addition to that, while we are talking about the
interagency cooperation, I want to raise another issue related
to shipbreaking. It is something that I want my colleagues to
become aware of.
This came to Maryland's attention and to national attention
due to a Pulitzer Prize winning series done by the Baltimore
Sun on what we did with wonderful ships from the U.S. Navy that
had served the Nation with honor and that now were being
dismantled in very environmentally dangerous situations and
also were being shipped abroad in a way that really did not
bring honor to the United States of America.
I would like to discuss that with you because I believe
that our ships are floating military bases and I believe they
should be retired with honor and with dignity, and at the same
time in a environmentally safe way both within our own country
and abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about this issue. I
will go into this in more detail as this conversation goes
forward.
I want to insure that materials being disposed of after
shipbreaking in this country, like asbestos, PCB's, oil and
lead, are done in an environmentally safe way and that it is
safe for both the worker as well as for the environment.
Also, Ms. Browner, I would like to hear your plans for
shipbreaking.
Also, this is a year of followup on the Brownfields
program. I know the chairman shares my concern about the need
to revitalize brownfields. My own home town of Baltimore has
over 3,000 acres of brownfields and I want to hear this morning
what progress EPA has made with its brownfields initiative if
we have time.
I want to work with the chairman to stand sentry that we
will have a brownfields program that works both for the
taxpayer and works for the communities that receive
brownfields, and that the brownfields project does not become a
fiscal Superfund site. OK.
I believe that environmental protection goes hand in hand
with economic growth and job creation. Protecting our
environment can create jobs and not destroy them.
The chairman has also raised the question about the NAPA
report. I won't go into that.
I just want to wrap up my opening statement and close by
noting my concern with the requested $275 million reduction in
the very effective and popular Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program. This is a program that the States and local
communities feel very passionately about and it meets a
compelling human and local need. So we look forward to talking
about that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my full opening
statement be included in the record. But in the interest of
time I won't have several opening statements, meaning this one
and each time I go to ask a question. I am willing to
consolidate. I am in the process of reinventing opening
statements.
statement of carol browner
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski, if you absolutely insist,
we will accept it for the record. We would rather hear your
statements in full, but I will accede to your request and
include all of your opening statement and your subsequent
opening statements for the record.
I guess the time has finally come for the Administrator.
Madam Administrator, if you would proceed, we will, of
course, make your full statements and any attachments thereto
or additions you wish to be made part of the record and would
invite you to make such comments as you feel appropriate.
Ms. Browner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and
members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today on the President's 1999 budget request for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
The budget we present today is an important investment in
the American people and I think it advances a goal that we all
share, Mr. Chairman, which is protecting the Nation's air,
water, the food we eat, the land on which we live. It is based
on a very simple premise, the premise being that protecting the
environment, protecting our health, are good for the economy,
that we do not have to choose between a healthy economy and a
healthy environment. It is a proposition that I think has been
borne out over the past 5 years, particularly when we have seen
both the economy grow and our commitment to public health and
environmental protections strengthened.
Just this year we have seen that it is possible to
eliminate the deficit while strengthening our investment in a
safer, cleaner, and healthier environment.
Getting results is obviously another important cornerstone
of what we do. Mr. Chairman, as you noted, this budget is the
first ever to reflect EPA's new approach of goal-based
budgeting. Linking our resources to real, environmental results
will require a several year effort. We appreciate your comments
as we will continue to make adjustments to our new goal-
structured approach.
We do believe that a goal-oriented approach is helping us
better allocate our resources, better measure our successes,
and better allow us to stay in sync with our strategic plan.
But it is a fundamental change in how we have attempted to
manage our budget, and we would ask you to work with us as we
understand where we have been successful in this effort and
where we might make additional improvements.
I think this is what Congress envisioned when it passed the
GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act.
I think as we look to the environmental challenges of the
21st century, this approach to budgeting will be particularly
helpful.
One of the greatest challenges we face both as a Nation and
as a world is the challenge of global warming. As you noted,
Mr. Chairman, this budget does reflect the President's
determination that America shall lead the world in meeting the
challenge of global warming by reducing greenhouse gases in a
way that allows the economy to grow.
New data show that 1997 was the hottest year ever recorded.
Nine of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1987.
The vast majority of the world's scientists have warned us that
if we don't begin to tackle this problem now, we will leave a
legacy of climate change and environmental damage that will
greatly burden future generations and perhaps we will not be
able to reverse them.
The proposal that we bring before you builds on very
successful efforts that have been underway for a long period of
time, including many which were started by my predecessor, Bill
Reilly. The point is to forge partnerships with the business
community, to find common sense, cost-effective ways to meet
the challenge of global warming.
The President has put forward a $6.3 billion package that
would include technology, tax incentives, research and
development to encourage the next generation to innovative,
antipollution solutions.
We believe that in this way we can reduce the pollution
that causes global warming and continue to build our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are some in Congress who have
suggested that the administration's budget request is a back-
door ratification of Kyoto. I want to be very, very clear about
this matter. We fully respect the very important role that
Congress must play in reviewing the Kyoto Treaty for
ratification, and in no way does this budget request undermine
that role. It is in keeping with what the President has said
for many years now: We can, we must, take prudent steps to
address this very real and dangerous threat.
As I said, it builds on successful programs that are
already in place.
While global warming is a top priority of this
administration, so is finishing the job of cleaning up the
pollution in our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. The
President has put forth a clean water action plan which seeks
funding for a number of agencies. The Department of Agriculture
and EPA are two of the largest.
The purpose of these dollars is to address what we all
believe is today's greatest threat to our Nation's waters
across the country, and that is the threat of polluted run-off.
Mr. Chairman, you have spoken very eloquently to this issue.
Senator Mikulski is familiar with this issue as it relates to
pfiesteria. We are also concerned about the loss of wetlands
and, ultimately, the restoration of our waterways.
The clean water action plan is designed to foster a spirit
of cooperation, bringing together all of the various agencies
and departments. With respect to the EPA's clean water action
plan budget request, all but $25 million dollars goes to the
States to allow them to develop the kind of plans they need to
take on this remaining pollution challenge.
The budget we present also speaks to our efforts to protect
the most vulnerable among us, frequently our children. Giving
children a healthier start in life is one of this
administration's highest priorities. The fiscal year 1999
President's budget requests an additional $8 million to further
assist us in addressing the unique vulnerability of children to
environmental threats, specifically, our efforts to ensure that
public health regulations recognize their very special needs.
We are working in partnership with the Department of Health and
Human Services to establish the five or six research centers
for children's environmental health.
When we first announced this program in partnership with
HHS, we anticipated that we might only hear from a relatively
small number of interested parties. We received over 60
inquiries, and 31 proposals from which these centers will be
chosen. I think this demonstrates the kind of work that is
already going on out there, and the very real sense in the
scientific and public health community that we need to be
looking at these problems. We need to expand our understanding
of how environmental issues may be affecting the health of our
children.
The budget will also help us ensure that our neighborhoods
are free from toxic waste sites. We are requesting an increase
in Superfund funding. This is designed to help us deal with an
increasing number of sites that are approaching the final phase
of cleanup.
We can have our disagreements about what Superfund
reauthorization should entail. I have personally worked very
hard to achieve reauthorization. I have been up to the Hill on
this issue more frequently than on any other issue in the last
5 years, including meetings that have gone well into the
evening, and I continue to be available to do that.
But while we are engaged in those discussions and while we
seek common ground, we have made some progress. Where we have
had the discussions, we have made progress. Then,
unfortunately, the discussions do not continue and that leaves
an area where we have disagreement.
We have changed the day to day operation of the program and
we continue to change the day to day operation of the program.
The truth of the matter is that we now have a large number of
sites. We have provided your staff with a list of those sites
that we can take into the final phase of cleanup.
Despite whatever our disagreements may be about the
program, let's not say to those neighborhoods, let's not say to
those communities that you've waited 10, 12, or 13 years, and
you are now going to have to wait again as we don't have the
dollars to finally get the job done.
Mr. Chairman, you also spoke to the issue of air pollution
and the budget that we present today will help us clean our
air. We do request $75 million. It builds on last year's
congressional appropriations to implement the new public health
air standards, particularly the PM standard.
As you are very aware, the National Academy of Sciences,
per your instructions, has worked with us to develop short-term
research agenda and a long-term research agenda which is almost
complete. The funding that they recommended for a 2-year period
is in keeping with the funding that we request here.
Congress was generous in providing some additional money
last year. When you combine last year's money with our request
this year, we would be a little bit over what the National
Academy of Sciences has recommended for a research agenda at
this point in time. Regarding the long-term research agenda, we
will complete the work with NAS later this year.
You spoke to the issue of data and our responsibility to
both honor the public's right-to-know, giving them access to
information, and ensuring that information is of a quality that
represents both the problems we may face as well as the
progress we have made.
We are engaged in a number of activities. Mr. Hansen can
speak to those during the question and answer period. But, in
particular this budget reflects our commitment to a new Center
for Environmental Information and Statistics. The Center is
designed, for the first time ever, to bring it all together.
We collect data in a number of ways. The States collect the
information. What we have to do is create a whole. We have to
put it together in a cohesive manner.
It is not a small challenge and it is one to which we are
committed.
The budget request stands for sound science--to continue to
build within EPA the world's best program for environmental
science and research. This budget requests funding for programs
that will insure that we have the quality science needed to
engage in peer review, so we can look to the best and brightest
scientists across the country to assist us in the work that we
do.
I know there is some concern, that in some way, the science
or the research and development request is a reduction. The
only way in which there is a change in the number is that we
did not carry forward congressional adds. We believe many of
those projects were well funded in the additions that Congress
made last year. So we don't carry them forward.
We have maintained our funding for those programs that we
have been committed to. We certainly honor what Congress has
asked us to do and if some of those are appropriate for
additional funding, that is a conversation we can engage in.
But that is the only change embodied in our research and
development commitment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you spoke to the need to build
partnerships, whether it be with State government, local
governments, the private sector. This budget request includes
funding to allow us to continue the work with the States.
I have said on many occasions that it is a relationship
that takes constant work. It is a little bit like a marriage.
You have to work on it each and every day.
We are making progress. We will continue at times to have
our disagreements. But we are committed to making the
partnerships with the States work.
You are exactly right. They are out there, doing a lot of
this work on a day-to-day basis.
There are some things we can do better; there are things
that they can do better. It is finding that relationship and
strengthening it each and every day that is important.
Similarly, we are working with the private sector. Through
projects like XL, and the common sense initiative, we are
really changing how we go about doing this job. Mr. Chairman,
you may not be aware that we have actually brought in an
outside consultant to evaluate these programs, to evaluate the
common sense initiative. The consultant is talking to us about
what was successful, what was not successful, identifying areas
we need to change, constantly trying to improve this system.
I would say that we were very pleased, as I think you are,
with the E4E report. The report noted that the activities we
currently have underway follow the appropriate path and at this
point in time, wholesale change would not necessarily be the
most productive. We have to constantly look at new tools,
integrate them into the system, evaluate their effectiveness
and make appropriate adjustments. That is what we are committed
to doing.
prepared statement
With that, Mr. Chairman, we are, again, very pleased to be
here today and more than happy to answer any questions that you
may have about the request.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carol M. Browner
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here today to testify on the
President's 1999 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Agency's budget request for this year is $7.771 billion and support for
18,375 FTE. The 1999 budget request is a six percent increase over the
enacted level for fiscal year 1998. This budget clearly demonstrates
the Administration's abiding commitment to protecting the air we
breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the land on which we
live.
A commitment to environmental protection and economic progress is
the foundation for the President's 1999 budget request. As the
President has said, this time of prosperity is not a time to rest, but
a time to build a better future for our children. The budget increase
the Administration requests for EPA is the embodiment of that spirit.
Like previous budgets submitted by the President, this one is based
on the premise that protecting the environment and protecting public
health are good for the economy. That proposition has been borne out
over the past quarter century, and particularly during the recent years
of unprecedented economic growth. We can all agree that the nation's
economic health is closely linked with the health of the environment.
We can grow the economy while moving forward with the strong,
effective environmental and public health measures that the American
people want and deserve. Just this year, we've seen that it is possible
to eliminate the deficit while strengthening our commitment to a safer,
cleaner, and healthier environment.
This budget meets that commitment by expanding the opportunities
for Americans to know about pollution in their communities. It meets
that commitment by taking measures to improve protections for our
children. It meets that commitment by speeding up toxic waste cleanup,
redeveloping ``brownfields'' sites, and toughening enforcement against
criminal polluters. And it meets that commitment by funding a plan to
help States protect their most endangered watersheds.
I'd like to address some of the specific ways this budget addresses
the critical, emerging environmental challenges of the 21st Century.
This budget reflects the President's determination that through the
Research Fund for America the U.S. will lead the world in meeting the
challenge of global warming by reducing greenhouse gases and doing so
in a way that grows the economy. The ``Climate Change Technology
Initiative (CCTI),'' a multi-Agency initiative including EPA, DOE,
USDA, DOC, and HUD will enable us to meet that challenge. EPA's share
of the initiative, funded in the 1999 budget at $205 million, will help
America meet its global responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through market forces, new technology, and energy efficiency.
EPA will work with industry to find sensible, cost-effective ways to
meet the global warming challenge, all the while continuing on a path
of economic growth.
Another major environmental challenge facing America is the
continued environmental and public health threats related to the
pollution of our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Clean water keeps
both our communities and ecosystems healthy and thriving. EPA's 1999
budget includes $145 million, through the Environmental Resources Fund
for America for the President's Clean Water Initiative. This
initiative, which involves a number of agencies and departments
government-wide, is designed to address today's greatest threats to our
nation's waters including polluted runoff from urban and agricultural
areas, industrial toxics, and the loss of wetlands. The States will
play a key role in this initiative, as most of this new funding will go
directly to the States so that we can protect our critical watersheds
in the most effective way we know: community by community.
To further strengthen our partnership with communities, and to
leverage federal tax dollars in the most effective way, the
Administration supports continued capitalization of the State Revolving
Funds. These funds make available low-interest loans to help
communities meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
The Clean Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will
help ensure that Americans have a safe, clean drinking water supply--
our first line of defense in protecting public health. The Clean Water
State Revolving Funds will help communities keep their waterways safe
and clean and reduce beach closures. The President's proposed
capitalization levels for these two funds will make progress toward the
Administration goal of providing sufficient capital for the funds to
offer $2.5 billion per year in financial assistance to communities over
the long run.
Protecting the health of our children is one of this
Administration's highest priorities, and protecting our environment is
critical to our children's health. This budget adds $8 million to EPA's
budget for implementing the Agency's children's health agenda. This
money will support the activities of EPA's Office of Children's Health
to make sure environmental protection efforts address the unique
vulnerability of children to environmental health threats. Major
activities include working with the Department of Health and Human
Services to establish six Children's Environmental Research Centers,
ensuring that EPA's public health regulations recognize children's
health, and providing information to parents to better protect their
children from environmental hazards.
To ensure that no child should have to grow up near a toxic waste
dump, we will continue our accelerated cleanup of the nation's worst
hazardous waste sites under Superfund. This budget request includes
$2.1 billion for Superfund. This funding, along with continuing
administrative reforms, will ensure that we meet the Administration's
commitment to clean up 900 of the nation's worst toxic waste sites by
the end of the year 2001.
EPA will also continue to expand and strengthen our Brownfields
partnership with states, cities, and communities. This year's budget
request for Brownfields is $91 million. This program has a proven
record of revitalizing communities by helping them return abandoned
industrial sites to productive use.
This Administration is committed to ensuring that our nation's air
quality standards are strong enough to protect the public health. This
budget request supports an investment of $75 million to implement the
new, stronger clean air standards. This investment level honors the
President's commitment to States to fund the costs of deploying a new
fine particulate monitoring network and to provide them the tools
necessary to carry out their monitoring efforts. This effort is crucial
to ensuring cleaner, safer air for all Americans.
This budget provides an increase of $19 million to broaden
citizens' right to know about pollutants in their communities. Examples
of the action we will take include enhancing and improving the public's
ability to gain access to information through the internet and through
EPA's new Center for Environmental Information and Statistics.
We all agree that sound science is the key to sound environmental
policies. This budget includes $527 million for EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), primarily funded through the
Environmental Resources Funds for America, to ensure that we have a
scientific basis to develop cost-effective environmental policies and
to enable new and better approaches to environmental protection.
Finally, it is important to note that this is the first budget that
reflects EPA's new approach of goal-based budgeting linking resources
to environmental results. With this new approach, we are committed to
carrying out the reforms envisioned by the Government Performance and
Results Act. We are confident that this new approach will help us
allocate our resources and measure our successes.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing the Administration's
1999 budget with you and the Committee. I know that you share the
Administration's commitment to protect the environment while continuing
on the Nation's path of unprecedented economic growth. We at the Agency
are working to strengthen our relationships with the public, the
regulated community, and its governmental partners to provide a more
effective and efficient system of environmental protection. Together we
can lay the groundwork for a new era of environmental protection, and
leave our children and grandchildren with a cleaner, safer environment.
data quality
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator.
Let me turn first to the data quality, the GPRA, and the
right to know issues. We have agreed that there is unanimous
support for a performance based environmental protection system
as called for by the E4E and the GPRA. The E4E report says,
``Improved environmental protection must be rich with high
quality information if it is to succeed.'' The inspector
general identified data quality as one of the top 10 concerns
at EPA.
They tell us that EPA has about 500 national information
systems. According to a 1995 GAO report, ``Despite EPA's
efforts to improve the quality of its data, these data are
often unreliable and the agency's many disparate information
systems are not integrated.''
Given that right-to-know is one of the 10 goals of your
strategic plan, are you concerned about the quality of
information provided to the public? If so, why has this not
been a higher priority when it has been raised by the GAO, the
inspector general, and NAPA for many years? What plans, if any,
do you have for improving the quality and the reliability of
the data system and how much do you have in the budget for it?
Ms. Browner. We agree with the need to ensure that all of
our data collection is better integrated.
Part of the problem we face is the variety or the large
number of laws under which we function. The Agency is required
to hold 13 major environmental statutes, and they each direct
us to collect information in a different way. They either
direct the States to do things, as well as direct us to direct
the States to do things.
It is only in the last several years that there has been
this recognition both on the part of EPA, industry, and the
States that integrating these systems would make a lot of
sense. But it is not easily done.
You have 20 years of information collected in very
different ways that now has to be brought into a whole.
We have embraced what I think is a very ambitious program,
our reinventing environmental information initiative, REI, is
designed to take each of the data sets, to look at the quality
of the data being collected, and to decide how it might be
integrated with other data collection.
We have also established a very strong data standardization
program that centralizes review of data collection, and
centralizes how we integrate these systems. We are working with
the States to establish specific data standards. The Agency is
also developing a program for electronic reporting. We have
already begun to receive some information via computers and are
in the process of establishing a support structure for a
national systems reengineering effort. The budget request for
these integration efforts is $18.4 million.
Each of the program areas continues to handle the
responsibility in terms of budgeting for the actual collection.
With respect to the public's right-to-know, we have sought
to honor that right-to-know and expand those efforts. We have
concentrated our efforts within programs where there is a
history of public access. So, for example, the toxic release
inventory has a long track record of how information is made
available to the public. We have sought to improve that.
We are concluding an effort on the Sector Facility Indexing
Project, to make that available to the public and to do it in a
way that ensures the quality of the data.
I might just say, in closing, that it is important to
understand where this data largely comes from. It comes from
facilities. It comes from industry, from those who are required
to meet particular environmental standards. And as important as
it will be for us to ensure the quality of that data, it is
equally important that they do their part.
So we have been engaged through Mr. Hansen and others, in
an effort to ensure that the collection of data is done by the
reporting facilities in an accurate and thorough manner.
data quality: chief information officer role
Senator Bond. I know that there are many things going on.
We have the February 4 memo, I gather from you to assistant
administrators and everybody else, about the reinventing
environmental action plan. At the bottom of the second page it
addresses ensuring data quality. All it says is we are
directing the CEIS in close consultation with EPA program
offices and the CEIS counsel to study this issue and report.
Why has the Center for Environmental Information and
Statistics been charged with it rather than the Chief
Information Officer? I really think you have a whole lot of
systems. But as I read the information from the inspector
general, all of this sharing and all of the information going
back and forth does not seem to have a reliable underlying
quality. I think this is one of the problems.
We may ask the inspector general, the acting inspector
general to address this. But I don't feel that we have an
indication that you are focusing on what has been identified as
a major problem, and that is bad information getting into the
system.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, we do have a number of efforts
underway. The memo that you made reference to, the February 4
memo, has been updated with a subsequent memo this week which
we are happy to provide to you. It says to the Agency that the
Chief Information Officer, the CIO, should actually be
responsible for developing the plans to ensure the quality of
data.
CEIS will make the data public. The CIO will be responsible
for how to ensure the quality of that data before it is made
public. This is an effort, in part, to respond to the kind of
questions that you are raising. We think they are legitimate
questions. As I said before, this is not a small undertaking.
It is going to take the entire agency to make it work well.
This is absolutely essential to the GPRA. We have to get
this piece right to be able to get to the next part of GPRA,
which is to give you the outcomes, to give you the results, to
be able to say the air is this much cleaner, the water is that
much safer. And getting this data piece fixed is extremely
important to that effort. That is why we are continuing and
expanding that work.
Senator Bond. I will come back to related questions in my
next round of questioning. I would only say that we would like
to see the most recent memorandum. Also, the committee would
invite the comments of the acting inspector general to give us
your comments on the progress because we are concerned about
this.
Ms. Browner. Would you like for her to come up to the
table?
Senator Bond. Let's get through some things here first. We
have no shortage of questions and we could be here till next
Tuesday. But we will try to go on a priority basis. I
appreciate that.
Senator Burns. I haven't got anything planned.
ship breaking
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns said he didn't have other plans. But I will
be moving to the Senate floor for the NATO debate.
Ms. Browner, I am going to ask you to shift gears for a
moment and focus on an issue related, really, to both domestic
and foreign policy. That is the issue of ship breaking.
I would like to just inform my colleagues that the
Baltimore Sun did a Pulitzer Prize winning series on what we do
in the United States of America to deal with 130 ships that are
no longer fit for duty or fit for any other recycling, other
than to be scrapped.
Looking at both the Coral Sea, which was being dismantled
in Baltimore, taking it through Texas and even on to India and
other countries, they found terrible situations. In our own
country, ships were being dismantled where old ships have
asbestos, lead, PCB's, all of the problems we know went into
World War II through Vietnam era ships. They found that the
workers were dismantling ships with no environmental protection
to themselves nor to the surrounding community. We then had
PCB's leaking into water supplies and other types of issues.
Then they also found that these ships were being sent to
India where more than 30,000 laborers cut ships apart with
torches and often with their bare hands.
As a result of that, I, and members of the House like
Congressmen George Miller and George Brown, asked the Navy for
a report. You were part of that report.
Could you tell us, then, what is the status of EPA's role
to ensure that when Navy ships are retired, they are retired
with honor and in a way that is environmentally safe to the
worker and to the community both here and abroad?
Ms. Browner. The report, which, as you are well aware, was
provided to Congress last week, has a number of recommendations
that would affect EPA. This includes a recommendation that EPA,
OSHA, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Navy, and others,
develop guidance for testing, removal, and disposal of the
nonliquid PCB's in accordance with other existing rules.
You raise a very valid point about the fact that there were
not the kind of safety requirements in place. There was also no
notification to EPA or other Government agencies when one of
these ships was to be----
Senator Mikulski. No notification by the Navy?
Ms. Browner. No; we did not necessarily know.
One of the recommendations is that the Navy should enter
into an agreement, which we will do, to provide notification to
EPA when a ship scrapping contract is let. The Agency will also
be provided with the location of where that proposed scrapping
operation will occur, and a program whereby EPA and OSHA would
conduct joint compliance inspections of these activities.
Senator Mikulski. And that would be in the United States?
Ms. Browner. Yes; that would be for the operations here in
the United States.
Senator Mikulski. Now abroad, as I understand it, the
committee recommended to my dismay the continual export of
these ships overseas and said that they could be done in an
environmentally safe way and charged you with the international
monitoring to do that.
No. 1, do you agree with that recommendation?
No. 2, do you think you have the resources to go into
another country to see whether these ships would be scrapped in
situations are adequate? I don't think you can.
I am about to introduce a bill prohibiting the export of
those ships, have them done in American shipyards. God knows
that the shipyards are foraging for work, and many of the
shipyards, like Bethlehem Shipyard in my own State, that have
the technical capability to build ships under some pilot
projects might have the technical capability to dismantle and,
therefore, treat these ships like a base closing, which they
were. They were floating military bases. And then they can
retire them in a way that they are safe and cleaned up.
Ms. Browner. We share, as do other parts of the Federal
Government, your concern about selling of these vessels to
foreign scrappers. Included in the report is a recommendation
that EPA, with the Navy and others, look at how to expand
notification to other countries on when these ships are going
to be moved, and a list of the hazardous kind of materials that
are commonly found on these ships.
We also think it would be helpful to revise the
notification to other countries to include what we would refer
to as tacit agreement. A country would have 30 days to object
to the movement of the vessel.
Senator Mikulski. Do you think that is a good policy or are
we dumping our environmental problems with ship scrapping,
which is a complex and expensive issue? Do you think that that
is a good policy, to export these overseas?
Ms. Browner. I don't think there is a simple yes or no
answer.
I think that we all are concerned, particularly at EPA,
that when these vessels are shipped to other countries, that it
be done in a way that does not endanger any individual's health
or the environment. In the report to Congress, the question is
raised about endangering the public health and the environment
and there are specific recommendations about how to improve
that. This includes such things as the Navy exploring the use
of performance bonds and enforceable contracts at firms.
Senator Mikulski. Overseas?
Ms. Browner. That is what they are looking at.
The question for everybody is: What are the tools that
should be brought to bear when it is appropriate for one of
these ships to leave the United States?
Senator Mikulski. Madam Administrator, I am going to be
introducing a bill later on this week--later on this month --
that will deal with ship scrapping both in the United States
and abroad. My bill will prohibit ship scrapping abroad and
then see how we can, in the most constructive way, be able to
scrap these in the United States that would provide jobs and,
at the same time, protect the environment and the worker, and
do it in a way that I think helps the U.S. Navy.
There are 115 ships waiting to be scrapped at tremendous
expense to the United States and because we do not have a
reliable, safe policy, it is ultimately costing us more. It is
like keeping military bases open that have no utility but,
again, I will repeat, should be retired with honor.
So we look forward to working with you on this.
Ms. Browner. Likewise. We would like to work with you and
we certainly share a number of your concerns.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
base realignment and closure [BRAC]
Following up on the thought that Senator Mikulski has, how
much does the EPA get involved with environmental cleanup as a
result of base closings, as a result of BRAC?
Ms. Browner. We have an interagency agreement with the
Department of Defense with respect to fast tract cleanup
military base closures. There are 110 military base closures
that involve some amount of cleanup activities. EPA worked with
the military services and the Department to ensure that the
cleanups are done in accordance with public health and
environmental standards and laws.
One of the things we did do when we started working on base
closures was try to address local communities' concerns. I went
out to some of these bases. What I heard from people was that
under prior rules and guidance, if any of the base had
contamination--and I don't know why this was done--the entire
base would not be available for transfer to the community. And
so, based on that concern, it did not seem like a logical way
to do business to me.
We actually went in and we adjusted our requirements so
that just the area of contamination is fenced off and
addressed, and the remainder of the base can actually be
transferred despite this limited area of contamination. It has
been very successful.
We have done this now in a number of closing military
bases.
[The information follows:]
Congress, the Department of Defense, and EPA amended the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
(CERFA) in October 1992, which allows for the transfer of parcels
designated as ``uncontaminated'' prior to the cleanup of an entire
military installation. This allowed the Department of Defense to
transfer this property in an expedited manner, which in some cases
hastened reuse.
Senator Burns. This is no little figure because I chair the
Military Construction Appropriations. From between now and
2002, we will spend over $10 billion in environmental cleanup.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Burns. I am going to hold oversight hearings on
this because I have the same concerns that you have. There are
just certain areas of a military installation that would
probably have some contamination. We do have some contamination
and we want to clean them up. That is not the point. But I just
wondered how much.
Ms. Browner. If I might just continue, Senator----
Senator Burns. Yes; but I am going to run out of time.
Ms. Browner. EPA has approximately 140 FTE's or workyears
who work on these bases and we are reimbursed by the Department
of Defense for those employees.
regional haze: particulate matter monitors
Senator Burns. That is what scares me to death.
Anyway, let's talk about haze, particularly as it got
started, as you know in the West and the Grand Canyon. That is
kind of where it got started, and all of this.
I see where the President's budget request is for $67.5
million to develop a national monitoring network for fine
particulate matter. I am getting feedback from the States
saying that the program would probably cost closer to $90
million.
Ms. Browner. We are carrying approximately $90 million for
the monitors. You are just looking, I think, at this year's
budget request. We had some money last year. There is this
year's request and there will be a modest amount next year.
Senator Burns. Tell me how adequate is the existing
monitoring network for measuring visibility in all Class I
areas.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, if I might have a little extra
time here. I would like to walk through the monitoring system
because it is a complicated issue that includes both the Class
I haze issue and the fine particles for which this committee
has been very helpful in terms of providing resources. It will
take me a minute to do that, if that is agreeable to you.
Senator Burns. How much are you requesting this year for
monitoring?
Ms. Browner. We are requesting, this year, the total dollar
amount of $65 million, to purchase the monitors. That is added
to an amount that was provided last year. We have already
notified the committee that we would be seeking a small amount
next year.
We buy these monitors over an extended period of time. That
is No. 1. No. 2, we are paying the States' cost share.
Historically, under the Clean Air Act, when new monitors
are installed, the States pay about 40 percent of the costs and
we are covering 100 percent in this budget.
Senator Burns. I am told now that this is more in the area
of particulate rather than in haze. Is that so?
Ms. Browner. Included in the monitoring request are 100 of
what we call improve monitors, which support the regional haze
efforts in Class I areas and the PM-2.5 transport issues. These
included in the total monitoring sites.
Senator Burns. OK. Now going along those lines, the States
are concerned that if there is an underfunding, more of that
responsibility is going to fall on the States. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Browner. I will tell you that we have made adjustments
in this President's budget specifically at the request of the
States. We increased the number of PM monitors at the request
of the States to the tune of 200 more monitors.
We think we have been responsive. If you are aware of
something that we were not responsive to on the part of the
States, we are more than happy to sit down with them and figure
this out.
This was not something we arrived at on our own. We took it
to an external peer review panel and did not include those
additional monitors.
The States came to us. They asked us for the additional
monitors, and we have incorporated that into this budget
request.
regional haze: visibility research
Senator Burns. OK. In 1990, the Congress required the EPA
to undertake the research before it conducted the rulemaking to
impose regional haze requirements on the country. Congress
authorized $40 million for EPA's visibility research, but your
budget for visibility research was not very much. The Clean Air
Act required the administrator to report on its research
findings and assessment results.
Now, with that in mind, after a court ordered EPA to
produce its report, did EPA prepare a paper on visibility
research?
Ms. Browner. This is earmarked from 1990? I apologize, but
I did not understand the beginning of your question.
Senator Burns. Well, in 1990, the Congress said you are
required to make these reports before you conduct the
rulemaking on haze.
Ms. Browner. We have engaged in the scientific evaluation
of haze for almost 15 years now through the Grand Canyon
Visibility Commission and other activities. I guess what you
are citing is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and a
requirement that we make reports to Congress. To the best of my
knowledge, we are up to date on those reports.
Senator Burns. Well, we can't find them, it seems.
Ms. Browner. We would be more than happy to provide the
reports to you and if there is a problem, we will remedy it. I
am not aware of a problem.
[Clerk's note.--Per the direction of Subcommittee staff,
the Agency has provided reports on Regional Haze and Visibility
Research directly to Senator Burns.]
Senator Burns. What my concern is, really quickly, is this.
The States got together and spent about 2 years gathering
information on haze. None of that information, when it was
submitted to you, was even used or considered. I am hearing
this from every Governor without exception in that particular
area. We are concerned about that. And there are certain tasks
that you were required to do before you start promulgating
rules.
I am going to lay this out in a little better order because
we are concerned about the best available retrofit technology,
because we have coal powered plants out there, and we have more
than 1, 2, or 3 States involved. Also I am concerned about
Federal agencies that may be exempt from contributing to haze
because we have controlled burns from the Forest Service.
Are we going to put extra rules on the private sector in
order to make up for what is happening in that area? It is
those areas that I am very concerned about.
By the way, this fellow who built those houses up there at
Austin, is he still with the EPA?
Ms. Browner. We are not allowed publicly to comment on
personnel matters. There have been personnel changes in that
region.
Senator Burns. OK. We will leave it right there, then.
Ms. Browner. It is in the Privacy Act.
Senator Burns. Funny, that never occurred to me in private
business. I'll tell you that he would be gone very quickly
there. It's unbelievable.
Ms. Browner. Senator Burns, you raised two points that I
want to be responsive to.
First of all, on the regional haze issue, it is a proposed
rule and we are continuing the dialog with the States. For
example, we really appreciate the work we have been able to do
with Utah and the work we have been doing with Colorado on the
situation. We have not made a final decision.
No. 2--and this is extremely important because there is a
lot of confusion about this--controlled burns/forest fires, the
day those things occur are the days that they occur. Those data
points, those pollution levels are tossed out. They are not
part of how you determine whether or not an area needs to take
steps to reduce their pollution.
We all recognize the importance of controlled burns. We all
recognize that forest fires will occur. So those are not part
of the database.
Senator Bond. Senator Burns, I believe your time has
expired.
Senator Burns. One more question and then I have to go, and
you will get rid of me.
How many more commissions have been put in place, these
regional commissions, to monitor haze?
Ms. Browner. The Grand Canyon is the only one at this time.
Senator Burns. How come the rest of them have not been
done?
Ms. Browner. It is up to the States to make decisions as to
whether or not they want to do that. They may well decide that.
I am not privy to their thinking on that.
Senator Bond. Senator Burns, thank you. We would be happy
to work with you in getting your questions in the record if you
have additional questions.
Senator Burns. I'll get the questions to you.
Ms. Browner. Apparently, the western Governors may be
thinking about doing something like that. We have heard some
information from their association.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
We will go now to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping
that other discussion would just continue on.
Senator Bond. Actually, I do some controlled burning
myself. I almost lost a wood fence when the wind turned into
the wrong direction. [Laughter.]
fiscal year 1999 president's budget
Senator Lautenberg. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we are
holding this hearing and that we have the EPA administrator
here to discuss the budget for 1999. I want to take this
opportunity to thank her for the terrific job that she has done
at EPA.
I know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member
support environmental cleanup and this is one of the friendlier
places for the Administrator to show up. I have seen her having
to withstand some pretty tough fire and continue to pursue the
objectives for which she has been appointed. She does it very
well and the department functions well.
I want to tell you that, with the uncertainties that
constantly seem to surround EPA in terms of whether or not
there will be funding, et cetera, whether there is support for
their mission, the folks who staff EPA do a wonderful job. I
think over the years we are beginning to see this in the rate
of progress in things like Superfund cleanup and some of the
fights that we have been engaged in to clean up the water.
And yet, so many things are in suspension right now because
we are not funding them.
I am, as is the chairman, a member of the Budget Committee,
and we are committed to a balanced budget. As a consequence of
that, the reins are very tight on expenditures, much of which I
think is kind of short-changing really important projects, like
clean water, clean air, and Superfund.
I would ask, Madam Administrator, what is going to be the
impact on EPA and the environment if we do not fund the
increases that the President requested?
Ms. Browner. I don't think it is as much a question of what
the impact is on EPA. I think the question is, what is the
impact on the American people?
The funding increases that we seek are largely within three
separate areas. One is toxic waste cleanup. Without this
increase there will be literally dozens of communities where
sites are ready for their final cleanup and they will be asked
to wait another 1, 2, 3, however many years, before the money
is there. These are communities that have already waited 8, 9,
10 years. They want these sites cleaned up and want the
redevelopment to occur. Without the one-time, additional
funding we seek, it is just not going to happen.
In terms of clean water, the most pressing problem we now
face is polluted runoff. We have asked Congress to strengthen
the Clean Water Act. We have asked them to rewrite it to give
the States and to give EPA better tools to do that. We have not
been able to find agreement on such a proposal. But this budget
request would allow the States additional dollars to develop
the kind of plans they will need. Many State legislatures are
already embracing this. Maryland and others have started to say
we have to look at this polluted runoff issue. We have to think
more broadly about how we address these problems.
The EPA budget request is $145 million for the President's
plan, of which $120 million essentially goes to the States. Of
the $145 million, $120 million goes directly to the States to
address or begin the process of addressing polluted runoff.
The final budget request is for climate change. This is an
effort to do what many on this committee and many in the
Congress have repeatedly requested that we do, which is to work
in partnership with the private sector to develop the
technologies to reduce energy use. These are very successful
programs. The return on the investment is quite remarkable. We
fear that if we cannot continue these efforts reaching out to
the business community and reducing our energy use, the
consequences for future generations will be quite significant,
and the costs of fixing the problems will be far greater than
what we seek here.
slowed superfund cleanup
Senator Lautenberg. You mentioned the fact that many of the
cleanups will have to wait. Are we talking about cleanups where
EPA has arrived at the remedy----
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. And has all of the
technical stuff pretty much done?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a guess as to how many sites
might be affected?
sites ready for final cleanup
Ms. Browner. You are exactly right. These sites are in the
final stage. Everything is done. We know what we need to do out
there. The community knows what we are going to do. Everyone is
in agreement and it is simply a matter of doing that final work
at the site, which may be a 1, 2, or 3 year effort.
We have provided the committee with the universe of sites
out of which there may be particular sites affected. We cannot
tell you which particular sites because, at this committee's
direction and others, we do a risk ranking on an annual basis.
The most important thing to understand is that at the end
of September, 1998, which is the end of this fiscal year, we
will have 30 sites ready for final cleanup that we will not
have money for. We will not be able to do what those
communities want.
At the end of September 1999, there will be an additional
50 sites ready for final cleanup.
The other problem that happens is that we are not able to
move everyone else through the pipeline as quickly now as we
would with these additional resources. So it causes two
problems.
One, our communities are asked to wait where everything is
done but the cleanup, and another set of communities does not
get advanced as quickly as they could be.
edison lab
Senator Lautenberg. EPA Region II has a laboratory function
housed in a converted 1917 military warehouse in Edison, NJ.
That is not a very conducive environment for scientists to be
working in and the work that they do is pretty important.
Last year I had asked a question for the record and you
responded by saying that the Edison laboratory was a high
priority. But there is no request in the budget for fiscal year
1999 for this. What do we have to do to get this facility
modernized so that the work efficiency factor can be improved
significantly?
Ms. Browner. Senator Lautenberg, we do share your concern.
We do not include this in our budget request this year because
we had to make some difficult decisions.
We are building a state of the art science facility in
North Carolina. The ground is broken and we are moving ahead.
But it has not yet been fully funded. We believe at this point
in time that we must complete that state of the art science
facility. We don't have our own science facility down at RTP. I
think we occupy 11 different buildings. We made a difficult
decision to close out the funding request on that so that we
could get it done in a timely manner. Then we would look to
issues like the Edison laboratory.
It in no way suggests that we don't share the concerns you
have about that facility. But a budget means some tough
decisions and this was one of those tough decisions.
Senator Lautenberg. So if the funding were there, you would
do these things concurrently? You would do the development of
the North Carolina facility and the Edison laboratory as well?
Ms. Browner. If additional funding were provided, we would
follow the wishes of Congress.
Senator Lautenberg. But you have acknowledged that the
Edison facility is an important one and that you would like to
see it retained and improved, if we could do so.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have several other
questions which I will submit. I thank you for the time that I
have had.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Now that we have Mr. Hansen's April 29 memorandum, I gather
that the EPA's Chief Information Officer is going to lead the
effort. Does this mean he will be held accountable for all data
quality information management and we can set him up and if
next year it is still inadequate, we will string him up on the
dunking booth at the county fair?
Ms. Browner. I just wanted to find him. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Is he hiding back there?
Ms. Browner. He's here.
sector facility indexing
Senator Bond. One of the things that troubles us and that
has troubled the others is the quality of information which is
dispersed. I am not going to get into it. I will have questions
for the record on the sector facility indexing project [SFIP]
that you mentioned, which is being run by the enforcement
office. It is not their job. There are questions which have
been raised that EPA's ranking under the SFIP does not provide
any meaningful information on the enforcement actions or
noncompliance. So a paperwork violation would appear as
significant as a violation with public health risks, one
instance of noncompliance would be counted the same as many,
and an instance of noncompliance lasting 1 day would be counted
the same as one lasting many weeks.
The Michigan Director of Environmental Quality wrote the
EPA: ``We will have to expend our limited agency resources
chasing issues that may rank high on the scale of public
perception but will have no basis in fact and may relate to
facilities in substantial compliance.'' That is why we
understand that the States oppose the project.
So we would like to leave those questions for you to
respond to because I do want to get to the Clean Water Action
Plan.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of having a full
discussion, we have made adjustments in the sector facilities
indexing in keeping with a number of the issues you raised.
Senator Bond. I know. EPA decided not to include the
hazardous toxicity ranking.
Ms. Browner. Right. But I want to be certain you know that
we have been engaged in that process. It is an ongoing process.
Tomorrow we intend to release part of the information.
Senator Bond. Will you have addressed the objections by the
States?
Ms. Browner. We believe we have. I want to say that we
worked very closely with the States. There are some in the
States who are comfortable but there will always be some who
are not. There will always be some amount of disagreement over
what is a paper violation, with some people saying it more is
purely a paper violation and others saying it is significant.
That is the nature of the thing.
Clean Water State Revolving fund funding level
Senator Bond. We want to move on in whatever time we have
left to the Clean Water Action Program. This is something I
mentioned before.
I believe very strongly that clean water is essential to
dealing with environmental problems and with many public health
problems. That is why I am very much concerned that the
administration is proposing a $275 million cut to clean water
State revolving funds when the administration places such a
high priority on clean water and there is a $139 billion need
nationally for clean water infrastructure financing according
to EPA's September 1997 needs survey and in view of the fact
that this money, at the States' behest, can be used for
nonpoint source controls.
Would you tell us why the cut is proposed?
Ms. Browner. We are honoring the commitment we made at the
beginning of this administration to see the State clean water
funds revolve at $2 billion as a long-term goal. What we said
to the States was that this fund will revolve at $2 billion
annually. This funding request honors that commitment.
We made a decision to ensure that the largest amount of
dollars went into the drinking water fund because for the first
time the States can move money between the two funds. They have
never had that opportunity before. And the amount of money they
can move is capped based on how much goes to drinking water.
So in an effort to bump up the cap, we wanted to fully fund
drinking water to give the States the greatest flexibility.
clean water action plan
Senator Bond. When you are looking at a $139 billion need,
I have real questions whether $2 billion a year is adequate. It
is going to take many years for the revolving funds to meet the
need and I just frankly don't think that there are adequate
resources going in to the State revolving funds.
Let me say that with respect to the Clean Water Action
Plan, we are going to do everything we can to provide the
funds. We provided an increase of $5 million above the
President's request last year for nonpoint source grants.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Bond. In addition, you will recall that the
committee added funds for research on agro-forestry, which I
believe affords us a non-Governmentally funded way of
determining whether farmers, land owners, ranchers, by planting
shrubs and trees on buffer strips along the waterways can
generate economic returns and clean up the water by using the
root systems to trap the nutrients, the pollutants, the
chemicals, the livestock waste and everything else in a manner
that is environmentally beneficial and economically sound.
Much of the plan, the Clean Water Action Plan, that I have
seen seems to be about interagency coordination and a stronger
focus on nonpoint sources, and I question whether this will
require additional resources. I have worked in other committees
with other hats on with USDA and the Soil and Water
Conservation people, the NRSC--NRCS, or whatever you call the
Soil Conservation Service these days, and I can't keep up with
the name changes. Aren't the actions necessary to achieve many
of these goals carried out in cooperation with the private
sector, with USDA agencies, and other agencies rather than as a
result directly of EPA activities?
Ms. Browner. EPA has the major responsibility for the care
and safeguarding of our water in the United States. We are the
keeper, per congressional direction, of the Clean Water Act.
I think that while you are exactly right that the Clean
Water Action Plan involves a number of other agencies, as we
have done this work we have realized the important role they
can bring to the task--to exclude EPA from these efforts.
Senator Bond. We are not saying to exclude EPA.
Ms. Browner. Oh, I know.
Senator Bond. I am saying that where you are going to get
the most bang for your buck in nonpoint source pollution
solutions is going to be through modifications, enhancements,
livestock, and other farming operations.
Ms. Browner. That is, in part, true. The States have the
resources to actually develop the plans. States will determine
that the most important thing they can do along the Missouri
River is replant here; the most important thing they can do is
to restore this wetland over there; the most important thing
they can do is to reach out and work with these farmers. That
is what the EPA money goes to.
As I said earlier, our request is $145 million for the
President's Clean Water Action Plan of which $120 million goes
out to the States to let them develop the plans. This then
allows USDA and others more effectively to target their
resources.
But we have to have these watershed plans. It is really at
the basis of all of this.
Senator Bond. I would conclude and turn this over to my
ranking member after noting, No. 1, as you pointed out, the SRF
money can be used to address nonpoint source pollution
problems. A small amount of it can.
You are talking about working with farmers. To be quite
frank, EPA is not going to understand, work with, or be
accepted by agriculture----
Ms. Browner. We're not talking about EPA.
Senator Bond [continuing]. To the extent that the Soil
Conservation Services will.
I am just saying that we need to move forward on this.
Realistically, the agencies that are going to have to do it are
going to be the agencies within the USDA.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, again, we are not talking about
EPA. We are talking about the States getting the money and then
working through the farming organizations.
I agree with you that the best way in many instances to
reach farmers is through organizations where they have a
longstanding relationship. It is one of the reasons why we
entered into a memorandum of agreement on wetlands on
farmlands. We appreciate that.
I just hope the committee can give serious consideration to
our modest funding request because I do think it is important
for the States to be able to do that.
Senator Bond. We have already said we have, we do, we will,
we are doing it.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Senator Bond. And it is also being done in agriculture and
other areas.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski.
water quality: federal agencies' roles
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I think
your line of questioning has pretty much the same direction I
am going to go in because I am going to raise the issue of
pfiesteria as well as other marine biotoxins.
Your point about the tree planting along the waterbeds, if
you will, or water shorelines, is exactly what Senator Sarbanes
advocated. So we really have a bipartisan consensus. The Vice
President came to the Chesapeake Bay to actually support that
particular endeavor.
I think what we don't have clear in our minds, because it
is in different committees, is literally to say take a look at
Maryland, if I could, or Missouri, or North Carolina, which
also have a pfiesteria problem and then have almost a chart
saying EPA will do this, USDA resources will do that, Soil
Conservation will be doing such and such.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the Soil Conservation
people, the land grant college approach, the Maryland Extension
Agents are the ones that work with our farmers. When pfiesteria
hit Maryland--and I will soon get to my question--we were
really scared. We were scared about the consequences to public
health. We were scared about the consequences to the Maryland
seafood economy. Then, in our action, while looking out for the
protection of seafood, we didn't want to destroy the Maryland
poultry industry which, literally, has been one of the forces
in saving jobs on the Eastern Shore.
Now we are trying to work through all of that. Again, I
want to thank you and Mr. Perciasepe for really doing that.
Perhaps in describing where we are in the Maryland
situation and what resources are needed both by EPA, you could
describe that model because I think it is important for the
chairman to get a sense that there is a model. Then it is
important for me to see if you've got those resources for not
only my State but then what we are going to do in other States
so that if a State like Maryland takes positive, constructive
action, we are not economically penalized by States that drag
their heels or refuse to accept the problem.
Do you follow me?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. My question here is what are we doing, do
you have the money to do it, and are we accomplishing what I
think both Senator Bond and I are saying?
Ms. Browner. The President's Clean Water Action Plan is the
first Governmentwide effort to address polluted runoff. It
details what each of the participating departments and agencies
will do. The entire budget request for all of the agencies is
about $568 million, of which only $145 million comes to EPA.
There is a recognition that the Department of Agriculture needs
to receive more funding because of the role it has to play in
addressing this problem.
But it takes participation by each part of the Government.
In terms of the State of Maryland, we are including in this
budget request $2 million for pfiesteria research and State
aid. It would not all be for Maryland. As you point out, other
States have experienced a pfiesteria problem. We have also
proposed increases in State resources to identify watersheds
that experience an excess nutrient pollution problem, such as
pfiesteria. This would be in the form of the 106 grants. We are
requesting a $20 million increase for grants which the States
can apply for. States with particular problems obviously are
the ones that we are targeting with that increase in funding.
It is extremely important, as we all think about polluted
runoff, whether it is agricultural or urban runoff, to
recognize that the solutions will require a number of Federal
agencies working together.
animal feeding operations [AFO's]
Senator Mikulski. But then let's go to what has now been
identified as one of the major areas, which I think gives
Senator Bond pause and also which we share, which is reducing
water pollution from animal feeding operations. Then what is
the best way to do that. As you probably know, Maryland farmers
were not happy with the action taken by the Maryland General
Assembly. My position is let's not fingerpoint. Let's pinpoint
the problem and then see.
Could you tell us what role you have and intend to have in
reducing the water pollution from AFO's. Then, also, if a State
does a plan, what are you doing about regional solutions so
that, for example, in our case, both the Maryland poultry
industry is not disadvantaged by another State or by another
country?
Ms. Browner. There has been increasing interest in this
issue and we are working on how best to have a national focus,
in part because of the competitive issues that you raise. We
are now, through Bob Perciasepe and others, engaged in public
outreach to determine what sized facilities might be
appropriate for national standards and to determine what States
would do relative to those national standards.
We do recognize, as is true in almost all of our programs,
that once you have a national program, there may be the need
for an individual State, given particular problems and
challenges, to have perhaps a more rigorous or some additional
components to the program.
But we are now working in partnership with the USDA to
develop a unified national strategy for animal feeding
operations. We are talking about large numbers of animals, a
large amount of waste.
Senator Mikulski. But specific industries--Mr. Chairman, if
I could just have your indulgence to pursue this----
Senator Bond. Please.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. In my State it is poultry
and in other States it could be cattle, dairy, et cetera.
Ms. Browner. Right.
Senator Mikulski. My listening to the debate in my own
State and then in the excellent hearing that Senator Harkin and
Senator Lugar had on this issue, tells me that we have to be
sure that the agricultural interests feel that they are at the
table with those also involved in environmental protection and
in public health.
Now are you all going to have some type of advisory board
where you are going to bring the industries to participate
where you hear what they have to say and then the practical as
well as the fiscal implications to them in implementing it, and
that we then try to work in a national consensus? I don't want
another Clean Air Act problem where we then say the science is
not good enough, it is not sound, and then we all argue about
the science.
I think if they could really be brought in----
Ms. Browner. We are doing that.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. That is important.
Ordinarily, I do not single out a particular company. But Mr.
Jim Perdue--not Frank, but Jim, the one who has taken over the
Perdue chicken venture--has a doctorate in marine biology. He
is a very unusual person to be involved in this. He has a Ph.D.
in marine biology. That was going to be his life's work, but he
has taken over the family poultry business.
I would really hope you would include him and then others
who have both the industry and yet who want to work for
constructive solutions. Otherwise we are going to be at one
more finger pointing position, arguing over what sound science
is, et cetera. I think we all recognize that this is an
American problem and in some States now it is at crisis
proportion.
But we need to work through this. I also think that Senator
Bond was right. The American farmers, regardless of whether he
is in animal husbandry or in plantings, is a rugged
individualist. These farmers do not go for government. But they
do have confidence in some government agencies, like the
Extension Service, Soil Conservation, and so on.
So we need to make best use of them, best use of Government
thinking, and best use of those agencies that have had
longstanding ways of communicating, but then you value-add to
it. So this is really what we are looking for.
Am I on the right track here, Mr. Chairman, with your
thinking?
Senator Bond. I believe so. I think we want to accomplish
these goals and the question is how best we can do it. I have
some questions about the emphasis being out on the wrong
syllable.
Senator Mikulski. Did you get that? He said the emphasis on
the wrong syllable. [Laughter.]
I took Latin in Catholic girls' school, so I can understand
wrongly accented syllables. [Laughter.]
animal feeding operations: stakeholder involvement
Ms. Browner. As I said earlier, we are working in
partnership with USDA because we believe that they can help
bring parties to the table and help facilitate the dialog in an
honest and forthright manner.
We have been in a dialog with the pork producers. In fact,
I just conducted a town hall meeting with pork producers, with
men and women who farm every day. They held a meeting and I was
able to join them via satellite for several hours.
It was very productive and it builds on a 2-year effort
with the pork producers.
We have just done that kind of dialog and that kind of
outreach with the poultry producers. And we are looking to do
it with other appropriate sectors of the industry where you
have growth, particularly in the very large animal feeding
operations. We estimate that there are about 6,600 of these
very large facilities.
But please know that we are interested in the dialog. I
think the dialog with pork producers has been very positive. We
have not agreed on everything. But we have certainly come to
understand each other much better and we will certainly take
your advice on Mr. Perdue and see how we might be able to
involve him.
Senator Mikulski. Or at least if not him, then someone who
comes with the background of both, of the industry and an
understanding of the science.
Ms. Browner. We have put out a draft strategy describing
how we might proceed and have asked people to comment on it. We
will make sure that both of your offices have copies of that
because it lays out a many year approach.
[Clerk's note.--On the request of Subcommittee staff, the
Agency has provided the Draft Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations for the Subcommittee files.]
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Ms. Browner.
Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions on other issues,
like brownfields, that I will submit for the record. I have to
get to the floor.
Senator Bond. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Ms. Browner, and thank you,
Mr. Perciasepe and everybody.
clean water action plan vs. clean water state revolving fund funding
Senator Bond. Madam Administrator, to wrap this up, as I
look at the Clean Water Action Plan, I see that State grant
assistance essentially goes up by about $115 million--that is,
$115 million out of the $145 million increase overall. But at
the same time, you are cutting $275 million out of the Clean
Water SRF.
In 1998, we enacted $484 million in this category which you
have in the clean water and watershed restoration budget
initiative going to EPA. The recommendation is it goes up to
$629 million. Of the increase, as I said, $115 million is for
State grants and $30 million is for water quality program
management.
Ms. Browner. I think a chunk of that also goes to the
States.
Senator Bond. But that balances against a $275 million cut
in the SRF for clean water.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, we agree with you there is a
change in the allocation for the States in terms of the water
money. Part of the differences in the numbers, to make sure we
understand each other, is we did not carry forward the majority
of the congressional earmarks, of which there were a large
number.
Senator Bond. We understand that. That is not what we are
talking about.
Ms. Browner. That is about $200 million.
Senator Bond. We are talking about the SRF, $275 million.
Ms. Browner. But that is within the total water budget
request. I thought you were talking about the total water
request.
Senator Bond. No.
Ms. Browner. OK. I apologize.
animal feeding operations: authority to regulate
Senator Bond. I am talking about this.
Let me just ask a couple of quick questions with respect to
the clean water initiative.
Regarding CAFO, the animal feeding operations, everyone
agrees that we need to ensure that the CAFO's are in
compliance. You indicated you have been working with the
States, industry, and interest groups and that your goal is to
develop a science based, affordable, achievable strategy to
address these problems.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Bond. And you agree with that. With your AFO
strategy and Clean Water Action Plan, do you now, under
existing authorization have adequate authority to confront the
problems you have identified regarding livestock farms? Are you
going to be asking for additional legislative authority? Is
additional authority needed? And what type of regulatory
requirements could small producers expect from the EPA within
this area?
Ms. Browner. We do not believe that we need any amendments
to the Clean Water Act. In fact, today, about a quarter of the
largest facilities are carrying some kind of permit. What we
have said in the CAFO strategy is that we would work with the
States to fully address the largest CAFOs by the year 2002. A
permit likely would be the end point.
Let me back up for a second.
animal feeding operation regulation: focus on large operation first
We estimate there are about 450,000 animal feeding
operations of which approximately 6,000 or 7,000 are the really
large ones. Our initial focus is on those large operations. We
do believe, and I think some in the industry would agree with
this, that there are new technologies, such as waste management
technologies, runoff controls. You have already seen them put
in place in some States.
So our initial focus is on these largest facilities. Some
of them are carrying some kind of permits. At this time, we
would look to ensure that all of them are meeting basic
requirements and protecting the water resources and the
communities in which they operate.
One of the first things we are doing--and this may be of
interest to you--is we are developing a national inventory of
these types of facilities and a better understanding of the
pollutant loadings that are associated with these facilities.
Someone told me recently that in a dairy production, one
cow can generate up to 80 pounds of waste a day. Some of these
facilities are actually producing more waste than a very small
town may be producing. So developing programs to better manage
that waste is important.
Senator Bond. That is where milk has come from historically
and that is what cows do while they are producing milk.
Ms. Browner. Well, we're for milk, and they do produce a
lot of waste. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. This is not something new. This is something
we can do.
Ms. Browner. But what is new is putting thousands of them
into one spot and confining them.
When we had open grazing the waste was more distributed.
But we don't have open grazing in many situations now.
particulate matter: national academy of sciences report
Senator Bond. Let me move on to particulate matter.
I have talked about the National Academy of Sciences March
31 report. It states, among other things: ``EPA should devote
more funds to studying the types of particles most likely to be
harmful to human health, the ways particles cause damage, the
levels of exposure people actually receive.'' It concludes by
saying, ``Proceeding in the absence of such information could
lead policymakers to focus on standards and controls for PM
that are not of the highest public health priority.''
My question to you is what are EPA's plans to refocus its
research both in terms of the fiscal year 1998 budget and the
fiscal year 1999 request to account for the recommendations of
the NAS?
Ms. Browner. We have been working with the NAS--in fact,
we'll have another meeting with the NAS in June--to make
adjustments in the short-term research agenda. As explained
earlier, we have not received the report yet on the long-term
research agenda from the Academy.
The easiest way to think about this is that our research
agenda was more focused on figuring out which smokestacks were
producing the fine particles. The Academy suggested to us that,
while that work is important, we needed to increase our focus
on the biological mechanisms. So that is the adjustment we are
making.
Senator Bond. Does it not make sense to find out what the
problems are so you know how to structure the monitoring? That
is their whole point.
Ms. Browner. Yes; and we don't disagree with what the
Academy has said. We are making adjustments which we will be
discussing with them in the allocation of our research dollars.
The research agenda, the research dollars over a 2-year
period is in this year, 1998, $47.2 million that we will
actually spend. Then, in 1999, it is $52 million.
The $8 million difference there is a result of funding the
centers. I think your staffer is informed about this.
We are out soliciting for center proposals. You directed us
to fund centers and we are doing that. But all of the proposals
have to be peer reviewed. So we are engaged in the peer review
process. The actual release of the funds won't occur until the
next fiscal year.
Senator Bond. I understand and you told me that you are
waiting to get peer review and all of that. But it seems to me
that these are very basic questions that we need to answer as
we move forward.
Ms. Browner. I agree.
Senator Bond. I believe that the proposals can go out and
should go out more rapidly so we know what it is we are dealing
with. That has been part of the problem that I think the
National Academy of Sciences has outlined. We are racing down
the road and we don't know which of the many forks we are
taking until we get the basic research. That is my point. That
is why there was the earmark last year.
We are disappointed that the research grants have not been
let yet this year because we have a tight timetable to get this
done.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, Congress
told us to work very rapidly with the Academy. We have met your
deadlines for working with the Academy on a short-term research
agenda and we feel that it is appropriate to withhold the
announcement for the centers until the Academy told us where to
spend the research money.
So all we are trying to do is make sure it all fits back
together, as you have told us to do. So we are now ready to go
forward with the centers.
Senator Bond. Will you commit, then, to following the
National Academy of Sciences recommendations to assure that the
funds are allocated to the highest priority research needs?
Ms. Browner. We are in dialog with the Academy and we have
a full meeting on June 22 and 23 with them on how we are
allocating our research dollars.
Senator Bond. Will you advise us----
Ms. Browner. Certainly.
Senator Bond [continuing]. If you come to agreement and, if
not, why you do not and where you do not?
Ms. Browner. Yes; certainly.
Senator Bond. We want to follow that up.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
particulate matter: research request
Senator Bond. We are concerned that EPA's fiscal year 1999
budget request would actually cut the PM research one-half, and
NAS has called for about $50 million next year.
Ms. Browner. It is important to understand that, when you
look at the NAS report and you look at how our budget is
allocated, we are talking about 2-years worth of expenditures.
Essentially, what the NAS recommended over a 2 year period and
what this budget request represents plus what Congress very
generously provided last year, we are essentially at the same
place in terms of total dollar amounts. I think we are at $95
million and the Academy is at $86 million. So we are actually a
little bit higher.
You have to look at this over a 2-year period because that
is how it is going to be spent.
Senator Bond. I do not believe that that is accurate. I
don't think that your Science Advisory Board agrees with that.
We will have to continue this discussion.
Ms. Browner. We are more than happy to provide the detailed
numbers of the money. It was $47.4 million for 1998 and $52
million for 1999. The $52 million includes the $8 million that
you appropriated for this year. Because we waited for the
Academy's recommendations, it will actually be spent in the
next year.
[The information follows:]
Detail Numerical Breakout of the NAS Report vs. Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Request
Below is a comparison of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) estimated Fiscal Year 1998 Enacted Budget and Fiscal Year 1999
President's Budget Request to the National Research Council (NRC)/
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations for Particulate
Matter (PM) Research. To summarize, the NRC recommends $39.6M in fiscal
year 1998 and $45.7M in fiscal year 1999 be spent on PM research to
address their highest priority research areas for a total of $85.3M.
EPA has in its Fiscal Year 1998 Enacted Budget $50.2M for PM research
(plus an additional $5.2M in certain Congressional ``add-ons'' as
listed below). For fiscal year 1999, the President's Budget Request
includes $28.7M for PM research within EPA's Office of Research and
Development and $15M for monitoring ``super sites'' within EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation; a total of $43.7M related to PM research needs in
fiscal year 1999. EPA's combined PM research-related budget for these
two years is $93.9M (plus an additional $5.2M in certain Congressional
``add-ons'').
However, the $8M funding for five university-based research centers
focusing on PM-related health effects, as provided for in the fiscal
year 1998 Appropriations, will be funded in fiscal year 1999. The
Agency waited for the NRC's recommendation of priority research areas
before issuing a Request for Applications of grants to focus on these
priority research areas. Upon receipt of the NRC's recommendations, EPA
immediately prepared the Request for Applications, which will be
announced in May, 1998 and will provide a five-month period for
submitting applications. As a result, grants supporting the centers
will not be awarded until the beginning of fiscal year 1999. Therefore,
we expect fiscal year 1998 funding of PM research to be $42.2 plus the
$5.2M in certain Congressional ``add-ons'' for a total of $47.4M.
Whereas, the fiscal year 1999 funding for EPA's PM research efforts,
including the fiscal year 1998 resources for the centers, will be
$51.7M.
COMPARISON OF EPA ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGETS TO NRC RECOMMENDATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC recommendation EPA
fiscal year -------------------------
------------------------ Estimate Presidential
enactment budget
1998 1999 fiscal fiscal year
year 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. NRC highest priority research areas........................ 39.6 45.7 42.7 22.6
II. Implementation-related research, not identified in NRC .......... .......... 7.5 6.1
report as among highest priorities...........................
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Sections I and II........................... .......... .......... 50.2 28.7
=================================================
III. OAR Monitoring ``super sites''........................... .......... .......... .......... 15.0
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Sections I, II, and III..................... .......... .......... 50.2 43.7
=================================================
IV. Five University-based Research Centers: Centers (earmarked .......... .......... -8.0 8.0
in fiscal year 1998; grants awarded in fiscal year 1999).....
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Sections I, II, III, and IV................. .......... .......... 42.2 51.7
=================================================
V. Other Fiscal Year 1998 Enacted Congressional ``Add-ons'':
Lovelace.................................................. .......... .......... 2.0 ............
Johns Hopkins............................................. .......... .......... 1.5 ............
Jewish Lung Center........................................ .......... .......... 1.7 ............
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... .......... .......... 5.2 ............
=================================================
Total................................................... .......... .......... 47.4 51.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The research in the Congressional ``Add-ons'' (section V. above) broadly support Air-related research,
including PM.
particulate matter: monitors request
Senator Bond. I think the Academy's recommendations assumed
that that would be spent this year.
The EPA has requested $65 million for fiscal year 1999 for
the PM-2.5 monitoring network. According to the National
Academy of Sciences, ``The agency should consider more fully
the possibility that future research results might indicate
that the expensive monitoring program is not measuring the most
biologically important aspects of particulate matter. Such
inconsistency would undermine the credibility and effectiveness
of future control strategies and underprotect vulnerable
subpopulations.''
What are EPA's plans to follow NAS's recommendations to
reevaluate the monitoring network?
Ms. Browner. There are essentially two categories of
monitors that make up the monitoring network for which we seek
funding. One is the category that monitors how much 2.5
particulate matter is in the air. The other looks at things
like chemical speciation.
In the Academy's report, they seem to focus on only those
monitors that measure gross amounts and not the additional
category of monitors. We will be meeting with the Academy to
discuss this other group of monitors which we think are very
responsive to the questions that they raise.
That category of monitors has already been subject to some
peer review through CASAC and the parts of it that have not
completed peer review will do so in the next several months by
the CASAC panel. Then we can conclude the discussion with the
Academy.
It is important to understand that we are talking about
1,500 sites at which there may be multiple monitors. The
Academy appears to have focused on one type or subset of
monitors and not the other.
Senator Bond. We will have to pursue this later. But I
would hope you could get some outside expertise because, as I
understand it, the National Academy of Sciences is saying that
we need to learn about chemical composition or speciation and
how the monitoring network needs to focus.
I don't care whether it is 100 or 1,500. We need to have
better information on what it is that we are looking for and
what the dangers are before we can set up something here. I
think they said target the culprit before we know what to focus
on.
Ms. Browner. We are doing that. We will meet with them.
When we complete the peer review process, which is extremely
important, we will work with them. We have already completed it
on one section of these and will work with them on that. And as
we conclude the others, we can bring them in.
In the budget request before you, approximately $26 million
of the $65.7 million that we seek this year for monitors goes
to those types of monitors which the Academy addresses in their
report. So almost one-half of the money goes to the speciation
monitors, or to the continuous monitors, known as the Super
Site Monitors.
food quality protection act [fqpa]: chemical registration
Senator Bond. Let me move to the Food Quality Protection
Act because this has raised so many questions. One of my
important constituents, the Missouri Department of Agriculture,
has been in my office. They report directly to Governor
Carnahan. They have raised serious questions about the Food
Quality Protection Act's implementation by the EPA.
I note also that a group called the Food Chain Coalition
has written, challenging the scientific basis for forthcoming
EPA decisions and said that,
Approving and making available to growers and other
pesticide users new and safer pesticides and new uses of
registered pesticides which meet the new FQPA safety standards
to replace older pesticides is the most effective means of
immediately reducing pesticide risks with minimal disruption to
growers. Yet EPA's review and registration of new compounds and
new uses for minor crops has ground to a virtual halt.
Why is this? Why has EPA, if, in fact, it is true, why has
the review ground to a halt?
Ms. Browner. If I understand the question, you are
addressing, it goes to the registration of new chemicals.
Senator Bond. Yes.
Ms. Browner. Under the new law we had to put in place the
guidelines for those new chemical registrations which we have
now completed. We can provide you more detailed numbers.
In 1997, for example, 28 new, active ingredients were
registered, which is above the numbers in prior years. As of
April 24 of this year, 12 new active ingredients have been
registered. Six of them are biologicals and one is a reduced
risk.
So we are working in this program. We are the first to say
that once the new law came into existence, it did take us some
time to get all the rules, the protocols, and the guidance in
place for how we would manage these as they came into the
Agency. But the program is up and running now and we believe we
are on a schedule that is in keeping with what we thought we
could do.
food quality protection act: coordination between epa and usda
Senator Bond. Apparently, the Vice President agreed there
were problems and issued a memo directing the EPA to ensure the
implementation of the paramount public health goals and that
the new law is informed by a sound regulatory approach, by the
expertise of the USDA, by appropriate input from affected
members of the public, and by due regard for the need of our
Nation's agricultural producers.
I gather that in response to that, a senior level working
group at EPA and USDA was formed to address the issues,
ensuring appropriate public participation and transparency.
Why did it take White House intervention to get the EPA to
address those critical concerns?
Ms. Browner. We worked with the White House and with USDA
on how best to engage in a public dialog. In particular we
focused on the requirements in the new law, so that we focus on
categories of chemicals, where they have a shared mode of
mechanism.
We welcome the White House direction to EPA and USDA. In
fact, tomorrow Secretary Glickman and I will announce the
formation of a new committee made up of farmers, chemical
companies, grocery stores, State agencies. It is a very large
committee on how best to proceed particularly with this section
of the law, and also other parts of the law. It will be
cochaired by EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen and USDA
Deputy Secretary Rich Rominger.
food quality protection act: measurement of risk
Senator Bond. There are a number of concerns that have been
presented to us by affected groups which seem to question the
reliability of the scientific basis. One states that EPA set
aside water residue data collected by the U.S. Geological
Survey for more than 4,800 surface water monitoring sites in
favor of a purely theoretical model that estimated residues 100
times higher than what was actually determined by sample
analysis. For pesticide exposure from ground water, EPA
selected the single highest residue value from over 23,000
samples collected by the State. EPA averaged only the 151
samples showing detectible residues for the pesticide to
determine an average residue level for all sites, disregarding
the thousands of samples that had no detectible residues.
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I am not
familiar with this.
Senator Bond. We will provide several of these examples
that have been raised to us for your response.
Ms. Browner. That would be helpful.
food quality protection act: food chain coalition concerns
Senator Bond. Do you have any specific actions that you are
taking in response to the concerns raised by the Food Chain
Coalition in its March 24 letter to you?
Ms. Browner. I think the formation of this FACA, the
committee that we are announcing the formation of tomorrow,
should be very helpful in creating a forum for dialog about the
kind of issues that they are raising. This is an important
component to resolving those issues.
Senator Bond. The other thing I think we are going to be
very much interested in, based on the questions that have been
raised, is to see what the EPA is doing and to ensure that it
is placing the highest priority on ensuring that reliable data
are obtained on pesticide risk before making decisions on
tolerance, reassessments and reregistrations. I think that goes
to the basic questions.
We all give lip service to sound science. We expect that
sound science will be utilized and, frankly, certainly those of
us in the legislative branch have to rely on the best
scientific information we can get, and we expect that EPA will
utilize that same scientific evaluation to assure us that the
best data are being used.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
I believe some of the coalition members, what is it
called----
Senator Bond. The Food Chain Coalition.
Ms. Browner [continuing]. Yes; I think some of their
members are also on the advisory committee that we have
assembled. So their interests will be represented.
national rural water association [nrwa] grant
Senator Bond. We will watch that with interest.
A recent inspector general report stated that the National
Rural Water Association improperly used Federal assistance
agreements and contracts to support lobbying and that a full-
time EPA employee detailed to the NRWA inappropriately assisted
NRWA in its lobbying activities.
As we both know, EPA has requested funding for NRWA in its
budget request for several years and the Congress has increased
funding based on widespread congressional support for rural
water training and technical assistance to ensure compliance
with drinking water standards in small systems.
How these grantees spend their dollars should be a question
within the direct responsibility and oversight of EPA, would
you not agree?
Ms. Browner. Yes; absolutely.
Senator Bond. What are you doing at EPA to ensure that
Federal grants are not used for lobbying? How widespread is
this problem? Are there other instances like this?
Ms. Browner. We are not aware of other instances. We take
this matter very, very seriously. There are prohibitions on
grantees, limitations in terms of how they can spend the money,
and we are in discussions with the National Rural Water
Association. These discussions include looking at the records
they kept and the expenditures they made, which may or may not
result in some--I don't think I am allowed to say this--
restitution of the dollars.
Senator Bond. That would be my point, that if funds have
been improperly used, they should be restored.
Ms. Browner. We agree. Absolutely.
Senator Bond. And if it comes to your attention or if you
are advised that an EPA detailee is inappropriately engaging in
something, that is your responsibility to do.
Ms. Browner. The individual does not work for us anymore.
He is a full-time employee of the organization. So the
question--and it is a very appropriate question and is one
where we are in discussion with them on--is about the
activities he engaged in while he was an EPA detailee. I think
that is the term that was used.
We share the concerns. And, as I said, it may result in
restitution of funds.
Maybe I should just say that they have responded to some of
this. They are currently claiming in their statements that,
one, he did not engage in these kinds of activities and, two,
that they did not exceed the prohibition on lobbying.
One of the problems we are having, quite frankly, is with
the quality of their records. So the conversation is ongoing.
Senator Bond. If you would, advise us when you reach a
conclusion after your examination of that, of the reports and
the response provided.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
We have also changed the funding for this organization in
our current grant per congressional direction. Funding for this
organization has consisted of partly money we requested from
Congress as well as funding that Congress has been generous in
adding to that request.
In this year's grant dollars, we are requiring them to
maintain a set of records that will allow us better to
understand in the future what they have done.
national environmental performance partnership system
Senator Bond. One last area--and we are going to be
touching on many of these in the questions I submit for the
record--is, and let me now move to, the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System.
EPA signed an agreement 3 years ago with environmental
commissioners of the States which launched the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System. It was to
recognize that States had grown up in the past 25 years and in
many cases they are able to manage environmental programs with
less oversight and over the shoulder review from EPA. EPA was
to provide flexibility to the States and focus on State
performance, rather than bean counting.
Later that year, we provided authorization in the EPA
appropriation for the EPA to provide performance partnership
grants to the States, allowing States to merge individual grant
programs and target resources to their highest priorities.
I understand that more than 40 States have so-called PPG's
today. According to the September 1997 NAPA report,
EPA has not used the opportunities presented by NEPPS to
give States clear incentives for better performance. The agency
has failed to establish a practice of making formal assessments
of State performance and using these assessments to link
performance explicitly to the level of Federal oversight and
with the flexibility and program design and innovation. Such a
policy would create strong incentives for improved States'
performance.
Do you agree with NAPA's recommendation on the need for
formal assessments and linking performance with the level of
oversight and flexibility? If so, do you have plans to follow
this recommendation?
Ms. Browner. Mr. Chairman, this program has been hugely
successful. It is exactly what Congress envisioned, and it
allows EPA to get out of the business of having every State do
the identical list of things and allow States to develop their
own list.
That was the first step in the process. It was not easy to
do. I think we should all be proud of the fact that we have 40
States doing it now.
The second step in the process, which is not dissimilar
from the work we are doing under GPRA, is to really go forward
with an agreement on core measurements. This is a decision on
how you measure progress. If you think it is difficult for us
to do at EPA, imagine what it is like when you have 50 States
trying to participate in it, each of them with a different
history and a different future.
I think what NAPA is addressing is precisely that kind of
accountability, that kind of measurement system. There are some
States who welcome the opportunity to have a set of
measurements. There are other States who just think we should
give them the money and stop coming in to evaluate whether or
not that money is helping them to achieve a set of objectives
or core measurements.
It has been a healthy discussion with the States and it is
ongoing.
I would just hope that the statement made by NAPA is valued
as advice as to how we should go forward. In no way do I think
it should be interpreted as saying that creating this kind of
flexibility for the States was a bad idea. It has been a great
thing.
animal feeding operation: draft strategy
Senator Bond. No; I recognized that in the statement before
I asked the question.
I was not sure that I received your answer and I jumped by
too quickly on the CAFO's. What new requirements can small
farmers expect from the draft AFO strategy?
Ms. Browner. The draft strategy does not articulate any
specific requirements. It lays out a process that we will
proceed under. It says that the first area of focus will be on
the largest operations for which we estimate a program will be
in place by 2002.
Senator Bond. That was what?
Ms. Browner. By the year 2002. The smaller ones would not
be addressed until 2005.
Senator Bond. The ones that will be addressed are at what
level?
Ms. Browner. That is part of the discussion. We are
deciding where the cutoff should be in terms of number of head
and whether it is poultry, pork, cattle, and so on.
Senator Bond. That's a different situation, then.
Ms. Browner. Yes; we agree.
Senator Bond. So right now, nothing is in the works for the
small operator. The big operators can take care of themselves.
The small operator, at this juncture, is not looking at any new
EPA regulations on this?
Ms. Browner. The earliest would be in 2005.
Now I should caveat this. States are looking at these
issues.
Senator Bond. Oh, yes; I realize that. I am just asking
from you what EPA is looking at.
Ms. Browner. As part of the strategy we put out, we speak
to both the large and the small operations. We lay out a
timeframe in which we will focus on the large operations first,
putting in place whatever the appropriate program structure is
by 2002.
Now the answer you may be trying to get at is what
distinguishes a big operation from a small one. That is part of
what we are discussing with people--how many head is a big one,
how many chickens are a big one. That is an unresolved issue.
Some States have already defined large and small and we are
looking at that.
Senator Bond. All right.
I think that about concludes the questions that I have for
the open hearing. We will provide more questions for the
record. As I said, I believe that our colleagues have those
questions.
I thank you very much.
Ms. Browner, did you have a statement you wanted to make?
Ms. Browner. I did want to raise one issue in closing. I
think you and Senator Burns made reference to the inspector
general's report on Austin Avenue. I want you to know that we
share your concerns. We are looking into this matter.
I think that the choices are difficult ones, when you are
working in residential communities. The decision to rebuild or
not rebuild is a difficult decision. There were a number of
meetings about this. There were a number of Senators and House
members who felt very strongly that rebuilding was the
appropriate option, given preservation of the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Additional committee questions
Having said all of that, I don't think any of us believes
that rebuilding of this nature is appropriate and we will fully
investigate that and take whatever actions are appropriate.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Ms. Browner, Mr. Hansen, Ms.
Harper.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
data quality: reliability of systems
Question. What is planned specifically in the next year to begin
improving the quality and reliability of EPA data systems, and how much
is requested in your budget for this purpose?
Answer. EPA is undertaking a number of activities to improve the
quality and reliability of its data systems. The Reinventing
Environmental Information (REI) program provides a framework for many
of these efforts. Under REI, EPA is developing both data standards and
electronic reporting standards. Over the next five years all of the
Agency's major systems will be revised to incorporate these data and
electronic reporting standards. The Data standards will allow cross-
media integration of data and improve reliability of the data.
Electronic reporting will improve the quality and reliability of the
data by eliminating errors associated with transferring information
from paper to electronic form and will reduce duplication of data
collected. In implementing standards and electronic reporting, many of
the Agency systems will be re-engineered using state-of-the-art
technology that will also improve reliability.
Through ECOS, EPA is working closely with the states on REI and
other data quality issues. The One Stop program provides a framework
for EPA and states to coordinate their information needs and system
development activities to reduce duplication and increase reliability.
EPA has adopted an aggressive strategy to ensure that Agency
information technology assets will be compliant in a timely fashion.
The Agency has established a Senior Y2K Council, under the direction of
the CIO, to review progress, receive early warnings on potential
problems, and take necessary action to avoid critical delays. An
independent certification program has been established for mission
critical systems to ensure compliance. The timetable the Agency has
adopted conforms to the government-wide milestones established by OMB.
The critical dates in the time-line include completing renovations for
mission-critical systems by September 1998; validation by January 1999;
and implementation by March 1999. This schedule allows for nine months
of operation in a production environment to identify and fix any bugs.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request contains $18.15 million for the
REI program and $6.1 million for Year 2000.
data quality, gpra, and right-to-know issues
Question. According to GAO, the availability of sufficient
scientific and environmental data is a concern ``critical to the
credibility and success of the agency's strategic planning process.''
What is planned for fiscal year 1999 to address concerns about
information gaps? What are the highest priority areas for filling data
gaps and how are these reflected in the budget? How will EPA develop
the baseline data needed to support the Results Act?
Answer. EPA is working to ensure that its baseline performance
information is complete, accurate and consistent. Clearly, this is a
long-term effort; but the agency is making good progress along several
tracks. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has recently
completed a Data Quality/Gaps Evaluation to determine the availability
of performance data and measures which are of adequate quality to track
progress toward strategic objectives. By means of an agency-wide
survey, it was revealed that funding was available to address data gaps
in several program areas during fiscal year 1999. For example, the
Office of Water has committed resources to develop measures of non-
point source loads of nutrients and sediments to rivers and streams.
This will support its tracking of progress in reducing runoff. In
addition, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances will
develop several measures of risk reduction and program effectiveness
during fiscal year 1999. Other offices are undertaking similar efforts.
One of the agency's newest organizations, the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS), is generating
important information regarding existing EPA information sources and
various environmental information needs. Specifically, the Center is
comparing three major environmental data needs (i.e., (1) questions the
general public asks about the environment, (2) agency performance as
related to GPRA, and (3) state performance measures under the National
Environmental Performance Partnerships Systems) and EPA data sources to
identify and assess major data gaps. The CEIS intends to work with the
program offices and other information customers to develop options to
address these data gaps. In the past, funds have been available on a
competitive basis to support program office efforts to fill data gaps.
In addition, EPA's Environmental Monitoring Management Council
(EMMC) is developing a strategy for planning and conducting monitoring
activities so that they support agency-wide strategic and programmatic
needs. The strategy will be the foundation for improving the ability to
accurately track progress toward environmental outcome commitments. The
EMMC is interested in supporting long-term agency needs for data and
information and identifying emerging data requirements.
The EPA recognizes that data quality can be improved and gaps need
to be filled to effectively ``measure for results.'' Improving the
ability to measure performance is an Agency priority.
data quality: accountability
Question. Who is held accountable within EPA for ensuring these
critical issues concerning data quality and information gaps are
addressed? Why has the Center for Environmental Information and
Statistics been charged with addressing data quality (according to a
February 4th memo on Reinventing Environmental Information) rather than
the Chief Information Officer?
Answer. EPA's Deputy Administrator has asked the Agency's Chief
Information Officer (CIO) to lead a new effort to develop a strategic
action plan to address the issue of environmental quality. However,
EPA's Center for Information and Statistics (CEIS) is currently staffed
with experts on the interpretation and use of environmental data and
information. Their expertise extends beyond the technological factors
that are the focus of the CIO. For that reason, the CEIS continues to
lead the effort to assess data gaps and plans for the secondary uses of
environmental data.
napa: recommendation on environmental information
Question. In 1995, NAPA recommended establishment of a separate
bureau or office of environmental information. Yet EPA ignored NAPA's
recommendation that a new center for environmental information and
statistics be established independently of a program office. According
to NAPA, ``The location (within the Office of Policy, Planning &
Evaluation) effectively reduces the center's autonomy from the agency's
regulatory and program activities and thus compromises the center's
ability to establish itself and its data as credible and objective.''
Why did EPA ignore the concerns raised by NAPA? What is the purpose of
this new Center, what is its role in addressing critical issues of data
quality and availability for decision-making, and why is it not under
the Chief Information Officer?
Answer. It is EPA's understanding that creation of a separate,
independent bureau or office would require legislation. Rather than
delay the very important work of the Center, and subject its future to
the uncertainty of legislation, the Administrator created the Center
through a reorganization of the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE). By establishing standards for data quality and
suitability for information distributed by the Center, and subjecting
those standards and Center products to a public, technical peer review
process, we are confident that the credibility and objectivity of the
Center's analysis and information products will be established and
maintained. We have been working with staff of the National Academy of
Public Administration as we have developed the organization and mission
of the Center.
The Administrator chose OPPE as the organization to house the
Center because the Office is best prepared with the expertise and staff
to carry out the Center's mission. OPPE has long worked on
environmental statistics, environmental indicators, and presentation of
environmental information in the predecessor organizations to the CEIS:
the Center for Environmental Statistics and the Environmental
Information Division with the Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data.
There are many information-related activities with EPA which do not
report directly to the Chief Information Officer (CIO), but which are
coordinated and overseen by the CIO. The Center is working closely with
the CIO; in particular, the CIO co-chairs the CEIS Steering Committee
with the Assistant Administrator for Policy. The AA for Policy is also
a member of the Agency's Executive Steering Committee for Information
Resource Management, which is chaired by the CIO. The CIO has been
charged by the Administrator with ensuring the overall quality of the
Agency's data, and the Center will join the rest of the Agency in
helping the CIO to develop and implement a data quality plan.
The Center's mission is to provide the public with information on
environmental quality, status, and trends. An important component of
this mission is the Center's work to assess the suitability of EPA's
databases, and other potential sources of data, for use in providing
the public with such information. As part of all of its products, the
Center will provide an explanation of the source and quality of the
data used to compile the information presented. The Center's
assessments will also be used by Agency management to inform decisions
regarding collection, management and use of environmental data.
right to know: inventory of information
Question. Does EPA have a comprehensive inventory of all the
information resources, public documents and software tools that it has
produced, endorsed, or funded? Whose responsibility is this? Does EPA
have a comprehensive inventory of all the information it currently
collects?
Answer. EPA has no single inventory of all those resources. They
are accounted for in separate inventories. Software and data systems
are inventoried under the Information Systems Inventory managed by the
Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM). EPA publications are
inventoried in the National EPA Publications Catalog managed by EPA's
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information. In
addition, work is underway for an inventory of EPA regulatory guidance
materials under an effort managed by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. OIRM plans to extend this inventory to include
all public documents available on the EPA Web site. The inventory of
all information collected by EPA is managed by the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation as part of EPA's regulatory paperwork burden
management activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
right to know: accuracy of information
Question. In the push to carry out right-to-know activities at the
program level, what controls do you have in place to ensure that the
information provided the public is accurate, complete, and put in the
proper context to avoid raising undue concern or inappropriate use of
the data? Whose responsibility is this? Have you established any
standards as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or proper
context that data must meet before it is made available to the public?
What steps does EPA have in place to correct information errors? Who is
responsible for this?
Answer. EPA is committed to improving the accuracy and completeness
of the information it provides to the public. At the same time, the
Agency also is committed to making its information publicly available
unless there is a specific statutory basis for withholding the
information. To put information into proper context and to enhance
understanding, EPA is expanding access to and availability of metadata
on Agency information, that is descriptive information such as
definitions, origin, source, and any data describing how, why, or when
the data was collected including indications on the accuracy of the
data or its precision. The Agency is also striving for continuous
improvement in quality of information, recognizing that no set of
information will be completely free of errors and inadequacies.
Feedback from the public and from regulated entities is an important
part of the information quality improvement process, as stakeholders
often are best able to recognize and comment on errors. When
information is not publicly available, EPA loses the benefits of such
feedback.
All stewards of public information in the Agency share
responsibility for ensuring that the information they manage is as
accurate and complete as feasible, and that a sound basis is provided
for others to interpret the information. EPA's Office of Research and
Development manages the data quality process for scientific data, which
requires that data managers throughout the Agency develop data quality
objectives for their data and manage their programs to meet these
objectives. EPA's Center for Environmental Information and Statistics
has been meeting with stakeholders and developing programs to provide
and interpret environmental information for the public.
Finally, EPA's Deputy Administrator has recognized the need for
more improvements in this area. By memorandum of 29 April 1998, he
charged the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to lead an ``effort to
develop a strategic action plan to implement an Agency-wide approach to
ensuring the quality of our data.'' This plan is to be submitted for
approval no later than 30 September 1998. The plan should develop a
systematic, Agency-wide approach for correcting information errors and
assign specific accountability for all major tasks. Thus, the Agency
has acknowledged the need for more focused effort to address
information and data quality and has initiated a process, led by the
CIO, to address this issue with a specific action plan.
data quality: misuse and mischaracterization
Question. If EPA is made aware of the misuses or
mischaracterization of environmental data by third parties, what steps
is EPA taking to stop such behavior and prevent its recurrence?
Answer. EPA has no editorial control over the use of publicly
available environmental data by third parties. If the Agency were made
aware of a misuse or mischaracterization of EPA environmental data or
information by a third party, the Agency could request that the third
party publish a disclaimer or retraction of the misused data so as to
clarify that EPA does not agree with the third party's use of EPA's
data. The Agency could also pursue other legal remedies depending on
the impact of the third party's actions. EPA has standard procedures,
provided in our authorizing statutes, for pursuing claims where the
confidentiality of the data provider has been violated, or where there
is an endangerment of public health or significant environmental
impact, as a result of the misuse or mischaracterization of the
Agency's data.
right-to-know: information for citizen
Question. What steps are being taken to obtain an understanding of
the priority information needs of the average citizen? How much
research and analysis of public information needs has EPA conducted?
Have those established the priority needs of the average citizen or
have they identified the areas of potential interest?
Answer. In July, 1997, EPA embarked on a national customer survey
to obtain an understanding of the environmental information needs of
the average citizen. The Agency started the survey by drafting a peer-
reviewed, four-year, Customer Survey Plan. The Plan called for four
phases of survey activity starting with those who are very familiar
with EPA information resources, and then eventually surveying the needs
of those who are unfamiliar with the Agency's information resources.
Phase I and II started with convening meetings with information users
who are familiar with EPA's existing information resources. Phase III
involved regional meetings with user groups in each EPA region. Phase
IV would survey the general public's information needs.
Participants in Phase II and III, indicated that they needed an
array of environmental information products, ranging from quality-
assured, data sets to comprehensive, multi-media reports on
environmental quality, status and trends at the national, state and
local level. Many encouraged EPA to make information available via the
Internet, printed reports and telephone (staffed by knowledgeable
people, not just voicemail).
In late March, 1998, EPA announced a plan to undertake a national
telephone survey to ask ``average American households'' about their
environmental information needs and their access preferences (Federal
Register, March 30, 1998) for Phase IV of the customer survey. EPA
plans to complete these telephone surveys and report our survey
findings by early 1999.
The Agency's customer survey also involves an extensive review of
current literature and findings from other organizations' research in
this area.
right-to-know internet security
Question. With respect to Right-to-Know concerns, EPA's plans to
publish on the Internet data about chemical storage sites and ``worst-
case scenario'' information [e.g., the most devastating potential
accident and plans to respond to such an incident] has many security
experts concerned. According to a recent ``USA Today'' article, ``FBI
agents say putting the data on the Net creates a blueprint for chemical
mayhem.'' What is the status of EPA's plans to publish Clean Air Act
``risk management plans'' on the Internet? Given the sensitive nature
of this information, what accounts for EPA's enthusiasm for publishing
the data on the Internet, rather than keeping the information in
libraries, for example? What is EPA doing to work with the National
Security Agency, FBI and other relevant agencies on this critical
issue?
Answer. In September 1996, EPA established a Subcommittee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide stakeholder advice and
counsel on scientific and technical aspects of CAA 112(r). Since May
1997, the Subcommittee has been addressing the issue of whether to post
``worst case scenario'' data on the Internet. In February 1998, nine of
ten Subcommittee members recommended that EPA post the worst case
scenario data on the Internet with several safeguards to begin to
address potential misuse of the information. This recommendation was
based on several factors: (1) by law the information must be made
publicly available; (2) the Internet is the most efficient and cost
effective method of information dissemination; and (3) under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law, anyone can request the RMP data
in electronic format and post it on the Internet themselves
(Environmental groups have said they will post the RMP data if EPA does
not).
EPA has worked closely with the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection, FBI, DOJ, CIA and DOD to obtain their
insight into a potential solution. Currently, EPA is working with these
Federal partners to explore technical options and safeguards that will
result in minimal risk. A final decision will be made in collaboration
with other Federal agencies.
right to know: security controls
Question. Considering your efforts to make more data available to
the public on the Internet, what controls do you have to protect the
security of the data from intruders or hackers, particularly in view of
the Sept. 1997 I.G. report which found several cases of hacker
intrusion?
Answer. EPA employs multiple security mechanisms to protect data
from intruders or hackers.
For the Network.--Physical access to EPA's internal network is
controlled by requiring that data reside in EPA (leased or owned)
facilities and we allow only one connection between the Agency's
internal network and the Internet, and protect this connection with a
``firewall''.
Access to privileged commands on the network infrastructure is
restricted to a small number of key individuals. EPA's network router
audits trails daily for activities that could indicate the presence of
an intruder or a hacker on the Agency network. Suspected problems are
quickly followed up with the appropriate internal and external security
groups, the Inspector General, and law enforcement groups, if
necessary. EPA monitors and implements the appropriate security alerts
and controls recommended by government and industry security groups. As
such, EPA has installed direct controls on the Agency firewall router
which is the single point of connection between EPA and the Internet.
These targeted controls ward against anti-spoofing, discovery of the
topology and structure of our network, blocking NetBt and SNMP, and
other items recommended by national security organizations.
Finally, the EPA contractor and Federal Network Information
Technology staff maintain a constant state of training and alert status
relative to the technical aspects of state-of-the-art networking,
network security, and damage/waste prevention.
For the Public Access Server.--EPA controls physical access to the
computer systems on which the public access data resides. For purposes
of data update, the Agency also limits network access to the system to
registered users, coming from registered Internet addresses.
Access to privileged commands is restricted to system
administrators on a need-to-use basis. EPA employs Class C2 security on
all our central systems, in accordance with the Department of Defense
Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, DOD 5200.28-STD (commonly
called ``The Orange Book''). All central systems separate user data
areas from those of the operating system, and maintain separate access
controls for each user's data. The data for each user and project is
only modifiable by users and groups authorized by the user owning the
data.
The Agency maintains audit trails of significant system events
(login successes and failures, failed access attempts against system
level files, and privileged command use), and reviews system audit
trails routinely to detect potential threats to system, application, or
data integrity. Further, the Agency records checksums on important
system files and use automated monitoring for any change to alert us to
possible tampering.
Operations staff monitor the public access systems twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, to assure their availability and
integrity. Security alerts are monitored from government and industry
security groups. As a result, EPA regularly installs software patches
and initiate procedures necessary for system and data security.
Persistent intrusion attempts are detected occasionally, as we did
in both the incidents reported by the Inspector General and in other
situations where no actual intrusion occurred. If any intrusion does
occur as a result of previously unidentified security vulnerabilities
(e.g., in system software), situation-specific steps are taken to
contain and then eliminate the intrusion. Its impact is then assessed
and its effects reversed, restoring data and service as expeditiously
as due diligence allows. The Agency also maintains backup copies of all
data, including off-site copies, to prevent data loss for any reason.
omb: estimate of paperwork burden
Question. What is the current OMB estimate of paperwork burden
imposed by EPA reporting requirements? What steps will be taken to
reduce the burden as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act? Will
EPA's burden reduction strategy include efforts to reduce duplication
between EPA programs? Will it include efforts to adjust reporting
obligations based on a company's good compliance record?
Answer. The OMB estimate of EPA paperwork burden hours was
115,228,215 hours on March 31, 1998. EPA has been engaged in a
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden since early in 1995. The
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) sets government-wide reduction targets
beginning October 1, 1995 of 10 percent each year for two years, and
then 5 percent each year for the following four years. To date, EPA has
reduced burden hours from collections included in its October 1995
baseline by 14.5 million hours. This reduction has been offset by
burden increases of 25.6 million hours, including over 14 million hours
of non-rule increases primarily due to adjustments and updated
estimates of burden numbers. In addition, EPA has identified
approximately 13 million hours of reductions and 11.4 million hours of
increases (e.g. PCB Disposal rule: 7.0 million hours, and Lead-based
Paint Renovations rule: 2.2 million hours) that will occur in the near
future.
Additionally, prior to the PRA mandate, EPA began a major burden
reduction effort. From January 1 through October 1, 1995, the Agency
eliminated 6.7 million hours from the collections included in its
January 1, 1995 baseline. These reductions were also offset by
increases to the baseline of 34.3 million hours, including 9.0 million
hours in recalculations and 8.7 million due to third-party collections
required because of definition changes in the PRA of 1995.
The Agency also has underway a Reinventing Environmental
Information (REI) Plan that will provide the public with significant
burden reductions due to universal access to electronic reporting,
better integration of state and EPA reporting requirements, and use of
common data standards across EPA programs. This plan is being
implemented over a five-year period.
The REI Plan includes a number of steps which will promote the
identification and elimination of duplicate reporting and record
keeping across programs. For example, EPA is investigating options for
the design of a central data receiving function for acceptance of
status and compliance reports. This effort would include identifying
and registering each data element required by a program in an
environmental data registry. This registration process would identify
unique data element needs, and enable duplicates to be eliminated. For
many common descriptors regarding facilities and chemicals, EPA will be
adopting cross-program data standards that all programs will be
required to use. The central data receiving function would receive all
data sets, and respond to program office requests for specific subsets
of data. Reporters would submit each data element only once, but it
could be retrieved multiple time by programs throughout the Agency. In
addition, the REI plan identifies steps that EPA is taking to provide
universal access to electronic reporting, including web-based reporting
for small businesses. This technology provides recall of previously
submitted data, and enables simplification and consolidation of old
reporting formats.
In 1996 EPA published guidance that allows water quality reporting
to be scaled back for facilities with proven records of environmental
performance. When fully implemented by the states, this guidance could
reduce NPDES monitoring and reporting burden by about 4.5 million
hours, or 25 percent. EPA has also taken additional steps towards
rewarding good performance in the Project XL program and in development
of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP. EPA is now beginning a comprehensive
review of our major reporting requirements to identify additional
opportunities for application of this approach. We expect this review
to be completed by the end of August, 1998.
epa's enforcement goal
Question. Why is enforcement a goal in and of itself? Shouldn't
enforcement be a policy tool used to achieve environmental results,
rather than a goal in and of itself? Why are the number of inspections
a measure of success?
Answer. Enforcement is not the goal. The goal is ``Credible
Deterrent and Greater Compliance with the Law.'' The goal provides the
Agency's law enforcement and compliance assurance organization with
objectives for achieving deterrence and a high level of compliance.
Achieving this goal requires not only government, but private party
involvement.
While the Agency recognizes there is considerable overlap between
the objectives of this goal and those of the media goals, meeting the
Agency's deterrence goal requires a multi-media approach that corrects
problems in a holistic way, rather than shifting one media pollution
problem to another. EPA has learned that the Agency needs to approach
compliance on a cross-media, industry sector basis, using a full range
of monitoring, enforcement and compliance assistance and compliance
incentive tools. The Agency focuses on those civil and criminal cases
which promote human health and the environment and a level playing
field for the nation's industry, regardless of the media involved.
With regard to your last question, the Agency has moved beyond
simply tracking outputs like inspections. In January 1997, the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) initiated the National
Performance Measures Strategy to develop and implement an enhanced set
of performance measures for EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance
program. The final report issued in January 1998 describes the enhanced
set of performance measures and a plan to implement these measures is
underway. OECA is collecting outcome data, such as environmental
results from enforcement actions, and reporting this data in the annual
Enforcement Accomplishments report. Attached is a chart from the fiscal
year 1997 report showing pollutant reductions from EPA enforcement
actions.
However, output measures such as the number of inspections
conducted, civil or criminal cases referred and penalties assessed,
will remain important measures of program performance and
accountability. The Agency will continue to need these kinds of
measures because they assure the public of the government's presence,
they provide accountability for Federal, state and local performance,
and they give EPA important information about how our strategies are
working.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.010
enforcement: environmental quality
Question. What is EPA doing to assess to what extent specific
enforcement actions or compliance actions improve environmental
quality, in order to make programmatic decisions on that determination?
Answer. The Agency is conducting a pilot project on case conclusion
data sheets (CCDS) as a result of recommendations made by the Measures
of Success Workgroup in March 1995. Under this project, EPA collects
the following information for concluded administrative and judicial
enforcement actions:
--Expected costs of compliance (i.e. injunctive relief costs);
--Type of actions taken to comply (e.g. industrial process change,
emissions reduction, training);
--Names and amounts of pollutants to be reduced, prevented or
controlled;
--Qualitative nature of the impact (e.g. human health or ecosystem
protection); and,
--Details on Supplemental Environmental Projects, including costs and
environmental benefits such as above.
In fiscal year 1995, EPA collected information on all concluded
judicial orders and on compliance orders with penalties. In fiscal year
1996, EPA expanded the collection to include all administrative and
judicial actions regardless of accompanying penalty.
Information from the data sheets was compiled and included with end
of year reporting for 1995, 1996, and 1997. This information has been
summarized and widely distributed to managers in the Agency. It has
also been released publicly.
Additionally, one of the tasks under the National Performance
Measures Strategy, which grew from a series of national stakeholders
meetings with industry, environmental, community, academic,
governmental and media groups (announced with the end-of-year press
release in December 1997), is to conduct an evaluation of the case
conclusion or expected environmental benefit data and the processes for
creating that information, and to enhance its comprehensiveness and
accuracy. The majority of this evaluation will be concluded by the end
of fiscal year 1998.
gpra: performance goals
Question. How do the performance goals and measures in your annual
performance plan reflect the need to ensure that we can assess EPA's
performance on one level--that is, what improvements are directly
attributable to EPA's actions--and, on another level, track the
progress that the nation, as a whole, is making in protecting the
environment?
Answer. We believe we have struck a careful balance in articulating
our array of annual performance goals (and corresponding performance
measures), in relation to our more long-term strategic objectives. We
have tried to express the latter in terms of real ``environmental
outcomes,'' that is, tangible, measurable improvements in environmental
quality and/or public health protection that are meaningful to American
citizens. In casting our longer-term objectives in such measurable
terms, however, we recognized the accompanying long-term challenges to:
(1) achieve the ambitious targets we have set for ourselves; and (2)
perfect the capability to accurately measure improvements in key
parameters of environmental quality, particularly the measurement of
the specific contributions of environmental-protection efforts to
general trends. Consequently, shorter-term measures of annual
performance will tend to be in output terms, more directly linked to
the resources expended, at least for the first iterations of Annual
Performance Plans.
Consequently, most of the performance goals and corresponding
performance measures for the fiscal year 1999 Plan are cast in terms of
direct outputs associated with the expenditure of agency resources. We
have made an effort to express some key performance goals as discrete
incremental progress toward longer-term environmental-quality gains,
and, as our capability to measure and achieve such tangible gains in
other areas improves, we intend for successive Annual Plans to contain
a higher proportion of these outcome-based performance goals. Part of
our commitment to implement GPRA is to institute an ongoing ``multi-
year planning'' effort in each of our 10 goals, with an explicit
purpose being a ``roadmap'' for improving our performance goals.
gpra: performance goals overlap
Question. Under specific strategic goals covered in the performance
plan, EPA lists as performance goals various activities and actions
that appear to be relevant to other strategic goals. For example, under
strategic goal 7, ``Expansion of Americans Right-to-Know About Their
Environment,'' EPA lists performance goals that clearly involve water
program and enforcement activities covered under other parts of the
plan. Is there an overlap that needs to be/has been recognized and if
so, how? Please be as specific as possible in your response and also
address the budget implications, i.e., how any overlap has been
addressed concerning the budget amounts requested for any specific
program activities involved and the resources being applied to achieve
the respective goals.
Answer. Some degree of ``cross-cutting'' categorization is
inevitable in trying to present an annual plan that simultaneously
addresses the entirety of the Agency's activities and highlights the
most significant achievements in a systematic manner. You will note
that in Chapter 5 of the Strategic Plan (pp 80-88) the Agency
highlighted six specific themes that cannot be adequately captured by
the presented set of strategic goals and objectives. Likewise, as you
note, activities among the 10 goals and 45 objectives sometimes
overlap.
We have carefully aligned the Agency's resources in a strictly
``linear'' fashion according to the array of goals and objectives
presented; we have painstakingly avoided ``double counting.'' We do not
believe any overlap in resource allocation exists, since the sum of
budget components allocated to the objectives cannot exceed the Agency
total.
Since the array of goals and objectives are cross-cutting, programs
have to make decisions about how best to represent their activities.
For instance, water program activities that relate to improving the
public's understanding of local surface-water conditions or specific
public water supply conditions are accounted for under Goal 7, even
though the bulk of water program activities appear under Goal 2.
gpra: key external factors
Question. The September 1997 strategic plan identifies ``key
external factors'' that influence EPA's ability to achieve its goals
and objectives and over which the agency notes it has only partial
control or little influence. Important among these are the partnerships
EPA says it relies heavily on with states, tribes, local governments
and regulated parties. In many cases, it appears that the achievement
of a program's goals would be highly dependent on such relationships.
How does the performance plan recognize this condition in establishing
performance goals and measures?
Answer. Many of the Agency's core environmental protection
activities are delegated to the states and tribes, and entail risk
management measures performed by regulated entities. The Agency relies
on the performance of these key parties to produce the gains in cleaner
air, water and land that the Agency seeks for the nation. Consequently,
among the performance goals and measures the Agency reports in its
fiscal year 1999 Annual Plan are those activities which states and
tribes perform and report to the Agency as part of state grant
assistance (e.g., ``core measures'' and associated reporting
requirements provided in the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System).
However, the preponderance of the goals and measures specified in
the Plan are associated directly with Agency activities. In part, the
selection of annual goals and measures is guided by the imperative to
represent as closely as practicable the actual activities performed by
EPA during the fiscal year. For practical purposes, this means the
preponderance of reported performance targets relate to those
activities for which the Agency is directly responsible. For example,
the goals and performance indicators specified under Goal 9 (``Credible
Deterrent and Greater Compliance'') exclusively represent the planned
activities, workload and accomplishments of EPA's compliance and
enforcement staffs, and not the totality of nationwide compliance and
enforcement activities.
srf: movement of funds between the srf's
Question. In fiscal year 1999 states can move up to one-third of
the drinking water SRF appropriation to their clean water SRF. And this
same dollar amount can be moved from clean water to drinking water
SRF's. To what extent is it anticipated that states will move funds
between SRF's?
Answer. Three states (New York, Colorado, and New Jersey) have
definite plans to transfer funds from the Clean Water to the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund in fiscal year 1999. Currently there is no
state transferring from the DWSRF to the CWSRF. Several other states
have indicated interest in transferring but do not have definite plans
at this time.
drinking water state revolving fund: set-asides
Question. States may make expenditures only from their fiscal year
1997 drinking water SRF grant to perform source water assessments
required by the 1996 Amendments. How many states have taken advantage
of this SRF set-aside? In general, would you please give an overview of
the extent to which states are intending to use the various SRF set-
asides?
Answer. Although not every state has yet been awarded Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF), we do have information from all of
the states on their intent regarding the DWSRF set-aside provisions
authorized in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. With
respect to the set aside for source water assessments (a subset of
1452(k)), 42 states and Puerto Rico are taking or expect to take the
full 10 percent allowed by law and the remaining eight states will or
are taking between 3.6-8.0 percent of the set aside.
The following are some general data compiled from the states; the
number of states (plus Puerto Rico) that are expected to take the set
asides is shown in brackets:
The average use of set asides for all grants (awarded and
unawarded) is expected to be 22 percent out of a maximum 31 percent
allowed.
The average use of the 1452(k) set aside to fund local assistance
and other state activities (loans for source water protection measures,
source water assessments, capacity development, wellhead protection) is
estimated at 12 percent (maximum is 15 percent, with no one activity
more than 10 percent). [51]
The average use of the set aside to administer programs under
section 1452 is expected to be 4 percent, which is the maximum allowed.
[51]
The average use of the set aside to provide technical assistance to
small systems is estimated at 2 percent--the same as the maximum
allowed in the statute. [47]
The average use of the 1452(g)(2) set aside to conduct state
program activities (PWSS program, capacity development, operator
certification, source water protection) under section 1452 is expected
to be 5 percent (maximum allowed is 10 percent). This set aside
requires a 1:1 match by the state. [36]
To date, 30 states have completed the application process and
received all or a portion of their DWSRF allocation. We expect that the
remaining 20 states and Puerto Rico will be awarded their DWSRF monies
by September 30, 1998.
clean water action plan: cafo's and afo's
Question. Earlier this year, the Vice President announced the Clean
Water Action Plan, an interagency initiative aimed at improving water
quality with a particular emphasis on a watershed approach and nonpoint
sources of pollution. As part of the Clean Water Action Plan EPA plans
to focus efforts on regulating livestock waste, so-called CAFO's. How
much of the total budget request is to be allocated to developing and
implementing the Animal Feeding Operations strategy, and would any of
these funds be used to assist farmers in complying with new
requirements?
Answer. Of the $145.0 million requested for the Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP), $4.0 million is designated to assist with the
implementation of agency activities that will result from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joint Unified National Strategy on Animal Feeding Operations (AFO's).
These resources will be used to support EPA and the States' efforts to
implement CAFO requirements through the NPDES program, including for
example, improved tools and training for permitting of CAFO's. These
funds will not be used directly to assist farmers in complying with any
potential new requirements.
The Clean Water Action Plan includes significant increases in the
funding requested for EPA and USDA financial assistance programs, which
may assist farmers in complying with any new AFO requirements. EPA
provides grant money to the states for demonstration projects,
education, and technical assistance through the nonpoint source grant
program under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Compared with other
nonpoint sources, agriculture related projects received the largest
percentage of funding through Section 319 grants, about 34 percent in
fiscal year 1995. EPA is requesting a total of $200 million for 319
funding in fiscal year 1999. Half of the funding of USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is allocated to the
livestock sector. Currently $100.0 million is available through this
cost-share program to help livestock producers implement management
practices that will be encouraged in the Joint Unified National
Strategy. Some of these same practices could eventually be required
under the potential revision of the Combined Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFO) regulations. Of the $194.0 million increase requested by USDA
for the CWAP, $100.0 million is for EQIP in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Under your proposed strategy on AFO's what type of
regulatory requirements could small producers expect?
Answer. The regulatory process is just beginning so we do not yet
know in detail how the regulations will be revised, and how they will
vary by size of facility. We do expect the regulatory requirements to
focus on large facilities and others collectively determined to be
contributing to water quality problems based on a watershed assessment.
cwap: enforcement of farming information
Question. Concerns have been raised that EPA's enforcement office
is aggressively attempting to get ``farmer information'' or lists from
NRCS in different regions of the country for the intent of pursuing
enforcement cases against farmers. If true, this would have a chilling
effect on farmers who are voluntarily seeking assistance from USDA
cost-share programs to improve environmental quality. Could you comment
on that or look into that and see to it that records are not obtained
by EPA for that purpose?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) understands the
concerns that have been expressed, and is currently working with the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address this issue.
The USDA and EPA have not come to closure on this matter yet, but EPA
does not intend to aggressively obtain NRCS data regarding specific
farms to pursue enforcement cases against farmers. EPA's position is
further explained in the attached letter signed by Steven A. Herman,
EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance on May 29, 1998, to the National Association of
Conservation Districts. This issue is also addressed by USDA/EPA's
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations Reported
released September 17, 1998. USDA and EPA are continuing to work on
this important issue.
clean water action plan: agroforestry systems
Question. EPA will be spending $2 million on a project I included
in last year's funding bill to demonstrate the multiple benefits of
agroforestry systems in the flood plains. These benefits include
nonpoint pollution mitigation but it also has benefits of flood
control, wildlife habitat and an additional income source for farmers.
Do you envision this type of win-win management practice as a good use
of nonpoint resources?
Answer. EPA agrees that these types of systems can have economic
and environmental benefits. The project to which you refer should yield
positive results relating to nonpoint source pollution, as well as
economic benefit to the agroforestry producer. It appears that the
project has the potential to positively blend commodity production with
agricultural chemical/sediment runoff reduction, resulting in cleaner
water.
Agroforestry practices include streamside buffer strips, streambank
bioengineering, alley cropping, windbreaks, tree/pasture systems, tree/
specialty crop systems, living snowfences, forest farming, waste
disposal systems, and wildlife habitat plantings. These practices
improve water quality and protect soil, water, wildlife, roads,
buildings, and recreational areas. For example, streamside buffers
filter pollution from adjacent land, reduce bank erosion, protect
aquatic environments, enhance wildlife, and increase biodiversity. Many
of the practices are fully adaptable for use in cities and rural
communities.
Agroforestry holds great promise to enhance the vitality of farm
enterprises and rural communities, while addressing societal concerns
such as soil erosion, water quality, and biodiversity. It is important
to bear in mind, however, that agroforestry despite its benefits is not
always the appropriate land use strategy. States, Tribes, and local
governments, working with all their stakeholders, should carefully
assess the characteristics and needs of their watersheds before funding
or otherwise promoting a particular practice, including agroforestry.
In the context of water quality and biodiversity, the potential
benefits of agroforestry should be analyzed relative to current or
projected alternative land uses. While agroforestry will generally
provide higher water quality and biodiversity benefits than row crop
agriculture or more intensive development, it will almost always yield
lower water quality and biodiversity benefits than native forests,
grasslands, or wetlands.
cwap: afo research
Question. In the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2158 for
fiscal year 1999, the EPA was directed to coordinate its research
activities on air quality impacts resulting from swine confinement
operations with those currently underway at the Agricultural Research
Service and other public and private research efforts. How much does
EPA currently spend on research that relates to animal feeding
operations and what research is currently being emphasized?
Answer. The State of North Carolina is in the process of providing
the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and
Development (EPA/ORD) with resources of $92,500 for conducting air
emission measurements from swine farms and preparing a report that
compares alternative measurement approaches and results. In addition,
EPA/ORD has expended approximately $50,000 in the development of an
improved method being used for conducting the measurements.
Question. Is there adequate coordination with the ARS?
Answer. EPA/ORD is conducting measurements of ammonia, methane, and
other pollutants being emitted from swine farms at the request of the
State of North Carolina's Department of the Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). The U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality and Planning
(OAQPS) is also working with the NCDENR. All of this work has been
coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.).
Industry is cooperating with the program. There are periodic meetings
with all participants, and EPA/ORD has representatives at each meeting.
The U.S.D.A. has coordinated all interactions with the farmers.
Periodic progress reports are prepared, and these are made available to
each participant. The results from EPA/ORD's test program will be
documented and the report will be peer reviewed and will undergo EPA/
ORD's administrative review prior to release. This document is expected
to be completed by the winter of 1998-99.
There has been frequent communication between EPA/ORD and U.S.D.A.
while these measurements have occurred. The EPA/ORD has always been
careful to coordinate its efforts through the State of North Carolina
and U.S.D.A. and will continue to do so. The EPA/ORD appreciates the
opportunity to work with the U.S.D.A. There have been meetings of a
U.S.D.A. Air Quality Task Force in Amarillo, Texas, and representatives
from the State of North Carolina were requested to attend but to our
knowledge EPA was not.
clean water action plan: animal feeding operations (afo's) strategy
Question. Please explain in detail how EPA will use the funds
requested for the Animal Feeding Operations Strategy.
Answer. EPA will use the $4.0 million in the funding request to
implement the USDA/EPA Joint Unified National Strategy on Animal
Feeding Operations (AFO's). The Strategy will be targeted at both point
and nonpoint source contributions. EPA and USDA expect to publish the
strategy for public review and comment in July 1998 and to finalize it
in November 1998. Implementation activities may include: a review of
state animal feeding operation programs; an economic analysis of
different aspects of the livestock industry; and collection and
analysis of data on animal feeding operations. These monies will also
help support development of revised regulations (NPDES permitting
regulations and the effluent guideline) and efforts to improve
permitting of CAFO's.
pm: decrease in research
Question. EPA is requesting about $485 million for the Office of
Research and Development, a decrease of almost $50 million below fiscal
year 1998. While there are increases proposed in some areas--such as
the right-to-know initiative referred to as EMPACT--there are a number
of decreases, the largest being research on fine particles.
According to EPA's Science Advisory Board, EPA is requesting less
than it needs to get the job done. The ORD budget request, adjusted for
inflation, would represent the low point for ORD's budget in the
1990's. If EPA is truly committed to making science-based regulatory
decisions, and in view of the increasing complexity of environmental
issues, why is research and development not a higher priority within
EPA's budget, particularly in view of the fact that so many regulatory
and programmatic activities are slated for increases?
Answer. As always, EPA is committed to having a regulatory program
based on sound science and thus continues to support a strong research
program. This includes a strong particulate matter (PM) program with a
fiscal year 1999 President's Budget request of $28.7 million. The
decrease to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Science and
Technology budget in fiscal year 1999 comes as a result of not carrying
forward fiscal year 1998 Congressional add-ons. The Agency has a policy
not to request continuation of Congressional add-ons. The
discontinuation of these add-ons results in an initial decrease to
ORD's budget of over $70.0 million. The largest of these earmarks is
the Comprehensive PM Research add-on at $23.0 million.
Despite the discontinuation of the Comprehensive PM Research add-
on, EPA's President's Budget request exceeds the NRC's recommendation
for combined PM research funding for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. To
summarize, the NRC recommends $39.6 million in fiscal year 1998 and
$45.7 million in fiscal year 1999 be spent on PM research to address
their highest priority research areas for a total of $85.3 million. EPA
has in its fiscal year 1998 Enacted Budget $50.2 million for PM
research (plus an additional $5.2 million in certain Congressional
``add-ons''). For fiscal year 1999, the President's Budget Request
includes $28.7 million for PM research within EPA's Office of Research
and Development and $15 million for monitoring ``super sites'' within
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation; a total of $43.7 million related to
PM research needs in fiscal year 1999. EPA's combined PM research-
related budget for these two years is $93.9 million (plus an additional
$5.2 million in certain Congressional ``add-ons'' for 1998 enacted).
In addition to a strong PM program, EPA has continued to invest in
sound science through increases to other high priority research
programs. These include: Global Climate Change, the Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) Program, the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI),
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking
(EMPACT), and the Agency's Post-Doctoral initiative. These and other
investments in the S&T account continue to ensure science-based
regulatory decisions.
pm: nas report
Question. There has been some confusion surrounding what the March
31st National Academy of Sciences report said about EPA's plan for the
monitoring network. NAS staff have indicated to my staff that current
plans for the monitoring network could be improved to provide
information for research. NAS indicated you should bring in some
outside advisors to evaluate the plan. Do you agree?
The report raises the question of whether you intend to get
scientific input as to how well the network will actually measure
particulate matter for compliance. It also raises the question as to
whether we are putting in place a system that will actually measure
what it is about particulate matter that causes these health effects.
As planned, the system will measure the concentration of particles
which are 2.5 microns or less. If we find that it is some chemical on
some portion of these particles that is the culprit, will most of the
planned system let us measure for compliance if you modify the standard
to target the culprit (e.g., something other than PM-2.5)? I understand
that there will be some monitoring stations that can be used to learn
about the chemical composition (``speciation''), but there is concern
as to how well we can extrapolate from these fewer stations. Will you
bring in some outside expertise to see if our current plan for a
network to monitor compliance is adequate and flexible enough?
Please explain the rationale for requesting more for monitoring
than for research in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. At the outset it is important to note that the NAS
committee made it clear that ``substantial resources must be applied to
ambient monitoring to ascertain attainment of the standards in various
geographic areas.'' The only way to do this is to procure, put into
place, and operate a national network of sufficient size and quality to
cover areas with substantial populations or source regions that may
contribute to areas that may violate the new PM-2.5 standards. As you
note, the NAS committee is concerned about the balance of overall
resources allocated to the PM-2.5 monitoring activity as compared to
work that will address the priority health related research areas
listed by the panel. In this regard, EPA welcomes the panel's comments
and recommendations on ways to optimize the balance of regulatory
monitoring activities so as to provide maximum benefit to the research
program. These recommendations are consistent with EPA's approach to
supplement the baseline PM-2.5 network with monitors that provide
continuous readings, chemical and physical composition of PM, and
measures of materials not adequately addressed by the PM-2.5 method. We
will continue to work with the committee and others in the scientific
community to ensure the best use of these monitoring resources. More
specific responses to each of the issues raised in your question are
provided below.
Review of the Networks
We agree with the NAS that the external scientific community should
provide advice to the regulatory community on PM-2.5 monitoring
efforts, both to ensure that quality information is gathered and that
opportunities for addressing priority research needs are not missed.
Each aspect of the monitoring program (including ``supersites'',
routine chemical speciation, and attainment demonstration network) has
already or will soon receive input from the outside scientific
community as follows:
1. Attainment network.--The Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor
design and the blueprint for the monitoring network for determining
attainment with the standard were peer reviewed by the technical
monitoring subcommittee of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), the external scientific panel that advises EPA on air quality
standards.
2. Routine chemical speciation.--The EPA has established an expert
panel of scientists to review plans for the ``routine'' chemical
speciation network, and already has convened a meeting in Seattle,
Washington to obtain outside advice on this part of the monitoring
program.
3. Supersites.--EPA is working with the North American Research
Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) organization (a public/private
partnership) to sponsor a July 1998 workshop of scientific experts to
advise EPA on the supersites program. This program will establish
monitoring platforms in selected cities to collect detailed air quality
data to support health effects research and development of State
Implementation Plans (SIP's). Through the workshop, the scientific
community will advise EPA on the timing, location, and types of
measurements to be performed.
4. The EPA will meet with the NAS on June 22-23, and at this
meeting the plans for the various aspects of the monitoring program
will be presented and discussed. Three key representatives of State and
local agency organizations will attend the meeting and will be
available to discuss the State role in the PM-2.5 monitoring program.
In addition, at EPA's request, CASAC has agreed to reformulate the fine
particle monitoring technical subcommittee to review those components
of the network not previously reviewed.
All of these reviews provide opportunity for information exchange
among EPA, State and local agencies, and the research community.
Adequacy of the Network for Specific Substances
As is well known, the new PM-2.5 standards were developed under an
intensive process with substantial scientific review. The 1996 CASAC
review, as have all previous reviews over the past 20 years, concluded
that a standard for a mixture of particles, e.g. PM-10 or PM-2.5, was
more appropriate than standards for any specific toxic particle
component. The NAS panel states explicitly that it is not questioning
this conclusion. The method for measuring PM-2.5 is based on the
methods used in past health effects studies. The strengths and
limitations of the method with respect to identifying and collecting
specific components were well recognized by EPA and external scientists
involved in the standards review. As noted above, the Federal Reference
Method (FRM) monitor design and the blueprint for the monitoring
network were peer reviewed by a monitoring subcommittee of the CASAC,
the external scientific panel that advises EPA on air quality
standards.
The NAS panel clearly recognizes the need to establish a network to
measure PM-2.5 for attainment decisions, but wants to ensure enough
measurements are made of specific components of PM-2.5, as well as
materials that are not fully captured by the method. They also
recommend use of continuous monitors to provide insights into exposure
patterns. EPA agrees. It is important to note that EPA's monitoring
plans already include substantial resources to make just such
measurements. While initial EPA monitoring efforts have focused on the
attainment related mass measurements that were reviewed by CASAC, the
Agency has already begun enlisting the support of the scientific
community with respect to the optimal use of the remaining resources.
We will continue to work with the NAS panel and other scientists in
developing this program in order to optimize the results for priority
research areas identified by the NAS panel.
Resources allocated to Monitoring and Research
Regarding the question as to the balance of resources for
monitoring and research, it is important to recognize that
environmental characterization, including monitoring of constituents of
PM and copollutants, is essential to many research activities including
source-receptor modeling, epidemiological and toxicological studies of
the toxic effects of exposure to PM, and assessment of actual human
exposures and exposure relationships. Per the recommendations of the
NAS, the EPA is developing a portfolio of research activities which is
coordinated with and builds on the monitoring efforts. Substantial
research-related resources are being allocated to address priority PM
research needs (totaling over $90 million combined for fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999). This level of resources is consistent with the
recommendations of the NAS and will enable substantial new information
to be developed to support evaluation of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and standards implementation. The Agency is
coordinating the monitoring and research activities to ensure that
optimal use is made of both the monitoring and research resources.
fqpa public notice
Question. Food processors, agricultural interests and others have
been very concerned with EPA's implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act. Has EPA used formal public notice and comment
procedures to ensure adequate public input and to assure that new FQPA
policies are transparent and consistent with good science?
Answer. EPA is committed to effective public participation in the
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and is
reviewing its regulatory process to ensure there are adequate
opportunities for public input. The Agency has utilized notice and
comment where appropriate, such as for general data requirements, the
establishment of tolerances, or to accept input on the content of the
consumer brochure required by FQPA. At this time, however, EPA does not
intend to use formal rulemaking or issue formal regulations on specific
data requirements or exposure or risk assessment policies. The Agency
feels it is important to continue implementation activities both for
the establishment of new tolerances and the reassessment of existing
tolerances without the delays resulting from this type of rulemaking.
It is also important in order for EPA to maintain flexibility as our
understanding of these issues evolves. We do not believe rulemaking is
necessary to ensure public participation. Registrants will be alerted
to any changes and allowed a reasonable time to incorporate them. The
Agency has also presented all proposed changes in data requirements or
risk assessments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act Scientific Advisory Panel for discussion. This issue is among the
many that we expect to address in the new EPA/USDA Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee. As Vice President Gore stated in his
recent memorandum, the Administration is committed to receiving public
input where appropriate and will continue to evaluate our use of formal
notice and comment and will expand it if necessary.
Question. Wouldn't public notice and comment provide affected
stakeholders with no voice in Washington an opportunity to give input
on what decision criteria should be used?
Answer. EPA values regular and appropriate input from the regulated
and scientific communities in developing pesticide risk assessments and
risk management strategies. Industry regularly contributes scientific
data and comments on regulatory strategies. EPA has also provided
significant opportunity for industry, growers, and other stakeholders
to weigh in during our implementation of FQPA. We established a Food
Safety Advisory Committee (FSAC) immediately after the law was passed
to provide guidance on implementation, and we have continued to work
extensively with the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). A
variety of stakeholders were represented on the FSAC and are currently
represented on the PPDC: large companies such as Monsanto and DuPont,
small companies such as Gowan Chemical, growers, public health
representatives, environmental and public interest groups.
We have presented our approaches to FQPA's science issues to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory
Panel as they are developed. These presentations include an opportunity
for industry and other stakeholders to appear and have input. EPA has
also conducted workshops for minor users and antimicrobial registrants.
The Agency has published notices on our interim approach to risk
assessment, our priority systems for minor use and reduced risk
pesticides, our draft consumer brochure, and our schedule for tolerance
reassessment. Many of these published notices called for public comment
and those comments were considered in further refining our policies. As
always, EPA's decisions are subject to existing legislative
requirements which insure registrants and others have the opportunity
to challenge tolerance actions, new active ingredient decisions, and
any action which effects a pesticide registration; including public
comment and hearing rights for registrants. In addition, EPA uses its
Web site as an important tool to further distribution of material
related to the FQPA.
Question. Based on the Vice President's memo of April 8th, will you
begin using notice and comment procedures?
Answer. The Vice President outlined the principles that are
essential to proper implementation of FQPA: use of sound science in all
decisions; ensuring that the regulatory process is transparent;
providing appropriate, reasonable transition mechanisms which reduce
the risk associated with pesticide use without jeopardizing U.S.
agriculture; and, consultation with interested constituencies. To
ensure that these goals are realized, the Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee, co-chaired by EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen
and USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger, is being established to
seek advice and consultation from affected user, producer, consumer,
public health, environmental, and other interested groups. The Agency
itself is reviewing its regulatory processes to ensure that there are
adequate opportunities for public input. As part of that review, EPA
will discuss with the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee ways to
improve transparency and to ensure adequate public participation. In
the interim, the Agency will continue to use it where appropriate.
fqpa: reliable data
Question. FQPA was supported by many in groups, in part due to an
expectation that EPA decision-making would rely on ``real world'' data
instead of exaggerated exposure assumptions. What actions have been
taken to ensure that reliable data are obtained on pesticide risk
before making decisions on tolerance reassessments and reregistrations?
Answer. Within six months of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
going into effect, EPA issued Pesticide Regulatory Notice 97-1, in
which the Agency discussed the types of data that are useful in making
regulatory decisions. The registrant is always free to submit
additional data in support of their application, and they are in the
best position to know if supplemental data is needed.
Pesticides are the most thoroughly studied substances regulated by
EPA. In addition to the wide range of studies required from pesticide
registrants, EPA has access to very comprehensive data on food
consumption and on measured pesticide residues from USDA. There is also
a growing body of data on pesticides in water compiled by the U.S.
Geological Survey and others.
As a result, EPA already has considerable data to draw upon in the
review of tolerances. The Agency uses a tiered approach to data
requirements. If the first tier of data indicate risks of concern, EPA
requires additional data to refine its analysis. This enables the
Agency and industry to use resources efficiently, without wasting time
and money on unneeded studies. Where additional data is critical to
making a sound decision, EPA will require that data. However, the
Agency believes it would not be responsible to wait for additional data
if available information is sufficient to make a decision.
Question. How high a priority is this to EPA?
Answer. Making regulatory decisions using sound science and the
best available data is a high priority for EPA. The Agency recognizes
that how we implement FQPA will have important and far reaching
consequences. The Agency is asking its new advisory committee, the
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee, to assist in establishing
the framework for EPA's decisions on organophosphates, including
discussion of how to properly document and communicate decisions, ways
to improve the pace of registering newer and safer pesticides and new
uses of existing pesticides that meet the FQPA standard, and methods to
foster public input during the decision process. We expect that
approaches pioneered by focusing on the organophosphates can be applied
broadly to all of our work in implementing FQPA.
Question. Do you have all the data you need to make decisions that
reflect actual use and actual exposure?
Answer. EPA uses only sound, peer reviewed science in regulatory
decisions. Our first priority is to obtain the best scientific data
available. Pesticides are the most thoroughly studied substances
regulated by EPA. We have a wide range of laboratory and field data
submitted by registrants and access to comprehensive data on food
consumption and measured pesticide residues from USDA and the U.S.
Geological Survey. Finally, we have been encouraging registrants and
users to provide any additional information they may have to ensure the
best decision making possible.
In any particular case, when EPA evaluates a pesticide, final
decisions on whether to establish, maintain, revise, or revoke a
tolerance will be based on the best data set available. Where data are
incomplete, we make a judgement of how important the missing data is to
making a regulatory decision. We may use additional uncertainty factors
or make professional judgments and reasonable, health-based
assumptions. This is a long standing scientific practice, which
addresses the need for timeliness both in making decisions to permit
market entry of new products and to maintain or modify the registration
status of old products.
Question. To what extent do you rely on hypothetical risk estimates
in making tolerance decisions?
Answer. EPA uses the best data available. Where data are
incomplete, EPA may compensate by using an additional uncertainty
factor or making a reasonable health-protective assumption. This has
long been EPA practice and FQPA emphasizes the importance of
uncertainty factors where data are incomplete. Where risk estimates are
used, for instance in drinking water exposure, EPA relies on actual
data supplemented with scientifically reviewed models and not on worst-
case assumptions. Where detailed data, such as monitoring data, are not
available, EPA uses screening procedures to identify pesticides that
are unlikely to get into drinking water. This screening process allows
the Agency to make timely decisions without requiring additional data
from registrants that are not necessary to make a decision. If a
pesticide does not pass this screen, EPA considers factors such as the
nature of the health concern, overall risk, and the potential magnitude
of drinking water contamination. The Scientific Advisory Panel and the
International Life Sciences Institute is providing expert advice and
review of our methods.
Question. Have registrants and users been told what new data they
need to generate to determine if products comply with the new
standards?
Answer. EPA did issue PR Notice 97-1 discussing what information
would assist in reviewing pesticide applications. The Agency also
issued guidelines on conducting reproductive toxicity tests, which will
address concerns about potential impacts on the developing fetus and
young animals. As we further develop and refine our approach to risk
assessment under FQPA, we will adjust guidelines as needed. We have
been encouraging registrants and the user community to provide us any
additional information they may have to ensure the best decision making
possible and companies have had more than a year to provide any
additional data they believe may help support their registered uses.
Question. By when and in what manner will you inform registrants
and users?
Answer. EPA is strongly committed to an open process of airing new
data requirements. All proposed new studies are presented at least
once, and generally several times, to the Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP) for their review and comment before they are formally adopted. As
you may know, SAP meetings are public and documents are available two
or more weeks before the meeting. Oral and written comments are
welcome. As an example, the possible approach to screening chemicals
for endocrine disruption was recently presented to the SAP and the
Administrator's Science Advisory Board. In December, the Agency is
expected to present the details of the screening process to the SAP.
EPA will consider use of formal rulemaking where appropriate,
particularly if we amend the general data requirements for pesticide
registration.
fqpa: reregistration vs registration
Question. How much does EPA's budget contain for reregistration
efforts compared to new registrations?
Answer. In the 1999 President's budget, $47.2 million and 496.7
FTE's (or full time equivalents) were budgeted for reregistration and
$30.8 million and 263.1 FTE's were budgeted for registration.
Question. How much does the agency need to allow for more expedited
registration of new products to replace those which may not meet the
FQPA standard?
Answer. The Agency estimates that roughly doubling the resources
used for registration would allow the pesticide program to move away
from a priority system to a review of all applications and reduce the
amount of time required for that review.
Question. Does EPA have adequate staff to review in a timely
fashion new active ingredients?
Answer. EPA currently has adequate staff to register approximately
25-30 new active ingredients per year and approximately 100 new uses.
The Agency has tried to reduce review times by creating new divisions
to review antimicrobial and biological registration applications, and
working with registrants to reduce the number of rejected studies. EPA
continues to search for ways to efficiently review applications given
available resources and requirements.
Question. How long does it take for EPA to make a decision on a new
product petition after it is received?
Answer. The average review time for a conventional new active
ingredient is 3-3.5 years. Average review time for a new reduced risk
pesticide active ingredient is 16-18 months.
Question. Can this review and processing time be reduced?
Answer. As noted above, more resources would allow for reduced
review and processing time for new applications. The Agency is also
looking at other ways to streamline the registration process and will
be discussing this issue with its new advisory committee, the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee.
fqpa: new advisory group
Question. The Vice President's April 8, 1998 memo directs EPA to
work more closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and with
stakeholders in implementing the FQPA. In response, EPA established a
new advisory group and committed itself to apply sound science, to
employ an open process of decision making, and to ease any necessary
transition to new rules so as not to jeopardize agriculture and farm
communities. Has the new advisory group been formed?
Answer. Yes. The group was announced on April 30, 1998. A list of
members is attached.
Question. Has it met?
Answer. The first meeting of the Advisory Group took place on May
28 and 29, 1998. There will be three additional meetings of the
Advisory Group, one in June and two in July 1998.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (17O3),
Communications, Education and Public Affairs
EPA Note to Correspondents
for release: thursday, april 30, 1998
epa broadens public involvement in implementation of food, quality
protection act
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture is establishing a new advisory group to
ensure the broadest possible public involvement as it moves forward to
implement the Food Quality Protection Act. This new committee responds
to Vice President Gore's request that implementation of the new law is
informed by appropriate input from affected members of the public.
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, ``The new committee to
advise EPA on pesticide-safety issues is part of the Clinton
Administration's common-sense approach to protect public health while
ensuring the abundance of America's food supply. One of the most
important parts of that approach is consulting openly and often with a
broad variety of groups representing the views of the American public.
We look forward to hearing from this committee on issues ranging from
protecting children's health to using the best scientific data in our
decision making.''
USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger said, ``USDA looks forward
to working closely with EPA and this advisory group to develop a
scientifically sound and balanced implementation strategy for FQPA.
Using this process to craft an effective transition strategy for at-
risk commodities is critically important to USDA and American
Agriculture.''
The new committee will be co-chaired by EPA Deputy Administrator
Fred Hansen and USDA's Richard Rominger. Its members will be made up of
experts that include farmers, environmentalists, public health
officials, pediatric experts, pesticide companies, food processors and
distributors, public interest groups, academicians, and state, local
and tribal governments.
The new committee will advise EPA and USDA on a host of issues
pertaining to the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Examples of those issues include helping EPA use the best science in
making decisions about pesticide safety; helping EPA set priorities in
considering broad categories of pesticides, such as organophosphates;
helping EPA speed the pace of decisions on pesticide safety to make
sure that farmers can have products they need in a timely way, advising
USDA on prioritizing research programs to address FQPA-driven needs,
and making sure pesticide safety rule are protective of children.
A list of nominees is attached.
John Kasper,
Director, R-51, Press Services Division.
may 13, 1998--epa-usda tolerance reassessment advisory committee (trac)
subcommittee to national advisory council for environmental policy &,
technology
Fred Hansen, Deputy Administrator, EPA, Co-Chair
Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, USDA, Co-Chair
Designated Federal Officer
Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA.
Environmental/consumer Organizations/Farmworker Representatives
Carolyn Brickey, National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform.
Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive Director, C.A.T.A. (Farmworker
Support Committee).
Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group.
Shelley Davis, Farmworker Justice Fund.
Jeannine Kenney, Consumers Union.
Sarah Lynch, World Wildlife Fund.
Maion Moses, Pesticide Education Center.
Erik Olson/David Wallinga, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Agriculture/Farmer Representatives
Dan Botts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.
Jim Czub, National Corn Growers Association.
Larry Elworth, Program for Strategic Pest Management.
Hugh Ewart, Northwest Horticultural Council.
William T. Lovetady, Chairman, National Cotton Council.
Brad Luckey, Luckey Farms, Imperial County, California.
Charles Mellinger, National Association of Independent Crop
Consultants.
Steven Pavich, Organic Grape Producer, Terra Bella, CA.
Bill Spencer, Farmer, American Farm Bureau Federation.
Robin Spitko, Plant Pathologist, Massachusetts.
Pesticide Companies
Emilio Bontempo, Novartis.
Linda Fisher, Monsanto.
Jon Jessen, Gowan.
Elin Miller, DowElanco.
Nancy Rachman, American Cyanamid.
Jay Vroom, American Crop Protection Association.
Other Federal Agencies
Dick Jackson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Robert Lake, Food and Drug Administration.
NACEPT/SAP Representatives
Mark Greenwood, Ropes & Gray.
Ernest McConnell, Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).
Academia
Dr. Jose Arnador, Director, Agriculture Research & Extension
Center, Texas A&M.
Dr. Mike Linker, North Carolina State University (State Extension
Service).
Dr. J. Routt Reigart, Pediatrician, Medical University of South
Carolina.
Dr. Michael Shannon, Pediatrician, Children's Hospital/Harvard
Medical School.
Michael Taylor, Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future.
Dr. John Wargo, Yale University.
Mark Whalon, Michigan State University.
Tribal, State, & Local Representatives
Henry (Andy) Anderson, Association of State & Territorial Health
Officials, Wisconsin.
Bill Cottkamp, Supervisor of Vector Control, St. Louis County Dept.
of Health, MO.
Alice Devine, Commissioner, Kansas Department of Agriculture.
Jean-Mari Peltier, California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Greg Phillips, Omaha Tribal Council.
Lora Lee Schroeder, Chair, AAPCO FQPA Minor Use Committee, GA Dept.
of Agriculture.
Food Processors/Distributors
John Cady, National Food Processors Association.
Kay Holcombe, Policy Directions, Inc.
Alfred Pieroallini, Gerber Products Company.
William Spain, Del Monte Foods.
Margaret Wittenberg, Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Structural Pest Control User
Robert Rosenberg, National Pest Control Association.
Observers
EPA Regional Office
EPA Office of Children's Health Protection
Ramona Trovato.
USDA
Allen Jennings, Office of Pest Management.
Congressional Participants
Howard Cohen, House Commerce Committee.
John Ford, House Commerce Committee.
Eric Burger, House Commerce Committee.
Greg Dotson, Congressman Waxman's Office.
Bill O'Connor, House Agriculture Committee.
Dannell Farmer, House Agriculture Committee.
Terri Nintemann, Senate Agriculture Committee.
Phil Schwab, Senate Agriculture Committee.
Jean Fruci, House Committee on Science.
Paul Charton, Office of Congressman Berry Jay Hawkins, Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
fqpa: cumulative risk guidance
Question. A new report from the International Life Sciences
Institute is expected to provide guidance on how to calculate
cumulative risk. Does EPA expect to use that report in developing its
implementation approach?
Answer. EPA certainly will be factoring the International Life
Sciences Institute's (ILSI) report into the process for decision making
on cumulative risk assessment. In addition, we will be obtaining input
on this issue from the new advisory committee, from a policy viewpoint.
As with all of our science policies, as our approach is developed we
will receive expert review and comment from the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel and the Administrator's Science Advisory Board.
fqpa: insecticide cancellations
Question. How might EPA ease the transition if one or more popular
insecticide uses are canceled?
Answer. EPA is committed to making every effort to ensure that
farmers have the critical tools they need to grow our food. EPA wants
all affected growers to be able to anticipate and plan for our actions.
We are balancing tolerance reassessment with the introduction of new
products and pest control methods to help ensure that both chemical and
non-chemical alternatives are available.
EPA has stepped up its efforts to provide better, safer choices for
pesticides for farmers. In the past few years, EPA has created two new
programs aimed at expediting reviews and ultimately market entry of
lower risk products and safer substitutes. The Agency created the
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division. The types of products
registered in this Division generally have a non-toxic mode of action.
By combining the risk managers with the review scientists in one
division, we have been able to streamline the entire review process.
About half of post--Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new active
ingredients have been for biopesticides.
The second program, known as the Reduced-Risk Pesticide Program,
has been in place since 1994. Applications that come in under the
Reduced-Risk Program are placed at the head of the review queue. To
date, 17 new chemicals have been approved as reduced risk alternatives.
This program clearly provides an incentive for companies to develop
lower-risk products and safer substitute products. Among the 13
chemicals currently under review as part of this program, 5 new active
ingredients are potentially significant substitutes for some
organophosphate registered uses for which reviews should be completed
before tolerance reassessment on organophosphate pesticides is
completed. EPA has also proposed a draft policy to give expedited
consideration to applications for reduced risk pesticides that may be
alternatives to the organophosphates. As stated in the Vice President's
April 8 memorandum on food safety, EPA is establishing an advisory
process to ensure broad stakeholder involvement in the development and
implementation of an approach to tolerance reassessment for
organophosphate pesticides.
In addition, EPA works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) on a regular basis to ensure that the impact of its regulations
and decisions on farmers is considered. USDA has committed to enhance
research and development of alternative pest control methods and EPA
has committed to expediting review of any products that result from
this research and development. EPA and USDA also have a Memorandum of
Understanding to foster cooperative efforts to provide replacements for
pesticides that are likely to be subject to cancellation or suspension
by EPA, or are subject to voluntary cancellation based on risk or
economic concerns. This program is particularly important for minor use
crops, such as fruits and vegetables, which may face a lack of safe and
effective pest management alternatives.
antimicrobials pesticides: label claims
Question. Does EPA have any evidence that particular label claims
and/or advertising of the antimicrobial pesticide properties in
particular consumer products such as toys, cutting boards or
toothbrushes are misleading or confusing to consumers? If so, please
provide it to this Committee.
Answer. The Agency has received numerous questions and complaints
from citizens, reporters, and competitors about label claims and/or
advertising of the antimicrobial pesticide properties in consumer
products. A significant proportion of these contacts have indicated
that the claims being made by some companies are, at best, confusing
and often appear intentionally misleading. While public concerns have
focused on the truthfulness of the claims, EPA has not contended in its
enforcement actions that these statements are false or misleading.
Rather, the Agency has taken enforcement actions against consumer
products, such as sponges and cutting boards, because the products have
made claims to control disease-causing germs, such as E. Coli, staph,
and strep, without having first been registered as pesticides. In its
public statements, EPA has consistently been careful to say that it
does not know whether such public health claims are true. Rather, we
have stressed that EPA's role under the pesticide law is to evaluate
data presented by companies to support their claims to control human
pathogens, since the consumer is unable to tell whether an
antimicrobial pesticide is working. Moreover, the Agency has emphasized
that if such products do not work, the public may be put at risk
because they may forego normal hygienic practices in mistaken reliance
on the products' claims.
antimicrobial pesticides: limiting claims
Question. What are EPA's reasons for limiting the claims that a
pesticide that inhibits the growth of bacteria in a consumer product
can make against any type of pest if the claim can be substantiated?
Answer. EPA has repeatedly said that the Agency is prepared to
register and allow the marketing of consumer products which make
pesticidal claims, provided those products are properly labeled, safe
to use, and, to the extent they make claims to control pathogenic
microbes, efficacious. In particular, as part of such a registration
decision, EPA would approve a claim that a product inhibits pathogenic
bacteria if the claim is substantiated and presented in a manner that
does not mislead the consumer into expecting a greater degree of
antimicrobial activity than the product actually provides.
antimicrobial pesticides: protocol
Question. Does EPA have a protocol to test the efficacy of a
bacteriostatic pesticide against microorganisms? If not, how long will
it take EPA to develop such a protocol?
Answer. Historically, claims to limit the growth of bacteria (i.e.
bacteriostasis) are not considered public health claims, and EPA does
not require the submission of efficacy data to support the registration
of a product making such a claim. As mentioned above, EPA does require
efficacy data to substantiate claims to control disease-causing
microbes. The Agency believes that requiring companies to demonstrate
to EPA the efficacy of products claiming to benefit public health is
critical, both because of the potentially serious consequences for
society if such products do not work, and because the user simply
cannot tell whether such products work. EPA has already issued
guidelines for testing of antimicrobial pesticides making public health
claims. From time to time, a company may seek registration of a
pesticide that makes public health efficacy claims for which there is
not an approved testing method, usually because the product is
innovative and is of a type that has never been marketed. In such
situations, EPA works with the company to develop an acceptable interim
testing protocol. Typically, the company will consult with appropriate
experts and submit a proposed protocol for EPA review. Using its
internal expertise, and consulting with outside experts where
appropriate, EPA provides recommendations for the improvement of the
protocol. The amount of time required to develop such a protocol
depends on a number of factors including the efforts made by the
company and the degree to which an existing method can be adapted to
the innovative product.
antimicrobial pesticides: enforcement actions
Question. With regards to enforcement actions taken against makers
of consumer products incorporating antimicrobial additives, what steps
did EPA take to provide an opportunity for companies to correct their
alleged violations before EPA undertook enforcement?
Answer. EPA has repeatedly expressed concerns about the need for
consumer products companies to follow the registration process that
Congress established to safeguard public health. EPA has raised the
issue in its public Antimicrobials Stakeholders' Meetings held
quarterly and in meetings with numerous individual pesticide
manufacturers. In addition, EPA's Antimicrobials Division Ombudsman has
spent a significant amount of time counseling companies about how to
comply with the pesticide laws, and has provided written responses to
over 25 companies on acceptable claims. Finally, EPA has attempted to
convey its message to the consumer goods industry through the general
media and trade press publications.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
does not provide for an amnesty period prior to EPA initiating
enforcement actions. After initiating actions, EPA did allow companies
to continue to sell and distribute products once interim corrective
measures were negotiated and agreed upon. These measures allowed
companies to continue distribution and sales of existing stocks versus
disposal or instituting expensive recall and repackaging procedures.
All products that make pesticidal claims must be registered by EPA
before they may be legally marketed in the United States pursuant to
Section 3 of the FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136a, unless they are exempt from
registration. Under FIFRA, EPA created a limited exemption to allow
pesticide treated articles to be sold without an EPA registration as
long as product claims are limited to protection of the product itself.
The treated articles exemption is set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Section 152.25(a). The regulated community has had notice
of this regulation since it was first promulgated in 1988.
antimicrobial pesticides: in the marketplace
Question. EPA's proposed Pesticide Registration Notice creates a
regulatory scheme that effectively deters consumer products treated
with an antimicrobial pesticide from entering the marketplace. Is this
EPA's intended purpose? If not, how is EPA going to prevent this from
happening?
Answer. EPA's Pesticide Registration Notice does not deter consumer
products treated with registered antimicrobials from entering the
marketplace. In fact, it continues the longstanding policy of exempting
such products from any registration requirements if the only claims
made for the presence of the antimicrobial in the product are that the
pesticide protects the product itself. The PR Notice does deter
companies from making public health or other pesticidal claims that are
not substantiated by scientific data. In effect, the PR Notice would
require companies making claims of public health benefits either to
submit data for EPA review as part of an application for registration
or to limit any pesticidal claims only to the protection of the treated
article.
EPA is very interested in supporting the introduction into the
marketplace of products impregnated with antimicrobials that will
contribute significantly to protecting the public health. Thus, we have
been working actively with the regulated community and the scientific
community to address policy and science issues concerning how to
evaluate these products efficiently and fairly. A meeting of EPA's
Scientific Advisory Panel last September provided very helpful guidance
on the design of new efficacy testing methods. We have also scheduled
the topic of regulating treated articles for extended discussion in the
upcoming National Antimicrobials Workshop in mid-June. We will continue
to issue guidance and to consult with affected parties as decisions are
made.
nepps: napa report on formal assessments
Question. According to the Sept. 1997 NAPA report, ``EPA has not
used the opportunities presented by NEPPS to give states clear
incentives for better performance. The agency has failed to establish
the practice of making formal assessments of state performance and
using these assessments to link performance explicitly with the level
of Federal oversight and with the flexibility in program design and
innovation. Such a policy would create strong incentives for improved
state performance.'' Do you agree with NAPA's recommendations on the
need for formal assessments and linking performance with the level of
oversight and flexibility? If so what are EPA's plans to follow this
recommendation?
Answer. EPA is already implementing the approach to oversight
recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). As
a fundamental component of the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS), EPA tailors the amount and type of
oversight--as well as provision of EPA technical assistance--to each
state's needs. The first step in the NEPPS process is a state and EPA
assessment of environmental conditions and program performance. EPA
believes these assessments form an appropriate basis for negotiating
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPA's) and for determining where
greater flexibility should be provided and what level of oversight is
needed.
The NEPPS process has already resulted in reduced oversight and
reporting in several states, and through NEPPS evaluation efforts and
other means, EPA will identify and promote wider use of successful
approaches to assessing performance and tailoring oversight to state
needs and conditions. As an example of how EPA has reduced reporting,
Region VII has collaborated with Missouri and Nebraska to switch from
quarterly reporting to semi-annual reporting and is exploring use of
self-evaluation by Missouri. In the state assessment arena, EPA Region
IV has developed indicators and benchmarks for the drinking water
program and uses them to focus regional resources on weaker states. In
an example of how EPA tailors assistance to specific state needs, one
EPA region provided program staff to work in a state temporarily to
reduce backlogs while helping the state convince its legislature that
the agency needed more resources.
A variety of quantitative and qualitative information is considered
in the assessments of state performance, such as formal reports on
accomplishment of grant and other program commitments, the experience
of state staff, environmental monitoring data, the quality of permits
issued, changes in state funding levels, economic development
pressures, and changes in legal authorities. There are multiple
environmental programs, and a state's performance may vary
substantially among them. The availability and quality of information
useful for assessment varies as well. Therefore, EPA believes that its
adaptable approach to assessment is the most appropriate way to fairly
accommodate the variations among states and the complexity of factors
that should be taken into account in assessing and then addressing
state performance and needs.
EPA program offices and regions use a range of approaches and tools
for assessing state performance--both formal and informal. The core
performance measures, developed as part of the NEPPS effort, provide
EPA and states with an important tool for evaluating progress in
environmental protection and implementing environmental programs that
should aid in making the assessment process more consistent. However,
given the many factors involved, EPA does not think it possible or
advisable to try to develop a ``one size fits all'' protocol that would
set out specific standards for performance and specific responses that
EPA would make to a given performance score. (Highlighting the
challenge of developing acceptable criteria, state officials themselves
abandoned efforts to implement the ``leadership'' designation
originally envisioned as part of NEPPS when they were unable to agree
on the standards to use.) Rather, EPA believes it most appropriate to
tailor the Agency's response to state performance to the specific needs
and strengths of the individual state--designing solutions to problems
or rewards for good performance to suit the specific situation.
nepps: flexibility
Question. How do you respond to the criticism that some of EPA's
offices, such as the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
resist providing states with the flexibility to focus their
environmental programs on results, and instead compel them to focus on
process-oriented activities?
Answer. All of the EPA National Program Managers (NPM), including
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), work closely
with the states through the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS),
to develop core performance measures (CPM) to measure state
environmental performance. Core performance measures for the
enforcement and compliance assurance program are referred to as
``accountability measures.'' The accountability measures are in sync
with OECA program measures, which relate directly to the Agency's goals
and assist OECA in meeting its obligations under GPRA.
Core performance measures (including accountability measures) were
issued under the ``Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System'' signed by EPA
and State officials in August 1997, which reaffirms our joint
commitment to use core performance measures as tools to track progress
in achieving results.
Current accountability measures are a mixture of outcome and output
measures. Traditionally, EPA relied on output measures, such as the
number of enforcement actions taken and inspections conducted. These
will remain important measures of program performance and
accountability for both EPA and the states because they assure the
public of the government's presence, they provide accountability for
Federal and state actions, and they give EPA and the states important
information about how our strategies are working.
However, the core performance measures for states also reflect the
progress EPA has made in developing outcome measures. Outcome measures
included in the core performance measures are:
--Rates of significant non-compliance by industry sector and by
media;
--Percent of significant violators in each media that have new or
recurrent significant violations within two years of receiving
a formal enforcement action;
--Environmental and/or public health benefits achieved through
inspection and enforcement activities (e.g.,through case
settlements, compliance agreements, injunctive relief,
Supplemental Environmental Projects); and,
--Results or impact of using: state audit privilege or immunity law;
state audit policies; state small business compliance
assistance policies; and compliance assistance initiatives
developed for specific industry sectors.
nepps: differential oversight
Question. The National Performance Partnership System calls for
differential oversight by EPA. EPA is expected to focus resources on
state programs that need more assistance and attention to perform well
and reduce oversight elsewhere. What steps have been taken to achieve
this?
Answer. As stated in the 1995 agreement to establish a National
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), ``This new system
will not change federal authority, but serves as a guide to the
judicious and more effective exercise of that authority.'' In other
words, EPA still has responsibility and authority to conduct oversight
of state programs under the various Federal environmental statutes.
NEPPS seeks a more efficient and judicious use of that authority to
ensure continued progress in environmental protection while allowing
strong state programs more flexibility to innovate.
EPA Regional Offices routinely differentiate between stronger and
weaker performers through routine program reviews or other oversight
procedures, and respond with an array of tools depending on the
circumstances. Program performance can vary over time with changes in
resources, changes in program objectives, or increased staff turnover.
Quite often, when a weakness or need has been identified, EPA will
provide training, technical assistance, and even loan staff to a state
until the problem has been addressed. In other cases, the State and EPA
will devise a strategy drawing on their respective strengths (such as
different enforcement authorities, or different monitoring or modeling
capabilities) to remedy the problem. Sometimes, the experience or
ability of neighboring states can be brought to bear to solve a
problem.
As a key part of NEPPS the Performance Partnership Agreements have
provided a mechanism to identify state needs, craft joint EPA/State
responses, and articulate specific plans and commitments. The PPA also
provides an avenue for EPA to identify strong program performance, and
to adjust its oversight procedures for that program accordingly.
The August 1997 EPA/State Agreement on Core Performance Measures
provides an important new tool for measuring state environmental and
program performance, thus forming a more solid and equitable basis for
gauging state and EPA performance in the future. Core Performance
Measures are intended to help make performance assessment less
subjective over time, and more focused on meaningful results.
Through NEPPS, EPA and the States are also investing considerable
effort in reducing unnecessary state reporting. This work ties into the
broader EPA/State Initiative on ``Reinventing Environmental
Information.'' While much work remains to be done, ``reporting burden
reduction'' has already made a measurable impact in several regions and
states, and allows both EPA and State environmental agencies to devote
more effort to their original missions of protecting human health and
the environment.
partnership grants: regs and guidelines
Question. Performance Partnership grants allow states to
consolidate the many categorical grants. Both EPA and states are
responsible for accounting for these Federal grant funds. Has EPA
developed regulations or guidelines to define how combined grants can
be rationalized and spent? Now that states are receiving combined
grants under PPG's, how is EPA tracking the flow of Federal funds?
Answer. Since Congress approved EPA's Performance Partnership Grant
(PPG) authority in April, 1996, the award of PPG's has been governed by
EPA Interim Guidance. Work is nearing completion on proposed changes to
EPA's regulations (40 CFR Part 35). The revised regulations will govern
individual environmental program grants to states as well as PPG's. The
draft regulations were developed in an extensive collaborative process
involving State and Tribal representatives.
The draft rule streamlines administrative processes and builds key
partnership concepts--such as consideration of state as well as EPA
priorities and joint evaluation--into the state grant programs. The PPG
provisions further refine and simplify administrative requirements and
articulate what can be funded under a PPG. States can opt to combine
funds from two or more programs in a PPG to achieve administrative
savings and more easily fund cross-media activities, and States may
receive more than one PPG. Under the proposed regulation, States
wishing to reduce or increase effort in various programs combined in
PPG's must provide a rationale commensurate with the extent of the
proposed shifts in emphasis.
It is a state's decision whether to apply for PPG's and which
eligible grant programs to include. The state will propose the
activities to be carried out in the work plan which accompanies a grant
application. In the work plan, the state will specify the components
that make up the work plan and the related environmental commitments
the state agrees to complete.
The state's PPG work plan will include estimates of the work years
and funding amounts related to the various work plan components. This
information will allow EPA to tie the state's work plan commitments to
the accomplishment of EPA's goals and objectives established under the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). This process will not
increase the accounting burden on states. Work plans will also include
proposed performance evaluation and reporting processes for PPG's. All
aspects of proposed work plans are subject to negotiation between the
EPA Regional Offices and the state. If proposed commitments in a work
plan are not consistent with EPA's National Program Guidance, the
Regional Administrator must consult with the appropriate EPA National
Program Manager before approving the departure.
After a state's PPG application is complete and accepted, EPA
reprograms the appropriate funds from the individual program grant fund
elements into a PPG program element. Awards are made from the PPG
program element, and EPA tracks the funds there.
At the end of each budget cycle, the state and EPA will carry out a
performance evaluation in accordance with the processes that were
agreed to in negotiating the PPG. These evaluations will assure that
states accomplish the work they committed to do.
nepps: oversight vs flexibility
Question. EPA will need to improve its reporting of outcomes
(results) to comply with GPRA. The states are concerned that EPA will
impose new reporting requirements and new burdens on states, since they
have the bulk of day-to-day responsibility for national program
implementation. This potentially would conflict with the administrative
and fiscal flexibility EPA is offering states through performance
partnership agreements. What is EPA's response to state concerns about
conflicts between the goals of the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System, and GPRA?
Answer. EPA is committed to the goals of providing programmatic,
administrative, and fiscal flexibility in the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). Furthermore, EPA is confident
that the focus on performance-based management envisioned by the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) will not compromise these
fundamental NEPPS principles.
EPA has already done substantial work in aligning annual measures
with our Strategic Plan goals and objectives, as well as beginning the
process of instituting environmental outcome performance measures. EPA
is also working closely with the states to ensure as close an alignment
as possible between information states will provide under the Core
Performance Measures and associated reporting requirements and what EPA
must report to Congress under GPRA. Both EPA and states are reaching
agreement that a mix of both outcome and output measures is needed to
assess environmental results as well as program performance.
Our preliminary comparison of the agreed-upon Core Performance
Measures with the full range of reporting requirements found in the
fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan shows that GPRA has not
resulted in the imposition of new reporting burdens on the states. Over
the summer, states and EPA will be carefully analyzing the linkages
between EPA's strategic goals and objectives, the Core Performance
Measures, and the data needed to support them. With these efforts, EPA
does not anticipate significant conflicts between GPRA and NEPPS.
EPA is developing guidance for EPA Regions to address the challenge
of providing flexibility with fiscal accountability in Performance
Partnership Grants (PPG) while maintaining EPA's ability to report
appropriately under GPRA. Where individual program grant funds are
being combined in a PPG, EPA regions will work with states to develop
an estimate of the amount of the combined funds being used to support
the various GPRA goals and objectives.
nepps: short-term improvements
Question. States identify several high-priority, short-term
improvements that are needed to implement NEPPS. Chief among these are:
achieving burden reduction (such as replacing numerous ``bean-
counting'' activities with less numerous performance measures);
changing the culture at EPA to accept partnerships with states rather
than the traditional oversight relationship; and recognition by EPA
that priorities identified by states may be different from EPA
priorities. What concrete steps will EPA take during fiscal year 1999
to effect these improvements?
Answer. The goals of the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) are to improve environmental protection
through better measurement of environmental results, better use of EPA
and State resources to address the most pressing environmental problems
across the country, and enhance public accountability. Since these
multi-faceted goals encompass virtually everything EPA and States do,
implementing all the changes involved will take time.
Important steps toward achieving the NEPPS goals include reducing
the reporting of information not necessary for effective program
management, carrying out EPA's responsibility for oversight of state
programs in a way that is tailored to individual state conditions and
needs as well as designed to help improve program performance over the
long run, and recognizing state priorities in planning and priority
setting. Efforts to address State concerns about the need for greater
progress in these areas are already underway, and work will continue
during fiscal year 1999. Following are some examples of steps EPA is
taking, in cooperation with States, to improve NEPPS implementation.
Burden reduction.--A key objective of NEPPS is to achieve a better
balance between environmental and traditional activity measures. This
summer, in a critical step towards reducing state reporting burden, EPA
and states will analyze the alignment between EPA's goals and
objectives and the Core Performance Measures/Associated Reporting
Requirements. We will use this process to refine the fiscal year 2000
Core Performance Measures and to identify potential candidates for
reduced reporting. In addition, States and EPA are now working together
in a major initiative to reform environmental information systems and
their accessibility. This multi-faceted effort should bring about
reduced reporting burden for both the regulated community and States.
Partnership culture.--EPA recognizes the challenges faced by both
EPA and States in getting increased understanding of and support for
the partnership approach to State-EPA relations. EPA believes that the
culture change will accelerate as the processes and mechanisms for
NEPPS and PPG's become more routine and implementation details are
clarified and more widely understood. Several mechanisms are in place
to identify and ensure that issues are addressed, including an internal
EPA NEPPS senior management group, a cross-agency staff working group,
and an ECOS-EPA steering group. In addition, EPA holds periodic NEPPS
workshops, the most recent of which involved both State and EPA staff.
State priorities.--NEPPS is designed to help EPA and States direct
scarce public resources toward improvement of environmental results.
Since State priorities may be different from EPA priorities, joint
planning and priority setting--based on assessment of environmental
conditions and program needs--is a fundamental aspect of NEPPS. State
priorities are explicitly considered in negotiation of Performance
Partnership Agreements (PPA's) and State grant agreements. To ensure
that national priorities and needs are also met, EPA Regions must
consult with National Program Managers before agreeing to a State
proposal to deviate significantly from national guidance or Core
Performance Measures. EPA will encourage future NEPPS evaluation
efforts to review how well the joint planning and priority setting
aspect of the system is working to improve environmental performance.
ccti: greenhouse gas releases
Question. What analysis did the administration perform to determine
that $6.3 billion is needed to implement climate change activities and
how to allocate these funds to ensure that they are used most
effectively to decrease greenhouse gas releases?
Answer. There was a coordinated effort within the Administration
among several agencies to determine the appropriate resources to invest
in activities to stimulate the development and deployment of energy
efficient and low carbon technologies. The starting point for these
efforts was a review of the costs and benefits of existing programs
which had been developed last year through an interagency effort
chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality. The results of this
analysis were published in the ``U.S. Climate Action Report--1997''.
This was followed with a sector-by-sector review of additional
opportunities for carbon reductions, selecting strategic opportunities
that cost-effectively can advance the development and deployment of
energy efficient and low-carbon technologies across the economy. A
recent study, by five Department of Energy laboratories of energy
technologies that reduce carbon emissions, supported the sector-by-
sector review. The Administration also considered the extensive
recommendations of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) for new investments in energy research and
development. These recommendations are contained in the November 1997
report ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of
the 21st Century.'' The Treasury Department and several other Federal
agencies worked together to evaluate the costs and benefits of
potential tax incentives.
ccti: effectiveness of programs
Question. How is the administration planning to monitor the
effectiveness of its programs to ensure they are functioning
effectively?
Answer. The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. The first such
interagency evaluation, chaired by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, examined the performance of programs included in
the Climate Change Action Plan. The results were published in the
``U.S. Climate Action Report--1997'' as part of the United States
Submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. There were
several opportunities for public comment. The Administration will
continue monitoring the effectiveness of its programs through the
programs' performance measures established under the Government
Performance and Results Act. Several performance measures for EPA's
climate change programs were included in our 1999 Annual Plan provided
to the committee.
ccti: implementation of kyoto protocol
Question. As you know, there has been some concern that EPA's
proposed increase of 130 percent for the Climate Change Technology
Initiative indicates that the Administration plans to begin
implementing the Kyoto protocol prior to its ratification by the
Senate. How do you address such concerns?
Answer. The 1999 request for Climate Change has not come about
because of Kyoto, nor is it an extension of the Kyoto treaty. Rather,
the Climate Change request is intended to enhance the existing programs
established in 1993 to meet our commitment under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change that was negotiated by the Bush
Administration and ratified by the Senate in October 1992. It also
makes good economic sense, because it requires energy consumption and
saves businesses and consumers money.
The request continues and improves upon work projects and efforts
underway that improve energy efficiency and result in greenhouse gas
reductions. Since these programs are good common sense measures. By
fully funding our request, the Senate will be agreeing to meet goals
for energy efficiency that have long been Executive Branch and
Congressional priorities.
The Agency strongly believes these activities are prudent
investments and must be pursued now for a number of reasons including:
These programs make good economic sense to undertake now. Improving
the energy-efficiency of our businesses, homes, and vehicles can save
businesses and consumers money and make our economy more productive.
It is prudent to take reasonable steps to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions that have numerous other benefits to the economy and the
environment.
Energy efficiency reduces other pollutants in addition to
greenhouse gases, including nitrious oxide (NOX),
particulate matter (PM), and mercury.
Catalyzing a strong domestic market for energy efficiency will help
U.S. manufacturers expand their leadership in the development and
production of these technologies, strengthening our global
competitiveness and technology leadership.
ccti: commitments under kyoto protocol
Question. Would any of the proposed activities in the budget help
the U.S. to meet its proposed commitments under the Kyoto Protocol?
What additional EPA activities would be necessary to implement the
Kyoto Protocol if it were ratified?
Answer. EPA's objective is based on voluntary, profitable
opportunities to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions while
strengthening the economy and is consistent with existing U.S.
international obligations under the 1992 United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which the Senate ratified, to work
toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These programs are a
sensible, cost-effective step to begin to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Improving the energy-efficiency of our businesses, homes,
and vehicles can save businesses and consumers money and make our
economy more productive, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
epa anti-lobbying requirements
Question. Please provide a list of the 20 largest EPA grantees who
also engage in lobbying activities (not including states or
municipalities).
Answer. EPA has taken strong steps to ensure and believes all its
grantees are adhering to the government-wide lobbying requirements.
Attached is a chart indicating the 20 largest EPA grantees
(excluding states or municipalities) of active projects. The chart
indicates the total dollar amounts awarded, number of active grants,
whether the recipient has certified that they will not use Federal
funds for lobbying, and whether the recipient has submitted a
disclosure form (SF-LLL) reporting the use of non-Federal funds for
lobbying.
To implement Public Law 101-121 (``the Byrd Amendment''), EPA
requires all recipients receiving new grants or cooperative agreements
over $100,000 to certify they have not and will not use Federal funds
to obtain Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or loans.
In addition, EPA requires recipients to complete a disclosure form if
they use non-Federal funds to lobby (Note: Public Law 101-121 permits
lobbying with non-Federal funds).
EPA has also aggressively implemented the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 (this Act prohibits awards to nonprofit organizations
classified as 501(c)(4) by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that
engage in lobbying activities. This restriction applies to any lobbying
activities of a 501(c)(4) organization without distinguishing between
lobbying funded by Federal funds and lobbying funded by other sources).
EPA includes a Term and Condition on all grants made to nonprofit
organizations requiring the organization to certify that it is either
not a non-profit organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS
code or that if it is a 501(c)(4) organization it will not engage in
lobby activities.
Finally, EPA includes a special term and condition on all grants
(other than to State or local governments or Indian Tribes) emphasizing
the restrictions imposed by the OMB Cost Principles on using grant
funds for lobbying and includes a guidance document on lobbying
restrictions in grant awards to nonprofit organizations and educational
institutions.
potentially responsible party-lead in settlement cases
Question. EPA's budget indicates there will be 136 construction
completions by the end of fiscal year 1999. Given EPA's heavy reliance
on Potentially Responsible Parties for these cleanups--an assumption is
made that 70 percent of all cleanups will be PRP funded--how can we
have any confidence in your estimate?
Answer. This question is referring to two different annual
performance goals in the Annual Plan. The 136 construction completions
are part of the 900 completions the Agency expects to finish by
December 2001. EPA's 70 percent projection of PRP-lead applies to
settlements for construction starts and not completions. In other
words, EPA estimates that approximately 70 percent of new remedial work
at NPL sites (excluding Federal Facilities) will be initiated by
private parties. This estimate is based on recent history where PRP's
have consistently settled for construction costs at 70 percent or more
of the sites.
superfund recovered funds available for obligation
Question. GAO has notified us that EPA has recovered in fiscal year
1997 $210 million of the $249 million potentially available in unspent
obligated funds. These funds are available for obligation. What
specifically is EPA doing with these funds, and to what extent do they
lessen the need for appropriations in view of the fact that EPA's
fiscal year 1998 budget request did not include an assumption that
these funds would be recovered? According to GAO, EPA has plans to
deobligate an additional $25 million this year, and there is an
additional $125 million available for deobligation from contracts
completed in 1997. Does EPA's budget include an assumption that these
funds will be recovered? If not, why not? How will these recoveries be
applied.
Answer. Each year, EPA recovers unspent Superfund resources from
contracts, grants and IAG's through deobligation and recertification of
funds. Funds recovered are to be recertified, or obligated, in the same
year they are deobligated. These recoveries assist the Agency in
managing the Superfund program by shifting unused obligations at
inactive or closed projects to active projects.
The Agency anticipates the recovery of unspent funds in setting and
meeting annual performance commitments. These funds, as with carryover,
are included in our planning needs in addition to annual
appropriations. The recovery of unspent funds therefore, does not
reduce the need for new obligating authority.
OSWER and the Office of Administration Management has established
an annual process for recovering unspent funds from expired contracts.
Each year 100 percent of the funds remaining in contracts that have
been expired for six months or more are reviewed for potential
deobligation. Using this process all of the funds identified by GAO in
contracts that expired in 1997 will be reviewed and, where appropriate,
deobligated in fiscal year 1999. In addition, the Office of Grants
Debarment will continue working with the Regions to expedite the
closeout of expired assistance agreements and grants.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency anticipates recovering between $75
and $100 million in deobligated funds. These funds will be directed, as
in prior years, to response actions/cleanup efforts.
accident investigations
Question. What is requested in the budget for chemical accident
investigations? Why is EPA requesting funds to support this activity,
in view of the fact that the Chemical Safety Board is now operational?
Answer. EPA requested $1,000,000 and 10 FTE in the President's
budget for activities related to accident investigations and to support
the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in conducting investigations.
In the intervening months since submitting the 1999 President's
request for this program, the Agency has reviewed our resource
estimate. With the Board becoming operational, EPA is now focusing our
activities on those foreseen under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments and other relevant statutes: establishing an effective
chemical safety and accident prevention program. To carry out these
responsibilities, the Agency is currently estimating, based upon
current assumptions, a minimum resource requirement of approximately 6
FTE and $750 thousand in fiscal year 1999.
EPA recognizes that the Chemical Safety Board has the lead
responsibility for investigating the root causes of chemical accidents.
We are currently working on an MOU with the Board to clarify our roles.
The MOU will cover coordination of field activities as well as
research, information sharing, accident databases, international
activities, and other areas of chemical safety.
EPA (along with OSHA) continues to have a fundamental
responsibility for chemical safety and accident prevention programs.
EPA's program emphasizes off-site community/environmental protection
(OSHA's, worker protection). We believe a complementary accident
prevention effort will ensure success in investigating and preventing
chemical accidents. For the immediate future, the Agency's priority
will be to continue to build with our available resources a credible
accident prevention program in cooperation with the Board, OSHA and
other agencies. EPA will concentrate our activities on:
Completing accident reports.--EPA's priority for fiscal year 1998
and early fiscal year 1999 will be to complete the 9 major
investigations reports begun prior to the Board's funding. These
reports are in various stages of the investigation and documentation
process. By the end of fiscal year 1998 we expect that six of the nine
reports will be completed. The remaining three will be published in
early fiscal year 1999.
Respond to and Implement Board Recommendations.--As EPA's accident
report activity winds down in early fiscal year 1999, we anticipate a
significant growth in workload to respond to and take actions on the
Board's recommendations to EPA resulting from their investigations and
other responsibilities. This is a statutorily mandated responsibility
for EPA under CAA Sec. 112r(6)(I) which became effective with the
board's funding, and reflects the experience of other agencies with
independent investigatory boards; i.e., DOT and DOE.
We expect that several recommendations will be generated by
accidents investigated by the Board and that these recommendations
would likely be related to emergency planning, lists of substances
subject to emergency planning or chemical accident prevention, and
hazards analysis, process safety management, or emergency response
under the Risk Management Program for prevention of chemical accidents.
The recommendations might call for regulatory action, outreach or
guidance to the regulated community or state and local levels.
Information Gathering.--We will gather information in the field to
improve our understanding of how to prevent accidents, so we can
respond faster and more effectively to Board recommendations. This
activity will be a small but essential part of the program. It stems
from our authorities for accident prevention under the CAA Sec. 112(r)
and CERCLA Sec. 104 and information gathering under CAA Sec. 114 and
Sec. 307 and CERCLA Sec. 104. The work will be done in cooperation with
other agencies such as the Board and OSHA and would complement their
efforts (much as FAA and NTSB work together in the field).
Prevention Actions.--In addition to what EPA learns from the
Chemical Safety Board, we will also act to prevent accidents, based
upon what we learn in the field and from other sources (e.g., chemical
safety audits, past accident investigations, research, compliance,
enforcement, etc.). Our chemical safety responsibilities under CAA
Sec. 112r (1), (3), (7), (8), and (9) and CERCLA Sec. 104 (b) and (e)
require us to take actions to prevent accidents. A top priority will be
to ensure that accident stakeholders are notified promptly so they take
steps to minimize risk. As warranted, we will also develop guidance,
modify existing rules and develop new ones, conduct and promote
research, and communicate with industry, government and the public to
enhance the application of safety measures.
year 2000: budget request
Question. How much is included in EPA's budget request for
activities necessary to ensure EPA will be Year 2000-compliant? Is EPA
confident that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure all systems
will be compliant in a timely fashion? Please provide a timeline for
steps that will be taken to ensure Y2K compliance.
Answer. The Agency's most recent estimates for Year 2000 (Y2K) are:
Fiscal year Cost
1996.............................................................. $0.8
1997.............................................................. 5.3
1998.............................................................. 13.0
1999.............................................................. 6.1
2000.............................................................. 1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 26.2
EPA has adopted an aggressive strategy to ensure that Agency
information technology assets will be compliant in a timely fashion.
The Agency has established a Senior Y2K Council, under the direction of
the CIO, to review progress, receive early warnings on potential
problems, and take necessary action to avoid critical delays. An
independent certification program has been established for mission
critical systems to ensure compliance. The timetable the Agency has
adopted conforms to the government-wide milestones established by OMB.
The critical dates in the time-line include completing renovations for
mission-critical systems by September 1998; validation by January 1999;
and implementation by March 1999. This schedule allows for nine months
of operation in a production environment to identify and fix any bugs.
project xl: superior environmental performance
Question. As perceived by many industry and state stakeholders, a
principal obstacle to success in Project XL has often been EPA's
definition of ``superior environmental performance.'' This definition
has often been viewed as overly restrictive and has been believed to
have contributed to eliminating worthy proposals from XL consideration.
Please explain EPA's current stance regarding this issue. Finally, are
there any present XL proposals where significant differences exist
between EPA and stakeholders over the definition of ``superior
environmental performance?''
Answer. Project XL tests cleaner, cheaper, and smarter approaches
to achieving the nation's environmental goals. This objective
distinguishes XL from many other Agency actions for regulatory change
that seek to offer either simple efficiencies of administrative process
or site-specific customized alternatives to the one-size-fits-all
traditional system of environmental protection.
EPA engaged in a deliberative process to define a broad array of
qualitative and quantitative factors in making a determination of
``superior environmental performance (SEP).'' In a Federal Register
notice dated April 23, 1997, EPA established a procedure for
determining baseline performance against which SEP would be measured.
Once the baseline has been met, EPA weighs quantitative and qualitative
factors that can produce superior performance. These factors include
but are not limited to: reduction in pollutants below the baseline;
risk reduction; pollution prevention; historic demonstration of
leadership in environmental performance; and addressing environmental
concerns of local stakeholders including issues not governed by EPA
rules (e.g., habitat preservation, green space, odors).
When EPA developed this method for evaluating SEP over a year ago,
it was based on our experience with XL proposals and projects to date.
The Agency explicitly recognized that the described approach may not be
appropriate in all situations. We are currently exploring ways to
ensure superior environmental performance in other environmental
protection scenarios, such as in hazardous waste remediation. We will
be issuing a Federal Register notice that actively solicits projects in
a number of areas that will require other approaches to SEP including:
environmental management systems; market-based approaches; and
administrative paperwork reductions.
EPA is presently implementing and evaluating over two dozen XL
proposals in which the Agency definition of SEP has served as a
beneficial criterion. However, we have one XL proposal where some
stakeholders have expressed philosophical differences over what level
of environmental performance should be required for participation in
XL. Andersen Windows has submitted a proposal in which they have
proposed to establish an air emissions cap and a per-unit of production
emissions rate that are both higher than they currently emit. EPA has
suggested a number of possible alternatives that we feel could achieve
SEP and Andersen is currently considering those alternatives, as well
as other options that achieve superior environmental benefits.
csi: usefulness of policy
Question. The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) has been criticized for
its perceived insistence on total consensus within the subcommittees.
EPA, in 1997 began evaluating the usefulness of this policy. What are
the results of that analysis thus far? In addition, the Automobile
Sector Subcommittee lost participants partly due to this problem. Are
any other subcommittees presently experiencing similar dissension over
this issue?
What level of funding is EPA committing to ensure that the Agency
fulfills its commitment to the Common Sense Initiative involving the
metal finishers?
Answer. In February 1997, the results of a broad CSI evaluation
were presented to the CSI Council which showed that consensus was being
implemented in a variety of ways, and not to the full satisfaction of
all parties. As a result, a white paper, dated October 1, 1997,
Consensus Decision-Making Principles and Applications in the EPA Common
Sense Initiative (attached), was created as guidance for the Council
and subcommittees. This document was unanimously adopted by the
Council, and has led to a greater level of satisfaction with the
operating principles of consensus within the CSI framework. To our
knowledge, there is no current dissension over this issue in the
subcommittees.
The EPA's lead office on the Metal Finishing Goals 2000 Project is
the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). OPPE has budgeted
$783,500 on this sector this fiscal year. This budget includes
administrative support of the CSI Metal Finishing Subcommittee,
implementation of the Strategic Goals Program, grants to industry trade
associations to help with program operation, and support of EPA
regional programs.
audit policy: encouraging self-policing
Question. Please discuss all present state-audit related
legislation, enacted or proposed, that the Agency objects to. In
particular, discuss cases in which the Agency (1) is considering the
withholding or denying of delegation of any environmental program; or
(2) is considering overfiling of state enforcement cases. Also, please
list and discuss the status of any EPA and state discussions that are
ongoing and relate to EPA objections to a state's audit related
legislation or policy.
Answer. In general, EPA works with states both prior to and
following enactment of state audit privilege and immunity legislation
to identify and express its policy and legal concerns. As a policy
matter, EPA believes that audit privilege laws are anti-law
enforcement, impede public right-to-know, and chill public reporting of
illegal activity to law enforcement authorities. While EPA supports
penalty mitigation as an incentive for self-policing, EPA believes that
to immunize serious violations--including those where there is criminal
conduct, imminent and substantial endangerment, and actual harm--is
wrong. Such immunity laws discourage needed investments in pollution
control, lower the standard of care, undermine the rule of law, and
endanger the public. Additionally, evidence developed in civil or
administrative cases often leads to discovery of criminal violations so
that civil immunity may undermine government's ability to enforce
criminal laws.
EPA also has a legal obligation to review State audit laws. Federal
environmental laws in effect for more than a decade mandate that EPA
ensure that authorized, delegated, or approved State environmental
programs (authorized programs) have and maintain minimum information
gathering authority, public access to certain types of information, and
minimum civil and criminal enforcement authority. See, for example,
Clean Water Act section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b); Clean Air Act
section 502(b), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b); Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b); 40 C.F.R. 123.26-.27 (CWA/
NPDES); 40 C.F.R. 70.11 (CAA); 40 C.F.R. 271.15-.16 (RCRA/Sub. C).
EPA's interpretation of the impact of a state audit law on the
state's ability to fully meet Federal statutory and regulatory
requirements is explained in its ``Statement of Principles,'' which was
issued by EPA on February 14, 1997. EPA is particularly concerned with
whether a State has the authority to obtain immediate and complete
injunctive relief; to recover civil penalties for significant economic
benefit, repeat violations and violations of judicial or administrative
orders, serious harm, and activities that may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment; to obtain criminal fines and sanctions for
willful, knowing, and negligent violations of Federal law; to retain
information gathering authority required under Federal delegations; and
to preserve the right of the public to obtain information and bring
enforcement actions.
As of mid-May 1998, to EPA's knowledge, audit privilege and
immunity legislation is pending in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, California,
and Hawaii. When an audit privilege and immunity bill appears to be
moving forward in a State legislature, EPA expresses the policy and
legal concerns (discussed above) it finds given the terms of the
individual bill. These efforts are designed to ensure that the
potential ramifications of an audit privilege and immunity law on
enforcement and information gathering authority are fully considered
prior to enactment.
Once a state audit privilege and immunity bill is enacted into law,
EPA has adopted a pragmatic, problem solving approach to addressing
legal adequacy in specific states. EPA and the state use a process
under which they identify the legal impediments to Federal program
authorization resulting from the state's audit law. The impediments can
then be addressed through tailored statutory amendments, or a state
Attorney General opinion interpreting the law consistent with Federal
requirements, or both.
EPA has reached agreement on needed legislative changes with Utah,
Texas, Michigan, Wyoming, and, pending enactment by the state
legislature, Ohio. EPA has also received an interpretation from the
Virginia Attorney General concluding that its state audit privilege and
immunity law is inapplicable to federally authorized programs, and thus
resolving any authorization issues for that state. EPA's agreements
with these states are limited to identifying those changes to their
audit laws needed to meet minimum legal requirements for Federal
program authorization. EPA is currently discussing the effect of an
enacted audit privilege and immunity law with the states of Kentucky,
South Carolina, Indiana, Minnesota, Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, South
Dakota, Alaska, and Oregon, as follows:
Kentucky.--In December 1997, EPA provided a written statement of
concerns with the state's audit law to the state at its request. In
late January 1998, EPA met with the State. In February, a bill
containing partial changes to the law was introduced in the state
legislature and referred to committee. The legislature adjourned in
April without further action on the bill.
South Carolina.--In March 1998, EPA sent a reply to South
Carolina's response to EPA's letter detailing specific concerns with
the state's audit law. In March and April 1998, EPA held a series of
conference calls with the state, and the parties appear close to
agreement on needed changes to the audit law. The South Carolina
legislature is scheduled to adjourn in early June.
Indiana.--On March 4, 1998, Steven Herman and Indiana Department of
Environmental Management Commissioner John Hamilton met to discuss
concerns with the state's audit law. Staff held a series of follow-up
conference calls in March and April 1998. In April 1998, the state
submitted a draft Attorney General's statement. EPA is currently
preparing a letter to the state describing its remaining concerns.
Minnesota.--Since December 1997, EPA and the state have held
several conference calls to discuss the effect of the audit law. In
February 1998, the state sent EPA a draft Attorney General statement.
In May 1998, EPA sent a letter to the state describing its remaining
concerns.
Arkansas.--The state has not yet replied to EPA's letter from
September 1997 to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control &
Ecology outlining legal concerns with Arkansas' audit privilege and
immunity law. The Arkansas legislature does not reconvene until 1999
and so cannot consider amendments to their law until then. EPA has
continued to speak informally to the state about the audit law.
Colorado.--Since 1994, before the enactment of the audit law, EPA
has sent a series of letters to and participated in meetings with the
state to discuss the effect of the state's audit law. Most recently, in
February 1998, EPA sent a letter to the state, responding to the
state's November 1997 letter. In March, EPA staff began to participate
in a series of meetings with state officials.
Montana.--In November 1997, EPA sent a letter to the state posing
questions regarding the impact of the state's audit law. In April 1998,
EPA received a draft state response, which is currently under review.
South Dakota.--In June 1997, EPA sent a letter to the state posing
questions regarding the impact of the state's audit law. In March 1998,
the State sent a draft Attorney General opinion to EPA, which is
currently under review.
Alaska.--In March 1998, EPA sent a letter to the state regarding
the impact of the state's audit law. In April 1998, the State sent a
response, which is currently under review.
Oregon.--EPA has conferred informally with the State and is
currently preparing a letter to the state regarding the impact of the
state's audit law.
With regard to overfiling, the Agency's analysis shows that
overfilings are a relatively rare event. Overfilings represent a
fraction of 1 percent of state enforcement cases. EPA considers
overfiling state enforcement actions where the state's action in
response to environmental violations is not timely or appropriate.
Where a state law immunizes serious violations, the state may be unable
to take timely and appropriate enforcement action. If the state's
response to self-disclosed violations is timely and appropriate,
however, EPA will not pursue formal enforcement actions. EPA's exercise
of its enforcement discretion generally takes into account
considerations such as the nature of any harm to human health or the
environment, the status of remedial measures, the need to ensure that
violators do not obtain an economic advantage over law-abiding
competitors, and other factors.
A specific example of a case in which a state audit privilege and
immunity law interfered with a state's ability to enforce in a timely
and appropriate manner involves a company that violated the Clean Air
Act for as many as ten years. In some cases, the facility's violations
resulted in excess emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC's),
which can contribute to high levels of ozone and cause significant
health and environmental problems at ground level. The company's
violations are particularly troubling because they occurred in an area
that already fails to meet national air quality standards for ozone.
Under the state audit law, the company was granted immunity from state
prosecution and all penalties were waived, including penalties to
recover the substantial economic windfall that the company gained from
violating the law. Even though the company's law-abiding competitors
invested in the control equipment needed to meet VOC standards, the
immunity granted under the state audit law made it necessary for EPA to
step in and seek to ensure that the company not be allowed to profit
unfairly and to the detriment of public health and the environment
because it did not make the same timely investment.
audit policy: audit information privilege
Question. EPA has consistently stated its strong objection to
creation of an audit information privilege. Is there any conceivable
statutory approach, or specific wording, that EPA can propose to either
Congress or the states that would satisfy the Agency's concerns about
the creation of a limited evidentiary privilege for audit-related
documents?
Answer. No. EPA views any environmental audit privilege as bad
public policy and simply unnecessary. Audit privilege laws interfere
with law enforcement, impede public right-to-know, and breed
litigation. Audit privilege laws keep environmental compliance
information secret from the state and from the public. Thus, an audit
privilege interferes with a state's ability to obtain the information
it needs to protect human health and the environment. For example,
information on the cause of violations, the environmental harm
resulting from violations, and the steps needed to correct the
violation and prevent recurrence may all be shielded by an
environmental audit privilege. In the case of an actual or threatened
imminent or substantial endangerment, the regulator should have
immediate and unencumbered access to the best available information,
which may be present in an audit report. If so, information needed to
protect the public would be unavailable due to the procedural hurdles
set up by an audit privilege.
An audit privilege also makes critical information unavailable to
the public. For example, a company may be able to use an audit
privilege to hide information concerning its release of hazardous
pollutants into the community even where those pollutants are causing
health problems for the public. The public may not be able to obtain or
use the information to stop the emissions, or to seek compensation for
their medical bills or other damages resulting from the hazardous
pollutants.
Many state audit privilege and immunity laws also contain sanctions
for those who disclose violations based on information taken from the
audit. Such sanctions protect the violator at the expense of the good
citizen attempting to report violations or potential hazards to the
State. Historically, public tips and citizen enforcement have served as
important sources of information and triggers for governmental
environmental enforcement and compliance actions. Audit privileges
interfere with citizens' ability to protect themselves and others.
Audit privilege laws also engender expensive and counter-productive
litigation. Under state audit privilege laws, where an audit privilege
claim is asserted, the party seeking the information must invoke
whatever legal proceedings are available in the particular jurisdiction
to obtain the documents. Such proceedings usually involve in camera
hearings at which testimony and other independent evidence is often
required in order to demonstrate that a violation has been committed
and remains uncorrected or that another exception to the privilege
applies. Such an inquiry is particularly likely to be complex and time
consuming because many such laws contain ambiguous definitions,
standards, and procedures for application of the privilege. If any
documents are determined to be privileged, then a further set of
hearings is likely to follow in which the plaintiff or prosecutor must
demonstrate that all other evidence was obtained independently of the
privileged document. The burden of such ``exclusionary rule'' and
``fruit of the poisonous tree'' proceedings has long been recognized in
our criminal justice system.
Research shows that an audit privilege is simply not needed to
encourage environmental auditing. Environmental auditing has increased
to the point where it is already standard practice for 75 percent of
corporations responding to a 1995 survey by Price Waterhouse, and is
growing among the remaining 25 percent as well. Most companies do not
view privilege as a precondition to conducting auditing--they see good
business reasons for auditing. A 1995 Government Accounting Office
study of the practice of environmental auditing also recognizes that
environmental auditing emerged as a compliance management tool in the
late 1970's, and developed and spread through the 1980's, as corporate
managers realized that environmental auditing was an important tool for
managing compliance and environmental performance. United States
Government Accounting Office, Report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, ``Environmental
Auditing: A Useful Tool That Can Improve Environmental Performance and
Reduce Costs'' (GAO/RED-95-37 April 1995).
drinking water research priorities for fiscal year 1999
Question. EPA faces a substantial drinking water regulatory agenda.
What are EPA's drinking water research priorities for fiscal year 1999?
Are the requested resources and institutional capacity adequate to meet
these priorities?
Answer. The EPA has provided and will continue to provide strong
support to the Safe Drinking Water Act and 1996 Amendment (SDWA)
priorities. The Agency developed two peer reviewed research plans to
address many of these SDWA priorities [Research Plan for Microbial
Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water (December
1997), and Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water (February
1998)]. Implementation of these plans and other high priority drinking
water research are coordinated between EPA's Offices of Research and
Development, and Water.
In 1999, EPA has requested a total of $35.6 M and 189.8 workyears,
which will continue to provide strong support to the SDWA priorities.
The Agency's drinking water research will focus on sensitive
subpopulations, adverse reproductive effects of drinking water
contaminants, research on selected disinfectant by-products and
arsenic, and waterborne disease occurance studies, as well as treatment
and maintenance of water quality in the distribution system.
regional haze: advance rulemaking
Question. Since the regional haze program is one of aesthetics, and
not driven by public health concerns, why is the Agency advancing this
rulemaking ahead of other funding priorities and rulemakings which will
provide public health benefits? Isn't this inconsistent with a risk-
based approach to regulation? Shouldn't, at a minimum, the Agency
realign the schedule for regional haze SIP's to coincide with the NAAQS
PM-2.5 process?
Answer. The regional haze program addresses more than
``aesthetics.'' Improvements in visibility have real quality of life
and economic benefits as well. The EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) is developing the regional haze rulemaking consistent with the
schedule established in section 169B of the Clean Air Act, which calls
for EPA to promulgate regulations which assure reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future and remedying
any existing impairment of visibility within 18 months of receiving the
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
Section 169B further calls for EPA to require a SIP submittal one year
from promulgation of these regulations. The rule proposed by EPA would
limit the scope of this SIP to addressing initial planning activities.
Because fine particles are the principle cause of visibility
impairment, the proposal emphasizes the importance of coordination of
planning and controls strategy implementation activities for regional
haze and PM-2.5 standards.
Another regional haze SIP revision would be required subsequently
in which the States would have flexibility to establish appropriate
reasonable progress targets and to include any necessary emission
management strategies to achieve these targets. It is EPA's intent to
coordinate the timing of this second SIP revision for regional haze
with the SIP's required for PM-2.5 nonattainment areas.
The Transportation Equity Act, which recently passed the House and
Senate, also requires EPA to harmonize the schedules for State
submissions of regional haze and PM-2.5 SIP's.
regional haze: class i areas
Question. How many of the 156 class I areas currently have the
necessary monitors to acquire all the data required by the proposed
rule?
Answer. There are currently 58 class I areas that have monitoring
to measure PM-2.5 concentrations for visual air quality and other
related data. Of the 156 class I areas, 98 do not currently have any
monitoring.
Question. How much funding is needed for the monitoring networks
for the class I areas?
Answer. Seventy-eight new visibility sites in or near Federal class
I areas are planned for deployment in 1998 and 1999. The estimated
costs are $2.5 million for 1998, and $4.4 million for 1999.
Starting in the year 2000, approximately $3.6 million per year will
be needed for the expanded network of 108 visibility sites.
Question. How much funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget request
is for the establishment of this monitoring network?
Answer. EPA has identified a need for $3.1 million for expanding
the visibility monitoring network as part of Sec. 103 State grant
dollars. The budget request includes $1.3 million for the existing
monitoring work. The total is $4.4 million.
Question. Will EPA fund all the costs associated with the
monitoring network or will states be required to provide funding?
Answer. EPA will pay for all the costs associated with monitoring
equipment, analysis and quality assurance. The Federal Land Managers
(NPS, FS and FWS) provide the field personnel to operate the monitors.
The States will not have to incur any additional cost.
Question. How much effort has EPA devoted to the coordination of
the monitoring networks needed for visibility and for the PM-2.5
ambient standards?
Answer. EPA recognizes the importance in coordinating the
monitoring networks for visibility and PM-2.5. Visibility impairment in
class I areas is caused primarily by fine particles. Measurements of
fine particles in class I and rural areas can help characterize the
regional transport of fine particles. The visibility aerosol monitor
(called the IMPROVE PM-2.5 sampler) is very comparable to the PM-2.5
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor which will be utilized in the
new PM-2.5 network. In fact, the PM-2.5 monitoring regulations provided
for coordination between the two networks by allowing the States to use
the IMPROVE PM-2.5 sampler in lieu of the PM-2.5 FRM at regional
background/transport monitoring sites (2 required per State). This
allows the visibility monitors to provide background and regional
transport information to the PM-2.5 program in a format which is
comparable to the PM-2.5 aerosol measurements.
EPA Regional Offices are working closely with the States to
coordinate the development and review of PM-2.5 network designs, an
important component of which is regional transport and regional
background monitoring, with existing and potential new IMPROVE
visibility monitoring site locations. Furthermore, EPA chairs the
Interagency IMPROVE Steering Committee which oversees the development
of the nation's visibility network. This committee consists of
representatives of State agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies,
EPA, and NOAA. All parties are working very closely to meet their
mutual needs for PM-2.5 and visibility monitoring.
regional haze: visibility research
Question. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, it envisioned the States taking the lead on specifying the
substance of the program and EPA's playing an important supportive
role. Accordingly Congress authorized $40 million over five years for
EPA to conduct visibility research and report writing. How much funding
has EPA devoted to visibility research and report writing since 1990?
Answer. Best estimates for visibility research since 1990 are:
By Calendar year:
1991: Project MOHAVE: $2,766,000--Visibility Monitoring for all
Class I areas: $500,000; and Contribution to National Academy of
Sciences review of Visibility Science: $100,000.
1992: Project MOHAVE: $724,000--Visibility Monitoring for all Class
I areas: $1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $207,000; and Inter-
Agency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling: $700,000.
1993: Project MOHAVE: $450,000--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $486,000;
and Inter-Agency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling: $290,000.
1994: Project MOHAVE: $117,000--Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission: $1.4 million; Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I
areas: $900,000; Visibility Impairment and Process and Measurement
Research: $550,000; and Castnet Visibility Monitors: $429,000.
1995: Project MOHAVE: $290,000--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,000,000; and Castnet Visibility Monitors:
$226,000.
1996: Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I areas:
$1,000,000; and Castnet Visibility Monitors: $186,000.
1997: Project MOHAVE $300,000--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,200,000; and Castnet Visibility Monitors:
$343,000.
1998: Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I areas:
$2,300,000; and Castnet Visibility Monitors: $300,000.
NOTE: The work itemized above does not include substantial
resources to develop new regional modeling platforms, such as MODELS3.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has spent approximately $6.1
million on regional particulate model development. These air quality
models will be used by EPA and the States for strategy assessment
during the coordinated implementation of ozone, fine particulate
matter, and regional haze programs.
Question. Has EPA completed all of the reports regarding the
science and technology of air quality visibility that Congress
requested?
Answer. Yes. The EPA has completed all requirements for reports in
Sec. 169B(a) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA completed its
report to Congress on the effects of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 on Visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas in October 1993
(``Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on Visibility in Class
I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress,'' EPA 452/R-23-014). The EPA
completed an interim findings report on research related to visibility
in February, 1995 (``Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility
Research,'' Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, February 1995).
Question. How much funding does EPA need in today's dollars to
complete these assignments?
Answer. No funding is needed for general research on the science of
visibility. However the EPA has requested funds to support work on
technical tool refinement to help States implement a visibility
protection program.
Question. Should we ask EPA to complete this work or should it be
reassigned to the States?
Answer. The EPA has made substantial progress in developing the
needed technical products and is currently working with the States on
relevant technical issues. For example, EPA is the major financial
supporter of the Western Regional Air Partnership on issues related to
implementing strategies to protect visibility. The EPA looks forward to
continuing that cooperative relationship in addressing national
regional haze protection. As compared to continuing to provide support
for unified efforts to develop a nationally consistent set of technical
products, EPA believes it would be far more expensive to attempt to
fund individual States to develop technical tools that will be needed
by all States.
Question. How much time and money would the States need to take on
this assignment?
Answer. The States will need to develop their own priorities for
addressing visibility technical work that is specific to their needs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has supported technical work
for implementation of many Clean Air Act programs, including the
existing visibility protection provisions. The EPA looks forward to
continuing its support role with the States.
mexico border funds
Question. There are a number of financial and regulatory problems
which complicate the installation and successful hookup of drinking
water and wastewater services to unserved households in the U.S.-Mexico
border region, including (1) household capital costs of improvements,
(2) jurisdiction conflicts between state and local governments and
water supply corporations, (3) inconsistent national, state, and local
building code requirements associated with home improvements required
for participation in the water projects, and (4) the lack of
coordination between EPA, HUD, and USDA water infrastructure projects.
How significant are these problems and what remedies has EPA used or
planned to use to address these problems?
Answer. The problems that are identified are not significant in the
sense that they are not preventing the construction of the water and
wastewater infrastructure in the colonias. These problems have been
known for some time and positive efforts have been initiated and are
being implemented to minimize their effects.
1. Household capital costs
The EPA colonia grants can be used to assist the completion of
household connections. This type of assistance has been made a priority
in colonia projects where the initial funding has successfully created
the needed treatment and collection system. In addition, the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) can include household
connections in the project financing structure. The BEIF is an EPA
funded program administered by the North American Development Bank to
assist in the design and construction of water and wastewater
infrastructure in the U.S./Mexico border.
2. Jurisdiction Conflicts
State laws and requirements define the jurisdiction and authority
for providing water and wastewater service to communities. In cases
where there is overlap the state will mediate. While there have been
some conflicts this is not a major issue. The States have provided a
cooperative environment that has resulted in fair and equitable results
to all parties without major delays to providing needed services to the
colonias.
3. Inconsistent Housing Code Requirements
The requirement for a licensed plumber for indoor plumbing and
household connections is the only code-related issue associated with
EPA funds. This issue has been resolved on a case-by-case basis at the
local level. Code requirements are specified at the state and local
level, not by EPA.
4. EPA, HUD, USDA Coordination
It is recognized that there may have been issues regarding
coordination among Federal agencies during the early stages of the
colonias program. Over time, however, the involvement of several
Federal agencies has been an asset, since an ongoing dialogue has
resulted in a cooperative, shared approach to solving problems on a
project-by-project basis. This has been established for several years
through a Texas colonias group made up of Federal and state agencies
involved with colonias water and wastewater infrastructure. This effort
was initially begun by EPA, and has continued under the chairmanship of
the Texas Water Development Board.
reg flex: sbrefa federal and proposed rule conflict
Question. During the SBREFA panel process, did any of the small
entity representatives (``SER's'') provide the Panel with any
information regarding the following: other Federal rules that the SER's
believe overlap, duplicate or conflict with the proposed rule; any
reporting, recording or monitoring requirements that SER's believe
small entities will be required to comply with if the proposed rule is
promulgated; the cost of any equipment likely to be required to comply
with the proposed rule; the cost of land or facilities likely to be
required to comply with the proposed rule; any increase in pressures
for consolidation within the industry; and any impact on employment
within small entities. (OPPE should confer with OW and OAR when
preparing response).
Answer. To date, EPA has completed six Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panels under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
(See Table 1). Each SBAR Panel has four members: EPA's Small Business
Advocacy Chair, a senior manager from the EPA program office developing
the subject rule, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and a representative of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. Every
rule is unique, so each SBAR Panel addresses new issues that are
relevant to the subject rule, but in every case, pursuant to section
609(b) of RFA/SBREFA, the Panel collects the advice and recommendations
from Small Entity Representatives (SER's) on issues relating to key
elements of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which are:
--A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
--Projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
--An identification, to the extent practicable, of all other relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule.
--Any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize
any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
Within 60 days of its convening and after consulting with the SER's
and considering any other materials the Agency has prepared, the Panel
prepares a report for the Administrator of EPA to consider in the
preparation of the proposed rule. In each SBAR Panel report, the
comments of the SER's are summarized and discussed. Copies of the
written SER comments are also attached to the reports. With respect to
the six specific issues in your question, comments from SER's to the
Panel on these issues varied considerably from rule to rule for the six
completed SBAR Panels. Detailed discussions of the comments and copies
of the written comments are available in each of the SBAR Panel
reports. A summary of input from the SER's on these six specific issues
is presented below in Table 2.
TABLE 1--SUMMARY OF EPA RFA/SBREFA SBAR PANELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title (Office) Convened Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad Diesel Engines (OAR).... Mar. 25, 1997..... May 23, 1997.
Industrial Laundries Effluent June 6, 1997...... Aug. 8, 1997.
Guideline (OW).
Stormwater Phase II (OW)........ June 19, 1997..... Aug. 7, 1997.
Transportation Equipment July 16, 1997..... Sept. 23, 1997.
Effluent Guideline (OW).
Centralized Waste Treatment Nov. 6, 1997...... Jan. 23, 1998.
Effluent Guideline (OW).
UIC Class V Wells (OW).......... Feb. 17, 1998..... April 17, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. During the SBREFA panel process, did any of the small
entity representatives (``SER's'') provide the Panel with any
information regarding the following:
TABLE 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Subquestions Nonroad Stormwater Laundries TECI CWT UIC C-V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Federal rules that the SER's Y Y Y Y Y Y
believe overlap, duplicate or
conflict with the proposed rule.
Any reporting, recording or Y Y Y Y Y Y
monitoring requirements that
SER's believe small entities will
be required to comply with if the
proposed rule is promulgated.
The cost of any equipment likely N N Y Y Y N
to be required to comply with the
proposed rule.
The cost of land or facilities N N N N N N
likely to be required to comply
with the proposed rule.
Any increase in pressures for N N Y N N N
consolidation within the industry.
Any impact on employment within N N Y N Y N
small entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
regulatory flexibility: national pretreatment program
Question. Reg Flex requires an identification of rules which
duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. On page 9-5, the
relevant portion of the Reg Flex analysis states, in its entirety, the
``EPA addressed concerns about duplication by excluding onsite
laundries, since these facilities are the most likely to be covered by
another effluent guideline or standards or might be covered by future
effluent guidelines. See EPA's discussion of the onsite laundries
exclusion in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking.''
Why doesn't the Reg Flex analysis make any mention of the National
Pretreatment Program which currently regulates companies like
industrial laundries that send their wastewater to public sewage
plants? Isn't there some overlap or duplication between this new rule
and the pretreatment program?
Answer. The proposed pretreatment standards do not overlap or
duplicate existing requirements under EPA's pretreatment program.
Rather, the proposed standards, if promulgated, would represent a new
component of the existing program. As you know, EPA regulations,
adopted pursuant to section 307 of the Clean Water Act, among other
provisions, establish a national program to control pollutants which
may pass through or interfere with treatment processes at publicly
owned treatment works (POTWS) or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Under the national program, POTW's administer their own programs to
regulate the discharge of industrial waste waters, such as those from
industrial laundries, into the POTW. The national program contains
three types of substantive restrictions on the introduction of
pollutants into POTW's that apply to those dischargers of industrial
waste waters. These standards are nationally-applicable prohibited
discharge standards (such as the prohibition against discharges of
explosive materials), nationally-applicable categorical pretreatment
standards and locally-applicable local limits. Each of these standards
is designed to implement the proscription against industrial discharges
that would pass through the POTW plant untreated or would interfere or
otherwise be incompatible with continued operation of the POTW plant.
POTW's develop local limits on a case-by-case basis sometimes with
limited data. (EPA regulations describe the specific circumstances in
which a POTW must develop local limits, generally related to the size
of the POTW and whether the POTW is receiving pollutants that pass
through or interfere with the operation of the POTW, 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 403.8.) Categorical pretreatment standards, such as those in the
new rule for industrial laundries, are based on review of a larger,
nationwide data set to evaluate costs and technologies.
There is no overlap or duplication between existing local limits
and the proposed pretreatment standards, because any new categorical
standards, if adopted, would apply only to the extent they are more
stringent than the requirements already imposed by the local wastewater
authority (or that arise as a result of the general prohibitions on
certain discharges). Stated another way, the new standards are
incremental to the existing requirements of the National Pretreatment
Program. The existing requirements (such as those imposed by a local
pretreatment program) are incorporated into the regulatory flexibility
analysis as part of baseline economic conditions. Then, costs to comply
with new pretreatment standards are added to that baseline.
regulatory flexibility: industrial laundries compliance
Question. What about new reporting and record keeping requirements?
Why doesn't the Reg Flex Analysis describe the host of requirements
that industrial laundries will have to comply with as a new
``categorical'' industry? These requirements may not be printed in this
rule, but this rule puts laundries on the list of industries with
``categorical'' standards, and all ``categorical'' standards, and all
categorical industries have significant reporting requirements. Does
EPA take the position that a Reg Flex analysis does not have to assess
these reporting requirements?
Answer. Industrial laundries subject to the pretreatment standards
but not previously designated as significant industrial users by the
pretreatment control authority will be subject to the monitoring and
reporting requirements for significant industrial users in 40 CFR 403
as a result of promulgation of the pretreatment standards. These
facilities will be required to submit a baseline monitoring report if
they have not previously provided that information to the control
authority. Likewise, compliance monitoring reports will be required.
Although these monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements
are not specified in the proposed pretreatment standards, an estimate
of the cost of monitoring is included in the annual operating and
maintenance cost associated with this rule. This estimate, which is
included in the regulatory flexibility analysis, is based upon an
assumption of monthly monitoring for all limited parameters. EPA's
estimate of economic impact conservatively assumes that this monitoring
would commence within 6 months of promulgation, rather than on the date
compliance is required (3 years after promulgation). EPA believes this
estimate is sufficient to take into consideration both baseline
monitoring requirements and routine compliance monitoring that is
likely to be required by the pretreatment control authority.
gulf of mexico: hypoxia
Question. In addition to the $4.3 million proposed in your fiscal
year 1999 budget for the Gulf of Mexico Program office, what other
Federal agencies are spending money on activities related to hypoxia in
the Gulf of Mexico? How much are they spending, and on what activities?
Answer. The $4.3 million proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget is
not exclusively for hypoxia-related activities. Nutrient enrichment is
one of four major focus areas for the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP). The
GMP is a broad constituency of government and non-government
organizations that are working together to: (1) reduce nutrient
pollution; (2) restore shellfish growing waters and protect
recreational waters; (3) improve and protect important coastal habitat;
and (4) prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species in Gulf
coastal waters. Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico is one component
of the GMP's efforts to reduce nutrient pollution. The proposed fiscal
year 1999 budget for this effort is approximately $300,000.
Other Federal agencies are working with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the GMP in an effort to address the
problems with nutrient over-enrichment in the Mississippi/Atchafalya
River System. Nutrient loadings from this river system have been
associated with the hypoxia issue in the northern Gulf. The Federal
agencies participating in this effort are using funding from existing
programs and authorities to address any nutrient enrichment and hypoxia
issues that are within their mandate.
EPA, in partnership with the GMP and other Federal agencies, in
June 1997 compiled a document entitled ``Interagency Hypoxia Response
Activity Report'' (Attachment 1). This document summarizes each
agency's programs which may be applied to nutrient enrichment and
hypoxia-related activities, including specific budget information where
available. A table entitled ``Priority Hypoxia Response Program
Activities for fiscal year 1997'' is also attached. (Attachment 2)
Question. How much is the Federal government spending to verify the
scientific theory that hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico is directly linked
to nutrient runoff from agricultural fields? Is the process open and
peer reviewed?
Answer. In 1997, an interagency group of senior Federal
representatives formed a Task Force and recommended that an assessment
of the scientific knowledge and understanding of hypoxia be conducted.
The Task Force, through EPA, asked the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy to conduct a scientific assessment of the causes
and consequences of Gulf hypoxia through its Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR). A Scientific Evaluation and Support
Committee (SESC) was formed under the leadership of CENR to conduct the
hypoxia science assessment. The SESC or ``Hypoxia Work Group'' is
comprised of representatives from the following:
1. Department of Agriculture;
2. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (Lead);
3. Department of Defense/Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Department of Defense/Office of Naval Research;
5. Department of Energy;
6. Department of Health and Human Services/National Institute of
Environmental Health Services;
7. Department of Interior/Minerals Management Service;
8. Department of Interior/U.S. Geological Survey;
9. Department of State;
10. Environmental Protection Agency;
11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
12. National Science Foundation;
13. National Science Foundation Smithsonian Institution.
The Hypoxia Work Group is addressing the issue of what is known
about the hypoxia zone along the coast of Louisiana (its causes and
effects) and what might be done to address the problem. The effort is
addressing all possible sources of nutrients to the Mississippi River
and the Gulf. The assessment will provide a series of interrelated
reports, examining various aspects of the hypoxia issue. These reports
will address the following topics:
1. Characterization of hypoxia: distribution, dynamics, and causes.
This report will describe seasonal, interannual, and long-term
variation of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and its
relationship to nutrient loadings.
2. Ecological and economic consequences of this hypoxia. This
report will evaluate the ecological and economic consequences of
hypoxia, including impacts on Gulf of Mexico fisheries and the regional
and national economy.
3. Sources and loads of nutrients transported by the Mississippi
River to the Gulf of Mexico. This report will identify the sources of
nutrients within the Mississippi/Atchafalya system and within the Gulf
of Mexico with two distinct components. The first is to identify where,
within the basin, the most significant nutrient additions to the
surface water occur. The second, more difficult component, is
estimating the relative importance of specific human activities in
contributing to these loads.
4. Effects of reducing nutrient loads to surface waters within the
basin and the Gulf of Mexico. This report will estimate the effects of
nutrient source reductions in the Mississippi/Atchafalya on water
quality in these waters and on primary productivity and hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico.
5. Evaluation of methods to reduce nutrient loads to surface water,
ground water, and the Gulf of Mexico. This report will identify and
evaluate methods to reduce nutrient loads to surface water, ground
water, and the Gulf of Mexico.
6. Evaluation of social and economic costs and benefits of methods
(identified in Topic # 5) for reducing nutrient loads.
The assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia is
intended to provide scientific information that can be used to evaluate
nutrient management strategies, and to identify gaps in our
understanding of this problem. NOAA leads this effort which includes
teams of academic, Federal, and state scientists from within and
outside the Mississippi River watershed. A detailed description of this
effort and the process for the assessment, which includes peer review
and general comment periods (detailed in Attachment 3), is provided in
the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Assessment Plan. (Attachment 4)
The amount of funding, source of funding, and recipient for each of
the CENR topics is identified in Table 1. An estimate of the in-kind
resource commitments from each of the participating agencies is given
in Table 2. Five Federal agencies have provided the funding for the
assessment which totals about $1.1 million.
While NOAA has been asked to lead this CENR scientific assessment,
oversight involves several Federal agencies and the assessment itself
is being conducted in an open process by teams that include academic,
Federal, and state scientists from within and outside the Mississippi
River watershed. The assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf
hypoxia is intended to provide peer-reviewed scientific information
that can be used to evaluate nutrient management strategies, and to
identify gaps in our understanding of this problem. While the focus of
the assessment will be on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, the effects of
changes in nutrient concentrations and loads and nutrient ratios on
water quality conditions within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya riverine
systems will also be addressed. In addition, the Assessment Plan
provides several opportunities for public review and comment on the
assessment reports.
______
Attachment 1
interagency hypoxia response activity report
i. introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide all stakeholders with a
compilation of existing Federal programs which could be or are being
used to aid in alleviating hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Over the past
several years many agencies in all sectors collected data and began
evaluating the conditions of nutrient overenrichment and hypoxia. These
efforts focused on understanding the issue and exploring activities
which could begin to address and alleviate the potential problem. The
current focus is to identify and coordinate implementation activities
throughout the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River systems and the Gulf
of Mexico. Rather than inventing new programs, many Federal agencies
can re-direct their existing activities to focus on the hypoxia issue,
especially for nutrient management.
Background.--In the aquatic environment hypoxia refers to the
condition where dissolved oxygen measurements are so low (less than 2
parts per million or PPM) that little, if any, organisms such as fish
and shellfish can continue to live and survive. This condition occurs
in various locations throughout the world, but one of the largest and
most complex areas influenced by human activities, is in the Gulf of
Mexico. The size of the hypoxic or low oxygen area varies spatially and
seasonally and available information indicates an increase in overall
size since the 1960's. After 1993 it doubled in size from about 3,500
to 7,000 square miles. This oxygen-depletion is typically associated
with the bottom waters but can extend upward into the water column for
as much as 5 to 30 meters. Economically, the short term effects of this
condition are not evident since commercial and recreational fishing
thrives along the edges of the hypoxic area. However, hypoxia has led
to the ``death'' of large water bodies such as Lake Erie and is a major
concern in other United States coastal areas.
Presently available research has shown a relationship between
Mississippi River flow, riverborne nutrients, plankton productivity and
bottom water hypoxia, although the quantification and understanding of
the relationships is complex and components of these relationships need
to be strengthened. The major focus for addressing the hypoxia
environmental issue is on the Mississippi and Atchafalya River systems
because they contribute 90 percent of the freshwater loading to the
Gulf of Mexico and drain America's industrial and agricultural
heartland. In particular, there is a focus on the importance of
nutrient contributions to the Gulf because according to studies done by
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), concentrations of nitrates
in water discharged to the Gulf have increased by threefold since the
1960's which appears to be related to the increase in the hypoxic area.
The major sources of nitrogen contributions, according to USGS
estimates, are from commercial fertilizer, animal manure, and legumes.
However, there are also contributions from domestic and municipal waste
and atmospheric deposition.
ii. response activities
Representatives from the Federal agencies and the Gulf of Mexico
Program Office involved in the interagency effort identified and
categorized their current programs which are relevant to addressing the
science support (understanding of hypoxia) or stewardship actions
(nutrient management). They further subcategorized their efforts,
described the overall program, and as appropriate, presented resources
expended or available this fiscal year.
a. united states environmental protection agency
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Clean Water Act (CWA) 319--Nonpoint Source NIPS) Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Nutrient Source
Management
DESCRIPTION: At the Federal level the EPA administers a technical
assistance/grant program to address nonpoint sources. Under the 319
program, EPA provides grant funding to the States to be used for
controlling nutrients and other nonpoint source pollution, usually with
the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's). Typically,
States determine the priorities of projects and EPA provides technical
support and review of projects for statutory eligibility. For States in
the Mississippi River drainage system, funding is about $65 million per
fiscal year. For addressing the hypoxia issue EPA would recommend
building upon the current voluntary, incentive driven approaches.
Specifically at the Federal level, EPA would encourage States to target
319 funding for improving and broadening the use of nutrient management
plans NMP's) and BMP's for livestock, crops, and lawns and gardens. In
particular, the wider application of vegetative filter strips as a
nonpoint source BMP helps to remove nutrients in wet weather flows from
agricultural and urban areas before water runoff reaches the system of
creeks and streams flowing into the Mississippi River. These ``win-
win'' nutrient management actions would benefit the landowner in
achieving better utilization of nutrients and would reduce the amount
of nutrient input the Mississippi River system and Gulf of Mexico. EPA
would also share examples from other States/Regions (e.g. Iowa,
Florida, Pennsylvania, Chesapeake Bay) where implementation of NMP's
are used to reduce fertilizer use and save farmers money. These
examples could be used for voluntary efforts within the States. There
is typically a high degree of coordination with USDA and the
Conservation Districts in this program. Since 1990 a total of $470
million in UPS grants have been awarded under Section 319.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Nutrient Source
Management
DESCRIPTION: Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) required that States with federally approved
coastal zone management programs (currently 29 States) develop Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs to be approved jointly by EPA and
NOAA. Coastal Nonpoint Programs have been submitted by all 29 States
(includes all Gulf of Mexico States except Texas) and are at various
stages in the approval process. The purpose of the program is to
achieve implementation of specified management measures for nonpoint
sources within coastal watersheds by more fully integrating federal,
state and local authorities. Coastal Nonpoint Programs build upon state
and local authorities and expertise. Initially a technology-based
approach is used followed by a water quality-based approach, where
necessary to address known water quality problems and protect
threatened waters. These state programs must include state and locally
developed management measures which are in conformity with EPA's
technical guidance. States have some flexibility to adapt the
management measures where local climatic or hydrological conditions can
be demonstrated to require it. NOAA and EPA have worked collaboratively
with the States to help them develop approvable programs that both
reflect local conditions and meet the goals of CZARA. In particular,
all Coastal Nonpoint Programs include management measures to address
nutrient management for agricultural, forestry, urban and marina
activities. While very limited Federal resources specifically for
implementation of approved Coastal Nonpoint Programs have been
appropriated to date, actions identified in Section 6217 Programs are
eligible for funding under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (see
separate entry) at the state's discretion. This is a win-win response
in the sense that the coastal States would lead by example,
demonstrating to upstream localities the successes of commitments to
action to reduce nutrient discharges.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Nutrient Source
Management
DESCRIPTION: Point source discharges are regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
program. Nationally, EPA has direct review and enforcement authority
over NPDES permits and administers the program directly unless
individual States are authorized to run the program. Two levels of
decisions govern the requirements of these permits. The first, requires
the imposition of a standard level of treatment based on prescribed
technologies that implement Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) or the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) for industries, and secondary treatment for
municipalities. These controls are largely in place for :municipalities
and manufacturing operations, although many confined animal feeding
operations have not been permitted. The second level of decision occurs
when monitoring or modeling shows that water quality standards are not
being met.
Four types of point sources under the permit program are relevant
to nutrient management. These are (1) Municipal sewage treatment or
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's); (2) Stormwater runoff; (3)
Industrial manufacturing facilities; and (4) Confined animal feedlots.
Municipal Sewage Treatment.--Municipalities treat domestic and
pretreated industrial wastewaters prior to discharge. With secondary
treatment (the equivalent of BCT), municipalities reduce nitrogen
loadings by an average of 30 percent. For the States within the
Mississippi river system and Gulf of Mexico coastal marine environment,
there are 12,394 sewage treatment plants with secondary treatment. EPA
provides funding in States Revolving Funds (SRF's) which are state run
funds that provide low cost loans to municipalities for infrastructure
for sewage treatment plants and other pollution control projects (see
entry on SRF's). Improved treatment, such as nitrification and
denitrification, to solve local problems and benefit local
jurisdictions could eventually have impacts on the nitrogen loadings to
the Mississippi river system. However, such treatment is costly. For
this fiscal year, EPA will begin to track loadings from municipal
facilities based on information in the Permits Compliance System (PCS)
database.
Stormwater Runoff.--For stormwater runoff the EPA program requires
an NPDES permit for stormwater systems of urban areas with a population
of over 100,000 and also for some industrial activities (for Phase I;
Phase II will impact smaller sites). Most nutrients in stormwater
originate from municipal systems. Nutrients in runoff from storm water
are controlled by requirements from EPA for large municipalities, by
State requirements, or by county or local ordinances and programs. In
the Mississippi river system and Gulf coast there are 42 NPDES permits
for stormwater covering 72 municipal systems. These permits differ from
other NPDES permits in that they require that the permitees develop and
carry out storm water management plans based on best management
practices instead of requiring enforceable numeric water quality
limits. Some funding has been provided by EPA through a competitive
grant program for communities that are not required to have a permit.
Local fees can be used to generate revenues for stormwater containment.
Municipalities would have a win-win response if they implement BMP's
for stormwater because they would be preventing serious threats to
their drinking water supplies and water quality while at the same time
reducing the amounts of nutrients and other pollutants from discharging
into the Mississippi system.
Industrial Discharges.--Discharges from industrial processes, such
as fertilizer manufacturers, are covered by NPDES permits based on
national treatment requirements (BAT and BCT), and on water quality
standards. Nationwide there are 6,600 or more large operators of which
about 1,500 are in the NPDES permit compliance system. In States
located in the Mississippi River system and Gulf of Mexico States there
are 3,877 industrial permits for primarily major sources which control
the discharge of nutrients. For this fiscal year, EPA will begin to
track loadings from industrial facilities based on information in the
Permits Compliance System (PCS) database. Industrial dischargers are
discussed further in the ``science/research'' category.
Confined Animal Feeding.--Certain feedlot operations are considered
point sources and are covered by NPDES permits. In the Mississippi
River system and Gulf of Mexico States there are 3,209 feedlot
operations subject to NPDES permitting. For this fiscal year, EPA will
focus on reducing loadings from confined animal feedlot operations
(CAFO's) through a joint effort between the Office of Water and the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance by evaluating facility compliance
and targeting additional animal feeding operation that could have a
significant impact on water quality for permit coverage. NPDES feedlot
discharges and operations not covered by NPDES (also see NPS program
description) are discussed further in the ``science/research''
category.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research on Hypoxia/Loading
Characterization
DESCRIPTION: In order to understand the effects nutrients are
having on the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, we need to quantify
nutrient loadings by having accurate estimates of the amounts being
discharged into the Gulf from the Mississippi River drainage system.
This information will also provide more accurate data for predictive
models used to study the effects of nutrients on the hypoxic area. Data
exists to better quantify the loadings from point sources. In
particular, EPA's permit compliance system (PCS) could be used, with
enhancements, to quantify loadings from point source dischargers (i.e.
industrial sources and permitted animal feeding operations).
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program--CWA Title VI
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Nutrient Point
Source Management/Estuary Management
DESCRIPTION: The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program was created in
the 1987 Amendments to the CWA to establish permanent and independent
sources of financing for water quality infrastructure projects in each
of the 50 States and Puerto Rico. EPA and the States provide
capitalization funds or ``seed money'' to establish these loan funds.
States are responsible for managing these funds over the long-term so
that they remain viable sources of funding for the foreseeable future.
SRF's provide below market financing (0.0 percent to below market)
for a wide variety of projects to address water quality problems. SRF's
can finance virtually any project included in a state's approved
nonpoint source management plan or estuary management plan, including
agricultural BMP's, manure storage facilities, stormwater management
projects, as well as nutrient removal from municipal sewage treatment
systems. As of June 30, 1995, the States in the Mississippi River
system had SRF's with assets totaling more than $9.2 billion which are
available to make loans for priority water quality projects.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: National Wetlands Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
Natural Environment
DESCRIPTION: The creation or restoration of wetlands in areas where
nutrient loadings are high would help to ``filter'' nutrient discharges
while at the same time preserve the complex ecological wetland habitat
along the river corridors of the Mississippi River system. By working
to protect and restore wetlands through regulatory and non-regulatory
mechanisms, EPA helps to limit and reduce the nutrient loading to the
Mississippi tributary system, and ultimately to the Gulf. The creation
of new marshland within the coastal area would provide additional
vegetative filters that would reduce nutrient loadings to the Gulf. EPA
is one of the Federal agencies with responsibilities under the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) which
provides funding for wetlands projects mostly to coastal Louisiana.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: National Wetlands/Ecosystem Restoration Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Research on
Restoration Techniques
DESCRIPTION: EPA's wetlands research program includes the
investigation of wetland restoration and creation of wetland methods
and how to improve their functional performance. Nutrient assimilation
and transformation are included among the wetland functions that are
studied. The program also includes research into other water quality
improvement functions of wetlands, and into landscape level wetland
processes, which can help establish priorities for protection/
restoration of wetlands to meet environmental objectives, including
nutrient removal. EPA is developing an Ecosystem Research Plan, which
could provide additional research results of use in addressing the
hypoxia problem. EPA is also part of the interagency Task Force
evaluating alternative ways to respond to the erosion of coastal
Louisiana wetlands, which will have implications for sediment and
nutrient patterns in the Gulf.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Standards and Criteria
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research
DESCRIPTION: States usually have standards and criteria for
ammonia-nitrogen, but not for other forms of nitrogen such as nitrate,
nitrite, and total nitrogen. Also, ammonia and phosphorus standards and
criteria are based on toxicity rather than eutrophication concerns.
These gaps result in the lack of comprehensive limits for point sources
discharging nutrient loadings to the Mississippi and Atchafalya rivers
and Gulf system. EPA can assist States in development of their water
quality standards based on available information. However, the need
exists to evaluate and develop site-specific guidance for criteria. As
a result of a National Nutrient Assessment Workshop, EPA is evaluating
the following recommendations: setting nutrient standards on an
ecoregional or watershed basis; involving organizations, States and
societies in development of a national nutrient overenrichment
assessment strategy; recognizing cultural eutrophication as a public
health threat; considering land use as a separate early warning
indicator, providing simple software models for decision making;
investigating models for rivers, streams, estuaries, and wetlands; and
using ``reference sites'' to develop baseline data. In another effort
EPA is developing a dissolved oxygen criterion for the protection of
marine and estuarine animals in the Virginian Province (i.e., Cape Cod
to Cape Hatteras). The scientific analysis and overall approach for the
development of this criterion will help in the development and
evaluation of low dissolved oxygen criteria and standards in other
coastal waters as well, including the Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Geographic Initiatives: Designated Watersheds
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Geographic
Demonstrations/Technical Assistance
DESCRIPTION: Specific geographic areas can be targeted for the
purpose of characterizing nutrient loadings, answering science
questions on hypoxia, and for applying and ``ground-truthing'' any
techniques or models developed. EPA regional offices work directly with
States and watershed groups. Proposed targeted watersheds for each
region within the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico system are: (1)
Region 4--Yazoo River; (2) Region 5--Illinois River; (3) Region 6--
Tensas River; and (4) Region 7--Iowa River. If selected, EPA and other
Federal agencies can focus their many science/research efforts within
these watersheds. EPA will encourage the use of grants and FTE's,
including travel funding, for the purpose of providing technical
assistance within these watersheds. Applied science/research activities
in other watersheds which can also support nutrient management and
hypoxia issues will be considered as part of this response. This would
be a win-win response because communities within the watersheds would
benefit from addressing their specific water quality problems while at
the same time contribute to the understanding and reduction of hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: CWA 303(d)--Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Loadings
Characterization
DESCRIPTION: Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) establishes the
TMDL process to provide for more stringent water quality-based controls
when technology-based controls are inadequate to achieve State Water
quality standards. When information shows that water quality standards
will not be maintained with required controls (e.g. CWA Section 302)
States must develop a TMDL for the affected waters. The TMDL prescribes
the allowable loadings of pollutants from significant sources (both
point and nonpoint) which will maintain water quality standards. For
the Mississippi River system, EPA will evaluate and use the appropriate
TMDL tools to assist with development of TMDL's for nutrients in water
quality impaired areas. This response will complement other responses
to characterize nutrient loadings to the Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY.: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Clean Air Act Amendment 1992, Section 112m section 105
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Loadings
Characterization/Air Deposition
DESCRIPTION: The Great Water Bodies Air Deposition program (or the
Coastal Waters Air Deposition program) was established by Congress to
investigate the levels and impacts of air deposition, especially on
coastal States experiencing deposition from distant sources. This
includes the Great Lakes, the east coast, and the Gulf of Mexico
States. To date, investigations have centered in the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay Regions, and recently, some work was funded in Tampa Bay
and Galveston Bay. This year, OAR also provided some funds under
Section 105 to expand the investigations in estuaries such as Casco Bay
and Galveston Bay.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Water Air/Water Initiative
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Nutrient Source
Management
DESCRIPTION: This year, Assistant Administrator for Water, Bob
Perciasepe, in cooperation with the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, Mary Nichols, established a special effort in the Office of
Water to step up collaboration between the two offices. The initial
foci of this special program includes the impact of nitrogen and
mercury deposition to the waters of downwind States. Mr. Perciasepe
directed his senior staff to prepare and implement an aggressive
strategic plan to address these impacts. Among the first actions in the
work plan for this program is an assessment of deposition ``hot spots''
on the East and Gulf Coasts. To lead this program, a senior staff
person, Doris Price, was detailed to the Office of Water from the Acid
Rain Division, OAR.
Mr. Perciasepe was prompted to take this action after participating
with Mary Nichols in two public workshops which focused on the shared
water and air resources. The action coincides with considerations by
the Ozone Transport Commission to increase controls on nitrogen
emissions during summer months, and with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's issued ``Open Access Rule.'' The latter permits consumers
to purchase electric power from the cheapest source, which means that
some coal-fired boilers will increase output while others could reduce
output. This could produce dramatic changes in the levels of deposition
to watersheds in ``downwind'' States.
AGENCY:United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM:Office of Research and Development/National Health and
Ecological Effects Laboratory (NHEERL)/Gulf Breeze, Fl
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Understanding
Hypoxia/Other
DESCRIPTION: The Gulf Ecology Division of ORD's National Health and
Ecological Effects Laboratory (NHEERL) proposes to investigate the
mechanisms by which nutrient enrichment alters coastal ecosystems. The
program is a 5-10 year effort focusing on the delineation of the
process of coastal eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico estuaries using
field experiments and concomitant laboratory experiments as well as
focusing on specific instances of coastal eutrophication in South
Florida and the Louisiana Delta. Much of the process-level or
mechanistic investigation is proposed for Pensacola and Perdido Bays,
FL.
The hypoxic zone of the Louisiana Shelf, previously described by
Rabalais and associates, will form the primary area for a number of
field investigations: (1) Riverine nutrient input and sediment carbon
and nutrient concentrations will be compared using cruise transects
through the Atchafalaya and Mississippi River plumes to determine
differences in biogeochemical cycles in waters that are transported
through marshes and open systems, respectively; (2) The storage
capacity of shelf sediments for carbon and nutrients will be examined
to determine its potential to fuel future hypoxic events; (3) Measures
of the hypoxic zone bacterial oxygen demand, oxygen consumption and
carbon dioxide production will be made, focusing on the comparative
chemical, biological and photic consumption of oxygen; (4) Experiments
conducted in the Atchafalaya and Mississippi River plumes and in the
hypoxic region will be designed to develop further information on the
factors that cause hypoxia along the Louisiana shelf; and (5) Automated
field collections of dissolved oxygen concentrations and attendant
water quality parameters will be conducted to determine the three-
dimensional boundaries of the hypoxic and anoxic regions of the shelf
and the Atchafalaya corridor to ascertain changes in habitat
availability for benthic and pelagic communities. Related laboratory
experiments will be conducted to assess the impacts of realistic
hypoxic regimes on target estuarine organisms and the minimum dissolved
oxygen requirements of aquatic organisms. Also, a nutrient loading
model will be developed to relate eutrophication to biological effects,
harmful algal blooms, etc. Resources available on an annual basis for
supporting these research activities include 7 full-time scientists/
technicians and approximately $60,000 in support costs.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Characterization Research Division/Las Vegas NV/
Landscape Characterization Project
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Other (Landscape
Characterization)
DESCRIPTION: This project entails a national scale landscape
characterization of approximately 2,108 watersheds (USGS 8-digit
hydrologic accounting units or HUC's) using 10 indicators of landscape
conditions generated from coarse-scale, nationally-consistent spatial
data. When completed the Mississippi Basin portion should be relevant
to Basin-wide assessment and restoration efforts potentially impacting
the hypoxia zone. A major demonstration of this technology at a
regional scale is being conducted in the Mid Atlantic in concert with
EPA Region III.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Assessment
DESCRIPTION: NCEA will assist the Gulf of Mexico Program Office
(GMPO) in focusing their strategic assessment activities for the
hypoxia issue. This will be accomplished by developing a risk-based
framework with emphasis on the initial planning and problem formulation
stages of ecological risk assessment. The process will include
identifying management goals, developing assessment endpoints, and
preparing a conceptual model that links stressor sources and pathways
with effects on ecologically, economically, and/or recreationally
important resources in the Gulf. Results will provide input to the
efforts by other organizations (e.g., the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources) that are also addressing the Gulf hypoxia issue.
b. gulf of mexico program
AGENCY/PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Program Office
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Watershed Management/Community Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP)
DESCRIPTION: The Program will support voluntary State and local
community efforts in specific special emphasis watersheds in the Gulf
States of Louisiana and Mississippi, focusing on nutrient reductions.
Through pollution prevention practices, the rate, timing, and method of
application of nutrients can minimize their potential losses through
runoff or leaching to groundwater. Nitrogen is important for crop
production, but, if not managed properly, can easily move from farmland
to ground and surface waters. The Program will work with the States to
support efforts such as innovative land practices, instream habitat
alterations, and tracking of key environmental indicators to measure
progress. The Program encourages incentive-based, prevention approaches
that make economic sense and contribute to the ecological and human
health of the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY/PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Program Office
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Monitoring
DESCRIPTION: The program will support the continued monitoring of
the spatial and temporal extent of the hypoxic zone and the monitoring
of major tributaries for nitrate levels. We will also support
monitoring in Gulf state watersheds with nutrient reduction issues in
the States on the Gulf coast to generate water quality data to identify
the sources and quantify the amounts of nitrate generated in the
watershed. This monitoring would establish the effectiveness of various
BMP's for nitrogen removal.
AGENCY/PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Program Office
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Education and Outreach
DESCRIPTION: The Program will support an educational outreach
initiative providing a public education link to the public and private
sectors on hypoxia initiatives and concerns and will implement
agricultural outreach programs. The Program will provide information to
urban areas throughout the Mississippi River Watershed on successful
approaches to urban runoff and encourage efficient use of fertilizers
among homeowners and businesses through the development of educational
programs on proper handling of residential nutrient sources.
AGENCY/PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Program Office
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Modeling
DESCRIPTION: The Program will explore innovative partnerships in
the area of data collection for model calibration. GMPO will work with
EPA, NOAA, USGS and others to quantify atmospheric sources and link air
and water fate and transport models.
AGENCY/PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Program Office
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Research
DESCRIPTION: The Program will support innovative approaches (e.g.,
technology demonstrations for precision farming and sustainable
agricultural practices) to reduce the contribution and effects of
nutrients in the Mississippi River/Gulf ecosystem.
The Program will encourage efforts to determine the extent and
severity of fisheries impacts in the Gulf of Mexico and the development
of biological indicators.
The Program will support the assessment of the relative importance
of atmospheric deposition to nitrogen loading within the Mississippi
River Basin, as well and the relative significance of industrial, POTW,
and stormwater point source loadings of nitrogen to the system.
c. department of the interior
1. Fish and Wildlife Service
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: North American Waterfowl Management Plan
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an excellent
example of cooperation among a variety of private citizens, citizen
organizations, private enterprise and governmental units at the local,
state and rational level (including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) for
the mutual benefit of all. There are 14 partnerships called Joint
Ventures which are responsible for on the ground implementation of the
plan. Because of the very nature of its activities and the inextricable
link between waterfowl and water quality, nearly all projects within
the purview of the North American Plan have a collateral water quality
benefit. The total nutrient reduction in the Mississippi basin as a
result of this program is impossible to quantify. The North American
Plan, however, calls for the protection and the restoration or
enhancement of millions of acres of wetland and associated upland; 11
of the 14 Joint Venture areas are in part or in whole within the
Mississippi basin. The amount of nutrient removal associated with any
individual tract depends upon a number of variables such as the
watershed on which it is located, its precise location in the
watershed, nutrient sources upstream, etc.
In addition to the direct effects on the nutrients within a
watershed, the North American achieves significant educational benefits
which will ultimately result in better nutrient utilization within the
basin. One of the most important educational benefits deals with the
process of collaborating to achieve mutually desired goals in a non-
regulatory environment.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: National Wildlife Refuge System
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
Within the Mississippi basin the National Wildlife Refuge System
consists of about 4.6 million acres, or about 0.5 percent of the basin.
The Service regularly adds to the Refuge System on a willing seller
basis as opportunity, money, and Congressional authorization make it
feasible. Part of the planning process for Refuge System acquisition
includes evaluation of wetland values. After lands are added to the
system, as a portion of achieving one of the primary objectives of
improving habitat values for trust resources, it is normal procedure to
restore wetlands and other habitat, and to subsequently manage them in
a manner which also results in water quality improvement. In those
instances where either the Service or lessees use fertilizers,
herbicides and/or pesticides the Service has a program in place to
reduce usage both in quantity and toxicity. Total nutrient reduction in
the Mississippi basin is dependent upon a multitude of variables and is
impossible to quantify.
The National Wildlife Refuge System represents a true win-win
situation. The citizens/sportsmen who pay for the property obtain
additional public lands and the benefits that go with that land; the
willing seller is able to, but not required to, sell property at
appraised value; land, which is often of marginal agricultural value,
is removed from production and returned to wetlands, hardwoods,
prairie, etc., all of which helps improve downstream water quality.
The National Wildlife Refuge System also has a technical
assistance/education component wherein refuge personnel assist in
educating the public through various programs such as the visitor's
centers, classroom assistance, various local organizations, etc. on the
values of wetlands and water quality. Refuge personnel often also
provide technical assistance to non-refuge organizations and
individuals on how to restore wetlands, improve habitat, and improve
water quality.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Endangered Species Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The Endangered Species program contributes to improved water
quality in the Mississippi basin in several manners. By means of
Section 7 consultations the Service has an opportunity to influence the
manner in which projects are developed. Often the staff works with
developers in a preconsultation mode which results in a more
environmentally friendly project without ever needing to enter into
formal consultation. Such influence, by its very nature, tends to
protect wetlands and riparian habitat with a collateral benefit of
reduced nutrient loading and improved water quality.
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP's) encourage developers to engage
in a comprehensive planning process which takes into account not only
their development objectives, but also habitat requirements for one or
more species. As a result of this process, the developer is assured
that the project can proceed without danger of being stopped for
endangered species as long as the plan is followed. From a resource
perspective, the Service is assured that appropriate habitat will be
protected. Again a collateral benefit is reduced nutrient loading and
improve water quality.
The Service is conducting educational programs on many fronts
concerning endangered species and the need for appropriate habitat.
Audiences vary from school children, to the agricultural community, to
special interest groups, to government officials, to developers. Some
of the payoff for the educational programs is immediate as in the case
of farmers or developers who alter their approach, and some will not be
realized until the next century as in the case of younger school
children.
As in many of the Service programs, it is impossible to quantify
the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus which is precluded from entering
the Mississippi drainage as a result of this program.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Partners for Wildlife
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, and Education
The FWS operates its Partners for Wildlife program, wherein Service
personnel provide technical and financial assistance to individual
property owners to restore previously degraded wetlands, riparian
areas, and other habitats under voluntary cooperative agreements. The
Service works in close coordination with other federal and state
agencies, local governments, conservation organizations and business
and industry to enhance delivery of the program. The cooperating
property owners agree to retain the restored habitats for a minimum of
10 years under cooperative agreements with the Service.
Since the program began operation in 1987 the Service has restored
over 350,000 acres of wetland habitat nationwide. Of this total,
approximately 40 percent (140,000) has taken place in the upper
Mississippi watershed, and approximately 25 percent (90,000 acres) in
the lower Mississippi River Basin. Total nutrient reduction as a result
of this program is impossible to quantify.
Currently, annual funding for the Partners for Wildlife restoration
program is currently approximately $10 million nationwide.
Cumulatively, (since 1987) Service funding for projects conducted in
the upper and lower Mississippi watersheds is approximately $40 million
and $25 million, respectively. These dollars have leveraged nearly an
equal amount from landowner contributions and in-kind services, as well
as from other funding partner sources, for a total investment of
approximately $130 million in the Mississippi River Basin.
This is an excellent example of a win-win cooperative program. The
Service achieves its primary objective of improving habitat for trust
resources while landowners improve the aesthetic, economic, and
recreational value of their land. Downstream property owners also
benefit by reduced flooding and improved water quality. The amount of
nutrient reduction achieved by a given project is dependent upon a
variety of factors, including where it is located in the watershed and
surrounding land use activity. Property owners frequently indicate a
desire to retain restored habitats long after expiration of Partners
For Wildlife cooperative agreements.
The program also provides opportunities for community involvement
through education and research initiatives. Restoration projects often
become the focal point for educational field trips and research
studies. Engaging the local community also encourages surrounding
landowners to become involved in additional habitat restoration and
overall natural resources stewardship on the landscape.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Federal Aid Programs
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act and Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act provide major sources of funding for basin
States for use in their fish and wildlife programs. In 1996 the States
making up the Mississippi basin received a combined total of about
$108.8 million in Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (not including
the funding specifically targeted toward hunter education), and about
$117.3 million in Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. Portions of
this money went toward purchase of real estate for fish and wildlife
habitat. Other portions went toward restoration/improvement of habitat.
In most instances the habitat acquired or restored provides a water
quality benefit by virtue of its nutrient removal capabilities. In
addition a component of the Federal Aid moneys goes to support
education, which has a long term positive effect.
These revenues, which are generated by taxes on many types of
hunting and fishing equipment and supplies, were instituted at the
request of sportsmen. The activities funded from these funds represent
win-win situations in which all of society benefits. Because of the
nature of these programs it is impossible to quantify nutrient
reductions in the Mississippi drainage which is directly attributable
to them. As with many of the natural resources programs, improved water
quality is a collateral benefit.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: North American Waterfowl Management Plan
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an excellent
example of cooperation among a variety of private citizens, citizen
organizations, private enterprise and governmental units at the local,
state and national level (including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) for
the mutual benefit of all. There are 14 partnerships called Joint
Ventures which are responsible for on the ground implementation of the
plan. Because of the very nature of its activities and the inextricable
link between waterfowl and water quality, nearly all projects within
the purview of the North American Plan have a collateral water quality
benefit. The total nutrient reduction in the Mississippi basin as a
result of this program is impossible to quantify. The North American
Plan, however, calls for the protection and the restoration or
enhancement of millions of acres of wetland and associated upland; 11
of the 14 Joint Venture areas are in part or in whole within the
Mississippi basin. The amount of nutrient removal associated with any
individual tract depends upon a number of variables such as the
watershed on which it is located, its precise location in the
watershed, nutrient sources upstream, etc.
In addition to the direct effects on the nutrients within a
watershed, the North American achieves significant educational benefits
which will ultimately result in better nutrient utilization within the
basin. One of the most important educational benefits deals with the
process of collaborating to achieve mutually desired goals in a non-
regulatory environment.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Contaminants Activities
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, Education
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working through its Division of
Environmental Contaminants and through contaminants specialists in
field offices throughout the basin, conducts various activities
designed to improve management of trust resources (property and
species). These activities may deal with contaminants originating on
Service property, contaminants threatening to enter or impact Service
property, contaminants on property the Service may be interested in
acquiring or contaminants with a potential to threaten trust resources
off site.
The Service was instrumental in developing the Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) program. This program provides a
standardized and systematic approach for identifying existing and
potential contaminants problems on lands managed by the Department of
the Interior and thereby provides a basis for remediation or for future
assessments. This program is currently managed by the National
Biological Service.
The Service is a co-trustee with the States for natural resources
in the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) program. Under this
program, money is assessed from responsible parties for damages to the
natural resources, and is spent to restore habitat in the immediate
vicinity of the damage. This restored habitat, which is often wetland,
helps reduce nutrient loadings to the Mississippi. Each of the dozens
of National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the basin is a potential
source of restoration funds.
Some service contaminants activities contribute to a better
understanding of watercourse and wetland values and functions including
the transport and fate of nutrients. The Service has no monitoring
program for water quality parameters such as nutrients and pesticides
which are associated with the Gulf hypoxia issue.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Coordination Activities
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and various portions of other federal
statutes such as the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm
Bill), Federal Power Act, etc. serves as a consultant to various other
federal agencies concerning activities which might have the potential
to impact trust resources. In this role, Service personnel use their
technical expertise in fish, wildlife, and habitat management issues to
help other agencies avoid conflicts. The Service makes recommendations
aimed to help the other agencies first avoid, secondly minimize, and
thirdly mitigate for adverse impact to fish and wildlife resources.
It is not possible to quantify the impacts of the consultant/
advisor role on the hypoxia problem. Sometimes, as a result of early
discussions, an agency might make significant changes which result in
improved water quality before the original plan is ever committed to
paper. In such a case the damage which has been avoided is never
documented. Also as a result of this process of interagency dialog, the
developmental approaches of the cooperating agencies evolve to a more
environmentally benign project.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Contaminants Activities
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, Education
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working through its Division of
Environmental Contaminants and through contaminants specialists in
field offices throughout the basin, conducts various activities
designed to improve management of trust resources (property and
species). These activities may deal with contaminants originating on
Service property, contaminants threatening to enter or impact Service
property, contaminants on property the Service may be interested in
acquiring or contaminants with a potential to threaten trust resources
off site.
The Service was instrumental in developing the Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) program. This program provides a
standardized and systematic approach for identifying existing and
potential contaminants problems on lands managed by the Department of
the Interior and thereby provides a basis for remediation or for future
assessments. This program is currently managed by the National
Biological Service.
The Service is a co-trustee with the States for natural resources
in the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) program. Under this
program, money is assessed from responsible parties for damages to the
natural resources, and is spent to restore habitat in the immediate
vicinity of the damage. This restored habitat, which is often wetland,
helps reduce nutrient loadings to the Mississippi. Each of the dozens
of National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the basin is a potential
source of restoration funds.
Some service contaminants activities contribute to a better
understanding of watercourse and wetland values and functions including
the transport and fate of nutrients. The Service has no monitoring
program for water quality parameters such as nutrients and pesticides
which are associated with the Gulf hypoxia issue.
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
PROGRAM: Coordination Activities
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Assimilate in
the Natural Environment, Managing River Resources, and Education
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and various portions of other federal
statutes such as the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm
Bill), Federal Power Act, etc. serves as a consultant to various other
federal agencies concerning activities which might have the potential
to impact trust resources. In this role, Service personnel use their
technical expertise in fish, wildlife, and habitat management issues to
help other agencies avoid conflicts. The Service makes recommendations
aimed to help the other agencies first avoid, secondly minimize, and
thirdly mitigate for adverse impact to fish and wildlife resources.
It is not possible to quantify the impacts of the consultant/
advisor role on the hypoxia problem. Sometimes, as a result of early
discussions, an agency might make significant changes which result in
improved water quality before the original plan is ever committed to
paper. In such a case the damage which has been avoided is never
documented. Also as a result of this process of interagency dialog, the
developmental approaches of the cooperating agencies evolve to a more
environmentally benign project.
2. United States Geological Survey
AGENCY: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
PROGRAM: National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
RESPONSE CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Loadings characterization; Understanding nutrient
transport mechanisms
DESCRIPTION: In 1991 the USGS began full implementation of the
National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Objectives of the
program are to: (1) describe the status and trends in the quality of a
large, representative part of the Nation's ground- and surface-water
resources, (2) to provide an improved understanding of the primary
natural and human factors affecting these resources, and (3) to provide
information that supports development and evaluation of management,
regulatory, and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local
agencies. These objectives are being carried out through intensive 3-
year studies in 60 study units in diverse hydrologic settings
nationwide. The 60 study units selected for study in this program
include more than two-thirds of the Nation's fresh water resources and
more than two-thirds of the people served by public supply systems.
About 20 of the NAWQA units are intensively studied for a period of 3
years, and then the program rotates to studies of the next set of 20
study units. This approach provides for intensive study of the 60 study
units over a period of about 10 years. Twenty three (23) of the 60
NAWQA study units lie within the Mississippi River basin, and 7 of
these units are presently (1996-97) in the intensive study phase. Four
of the active study units in the basin will provide data on nutrient
sources and nutrient loading in relation to land use, that will be of
particular value to study of the hypoxia issue. These active study
units are: (1) the upper Mississippi basin, including Minneapolis-St.
Paul, (2) the Cedar and Iowa River basins in eastern Iowa, (3) the
lower Illinois River basin, and (4) the Mississippi embayment in
Mississippi, Arkansas, and Northern Louisiana.
The similar design of each investigation and use of standard
methods make comparisons among the study units' results possible.
Regional and national assessments, referred to as `` National
Synthesis'', have been made, which focus on priority national issues,
including nutrients and pesticides.
AGENCY: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
PROGRAM: National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
RESPONSE CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Point and Nonpoint Sources
DESCRIPTION: The research is focused on developing national and
regional water-quality models relating stream measurements of nutrients
to point- and nonpoint-pollutant sources and watershed characteristics.
The models are designed to empirically estimate the rates of nutrient
loss from terrestrial and in-stream processes, and thus, quantify the
transport of point and nonpoint sources to downstream locations.
Preliminary versions of these models have been applied in the
Mississippi River Basin (see Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia conference
proceedings, 1996) to estimate the quantities of nitrogen and
phosphorus delivered to the Gulf of Mexico from interior watersheds.
Refinements to the models are currently being made to improve estimates
of the terrestrial- and in-stream-loss processes and to quantify the
uncertainty associated with estimates of the origin of nutrients
delivered to the Gulf.
AGENCY: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
PROGRAM: National Stream Quality Accounting Network II (NASQAN II)
RESPONSE CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Loadings characterization; Understanding nutrient
transport mechanisms
DESCRIPTION: The USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN II) was redesigned in fiscal year 1996 to focus on the flux of
chemicals and sediment in the Nation's four largest river basins. By
drainage area these are: the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio
Grande. In fiscal year 1997 the Mississippi Basin will have NASQAN II
sampling sites at 17 key locations in the basin. The configuration of
the sampling sites and the sampling strategy will provide estimates of
the seasonal and annual flux (loadings) of nutrients, carbon,
pesticides, sediment, and other chemicals from 17 discrete subbasins
within the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri River system. The program will
also provide estimates of the seasonal and annual flux of nutrients and
other chemicals to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi and the
Atchafalaya Rivers. The 17 subbasins will provide information on source
areas for the nutrients and other materials discharged to the Gulf of
Mexico and unit are yields of chemicals and sediment among the
subbasins. The data from this program will help identify the geographic
areas that contribute the largest unit area loadings of nutrients to
the Gulf and will help quantify the success of any fixture efforts to
reduce nutrients loadings to the Gulf. The nutrient loading data will
also be critical in linking the onset and extent of hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico to terrestrial nutrient sources via predictive models.
AGENCY: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
PROGRAM: Coastal and Marine Geology Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Predictive Models, Loadings Characterization
DESCRIPTION: Scientific studies conducted through the Coastal and
Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey in the Mississippi
River deltaic plain of south central Louisiana are providing important
base-line information on a wide range of environmental conditions and
processes. The primary focus of the studies, conducted in collaboration
with several federal, state, and local agencies over the past decade,
is on barrier island erosion, wetland loss, and contaminated sediments
in the Pontchartrain basin. Many of the results from these studies in
the form of maps, GIS data bases, scientific reports, and computer
models of nearshore water circulation and sediment transport can be
important too in improving our scientific understanding of the issues
associated with seasonal hypoxia conditions in nearshore waters of the
Gulf of Mexico.
d. department of defense
1. United States Army Corps of Engineers
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management
Program UMRS-EMP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing River
Resources (Habitat Restoration)
DESCRIPTION: Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1986 (PA. 99-662), as amended, authorized a program for the
planning, construction and evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife
habitat rehabilitation and enhancement, with up to $19.4 million per
year for 15 years to be appropriated. Two key components of the UMRS-
EMP are the Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects (HREP) and
the Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP). Completed HREP's
have restored and enhanced wetland and aquatic habitats previously lost
and degraded. Sediment control is a primary consideration of HREP
projects. More than 14,000 acres have benefitted from these projects.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Mississippi River Diversion Projects
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing River
Resources (Habitat Restoration)
DESCRIPTION: Two Corps projects have been designed for large-scale
diversion of Mississippi River water, with its sediment and nutrient
loads, into existing or former wetlands in coastal Louisiana. One
project, Caernarvon Diversion, is complete and operational and the
results have been favorable. Another project, Davis Pond, is ready for
construction. These projects are designed so that substantial nutrient
uptake will occur in wetlands adjacent to the Mississippi River before
the water moves on to the Gulf of Mexico. Primary benefits include
increased fishery production and conservation/restoration of wetlands
that would otherwise be lost to saltwater intrusion and subsidence.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA), Title III of Public Law 101-646 (Non-Indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance and Control Act of 1990)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing Coastal
Resources (Louisiana Area)
DESCRIPTION: Public Law 101-646 established an interagency Task
Force, chaired by the Secretary of the Army, to create, restore,
protect, and enhance coastal wetlands in Louisiana, using a number of
means to accomplish these goals. The program is funded by the Coastal
Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund. The Corps has received about $35
million per year from the Department of the Interior to carry out this
program. The restoration and creation of wetlands in coastal Louisiana
will help remove nutrients from nutrient-rich waters before they enter
the Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Demonstration Erosion Control
Program (DECP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing River
Resources (Other-Reducing Streambank Erosion)
DESCRIPTION: The DECP has been ongoing for several years in the
Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi. This program is designed to demonstrate
the effectiveness of a watershed or systems approach to reduce erosion
and sedimentation associated with flood damage reduction measures. The
project includes a variety of measures that detain flood waters and
sediment, thereby improving water quality and reducing the nutrient
loads to streams.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Section 1135, Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as
amended, Public Law 99-662
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing River
Resources (Habitat Restoration) and Managing Coastal Resources
DESCRIPTION: Section 1135 of Public Law 99-662, as amended,
authorizes the Corps to carry out a program to make modifications to
the structures and operations of constructed Corps projects which would
improve the quality of the environment. Many of these Section 1135
projects have been restoration of wetlands and other aquatic habitats
that trap sediments and nutrients. While this is a national program, a
number of the projects have been carried out in the Mississippi River
Basin and other drainage that impact upon the Gulf of Mexico. One
project has been completed at Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana; the
Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana, project has been approved
for implementation; and the South Pass, Mississippi River, project is
currently under planning and design work. Section 1135 projects are
typically small projects, usually less than $1 million each.
Nationwide, this program is funded at about $10 million per year.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Section 204, Water Resources Development Act of 1992,
Public Law 102-580
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Management/Managing Coastal
Resources (Other--Beneficial Use of Dredged Material)
DESCRIPTION: Section 204, Public Law 102-580, authorizes the Corps
to carry out projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in
connection with dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of
an authorized Federal navigation project. One of the primary goals of
this program is to make beneficial use of clean, suitable dredged
material. A major focus is the use of wetlands vegetation to stabilize
sediments from dredging. Wetlands vegetation will also take up
nutrients from these sediments and silts. Two projects in coastal
Louisiana have been carried out under this authority, one at the Sabine
National Wildlife Refuge ($600,000), and one at the Barataria Bay
Waterway ($800,000). Nationwide, this program has been funded at about
$3 million per year.
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
PROGRAM: Regulatory Program (Permits)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Program/Policy/Regulatory Evaluation
DESCRIPTION: The Corps Regulatory Program, authorized by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the River and Harbor Act of
1899, provides an opportunity to help reduce nutrient loading in the
Mississippi River drainage or coastal area of the Gulf of Mexico. The
Regulatory Program, which requires a Federal permit for anyone to place
dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, enables the
Corps to work with developers, landowners, and other applicants in
reducing or eliminating runoff of sediments and nutrients from credible
lands that could otherwise impact upon the Gulf of Mexico.
e. health and human services paint
1. Food and Drug Administration
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
PROGRAM: Phytoplankton Surveys
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research
DESCRIPTION: Phytoplankton surveys seeking potential toxic forms
which could cause seafood to be harmful to humans; there may be a
connection between nutrient enrichment of Gulf waters from land runoff
which is related to both the hypoxic zone and to the conditions
favoring blooms of toxic phytoplankton. Any fish killed due to contact
with waters of the hypoxic zone would be deemed unfit for food, as
would any fish collected from an environmentally caused fish kill, and
would be violative if entered into interstate commerce.
The work done on these surveys is not designed to determine the
environmental conditions related to the occurrence of toxic
phytoplankton, or to conditions which can lead to blooms of these
plankton. However, FDA can provide results it obtains on the presence
of particular phytoplankton to others who may be able to incorporate
those results into a larger analysis of Gulf of Mexico conditions.
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
PROGRAM: National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Water Quality
Criteria
DESCRIPTION: Establishment of water quality criteria for the safe
harvest of molluscan shellfish; to the extent that pollution abatement
might occur in order to restore shellfish harvest areas, the criteria
of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), a state/federal
cooperative program with the FDA could have an effect on contributions
to the hypoxic zone.
The States along the Gulf apply the established criteria of the
NSSP to determine the opening or closing of shellfish harvest waters so
information on the bacterial quality of shellfish harvest waters, which
may reflect runoff conditions or river inflow effects, could be
obtained and related to other environmental data in the hypoxic zone
area for possible correlations between these parameters and the extent
of the hypoxic zone.
f. national oceanic and atmospheric administration
AGENCY: Coastal Ocean Program: National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: The Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity Program
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Education and Understanding; Predictive Models;
Understanding Nutrient Transport Mechanisms
DESCRIPTION: Much of the understanding of the so-called ``dead
zone'' in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) has been provided through
the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program's (COP) Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean
Productivity (NECOP) Program. The NECOP study was initiated to address
the effects of nutrient discharge in the coastal waters of the United
States. The program has focused on the impact of the outflows of the
Mississippi and Atchalaya Rivers on the northern GOM coastal waters.
Since 1989, some 40 federal and academic scientists have joined forces
in an interdisciplinary investigation of the continental shelf of the
northern GOM at a total funding of almost $10 million.
Previous research efforts in this region have linked anthropogenic
nutrient inputs to the development of hypoxia in the nearshore waters
of Louisiana. Hence one of the major goals of the NECOP study was to
quantitatively relate the input of the riverborne nutrients in the
Mississippi River discharge to the development of hypoxia on the shelf.
Much of the NECOP investigations has dealt with the hypoxia, the extent
and timing of its occurrence, causal factors, impacts, and history
through retrospective analysis. A high priority has been the
development of a water quality model to describe the interrelationships
between nutrients, phytoplankton and dissolved oxygen.
Fiscal year 1997 will be the last year of the NECOP Program. NOAA-
COP has initiated and advanced the scientific understanding of the
processes and mechanics of the Mississippi River Plume. In fiscal year
1997 NECOP will continue with critical monitoring, final data
synthesis, further calibration of the water quality model and transfer
of the model to Louisiana State University.
The objectives of the NECOP Program have been successfully met.
However, a number of research and monitoring uncertainties remain.
Future directions in research and monitoring studies should focus on
the following:
--continue critical water quality monitoring to maintain the
continuity of the long-term database in the northern Gulf of
Mexico
--the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia on ecosystem structure and
function in the region (including fisheries impacts)
--missing components of the mass balance modeling of phytoplankton,
nutrients, and dissolved oxygen.
AGENCY: Office of Habitat Conservation: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration
CATEGORY: Nutrient Management
SUBCATEGORY: Assimilate in the Natural Environment/Restoring
Wetlands
DESCRIPTION: Under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is a member of a multi-federal agency Task Force responsible for
implementing wetland habitat restoration projects which focus on
coastal Louisiana. Louisiana possesses 40 percent of the coastal
wetlands in the lower 48 States, but experiences 80 percent of the
entire nation's wetlands loss. Each year, 25 square miles of coastal
wetlands are lost in Louisiana. The Task Force critically evaluates and
awards restoration projects to be jointly implemented between the
federal sponsor and the State of Louisiana's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). CWPPRA mandates a cost-share agreement of 75 percent
federal funds and 25 percent State funds for all Louisiana projects.
The site selection process is based on the proposed project's technical
(scientific) merit, cost effectiveness, and predicted wetland quantity
and quality. The Task Force was responsible for the preparation of a
comprehensive coastal Restoration Plan for the State of Louisiana which
was completed in 1993. The Plan provides much of the basis for
selecting future restoration projects.
To date, NMFS has awarded 10 grants to Louisiana DNR and works
closely with DNR to implement these wetland projects. NMFS-sponsored
and funded projects focus on protecting existing wetlands by restoring
natural hydrologic regimes of coastal wetlands, creating new wetlands
by dredge-deposition and sediment diversions, and enhancing Louisina's
barrier islands by nourishment from dredged sediments. Collectively,
current NMFS projects will benefit over 45,000 acres of coastal wetland
habitat. Joint project funding between NMFS and DNR for these efforts
is $40 million.
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Magnuson-Stevens Act--Monitoring Landings and Stock
Assessment
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Fishery Statistics; Resource Surveys)
DESCRIPTION: The NMFS collects, complies and analyzes data on
landings, fishing effort and stock sizes of fishery species in order to
monitor changes and protect against losses in fishery productivity.
Since annual variability may be relative large due to environmental
factors, long-term databases are necessary to establish trends or
changes in patterns of productivity. The database for the shrimp
fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is long-term (since 1960) and intensively
collected. NMFS port agents take landings data from all major dealers
in the Gulf on a monthly basis and conduct interviews with vessel
captains in order to identify locations of shrimp catch. In addition,
the NMFS conducts two seasonal at-sea surveys each year (summer and
fall) in order to provide fishery-independent information on fish and
shrimp in the western Gulf of Mexico, via the Southeast Area Marine
Assessment Program (SEAMAP). The analyses of these stock assessment
data is essential to determining the impacts of hypoxia on fisheries
and living marine resources.
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Magnuson-Stevens Act--Fishery Management Plans (FMP's)
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Fish Habitat Conservation)
DESCRIPTION: The NMFS is charged through Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq) and it's subsequent re-authorization, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (Public Law (104-208), with identification and conservation of
essential habitats for marine and andromous fisheries. Moreover,
identification and management of marine fisheries habitats is now (with
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization) an integral part of Fishery
Management Plans prepared by Regional Fishery Management Councils. In
the case of habitat affected by hypoxia off the coast of Louisiana and
Texas, the primary concern of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council is for shrimp, menhaden, red drum, red snapper and other
important commercial and recreational fisheries. Since hypoxia degrades
the shelf habitat of these fisheries and affects maintenance of their
productivity, the NMFS is obligated to measure the annual ``extent of
hypoxia'' through at-sea surveys and other means such as satellite
imagery. The NMFS is also committed to work cooperatively with other
Federal agencies to assist in providing information that will help in
finding ways to reduce the problem.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: National Estuarine Eutrophication Survey
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Characterization and Assessment)
DESCRIPTION: The goal of the National Estuarine Eutrophication
Survey is to comprehensively assess the temporal and spatial scale,
scope, and severity of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication-related
phenomena in over 100 U.S. estuaries. This is accomplished by
collecting information from national, regional, and local experts about
16 different water quality parameters--including the frequency of
occurrence and spatial extent of hypoxia and anoxia--for each estuarine
system. The results of the survey for the Gulf of Mexico estuaries have
recently been confirmed in a regional workshop held in the summer of
1996.
The extent to which the oxygen-poor water from the hypoxic area may
be affecting low dissolved oxygen conditions in estuarine systems in
Louisiana and Texas is not well understood. Because the Eutrophication
Survey evaluates trends in eutrophication, and assesses the severity of
this problem for the tidal fresh, mixing, and seawater zones (i.e., the
head, main body, and mouth) of each estuary, it may be possible to
detect the influence of an offshore input of low-oxygen water from the
hypoxic area on different segments of the estuary, and also possibly
the change in this influence over time. Further, because the Survey
comprehensively covers the major estuarine systems in the Gulf of
Mexico using a consistent survey approach, it will be possible to
evaluate and compare potential impacts among estuarine systems.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Strategic Assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Program's
Shellfish Challenge
CATEGORY: PROGRAM/POLICY
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Planning and Assessment)
DESCRIPTION: The goal of the Gulf of Mexico Program's Shellfish
Challenge Project is to increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe
harvest by 10 percent. Over the past year, the Program has brought
together Federal, state, and local stakeholders to examine the nature
of the problems causing harvest limitations of shellfish growing
waters, and to identify watershed-based solutions on a regional scale.
The next step is to translate these regional strategies into action
within priority watersheds.
The strategic planning process used to target ``best candidate''
watersheds for different priority shellfish restoration strategies
could be readily adapted to identifying priority areas for various
nutrient reduction actions that are needed to address the hypoxia zone
problem. Such an approach is important because the hypoxia zone and the
watershed in which the nutrient discharges originate is a diverse and
complex environment in which many of the physical and biological
processes and their inter-relationships are not well understood. The
cumulative effects of human activities have resulted in an
environmental problem on a regional scale that is unprecedented. In
addition, the mix of Federal, state, and local governments, non-
governmental organizations and public stakeholders required to address
this problem make for an extraordinarily complex management context in
which to forge solutions. In this decision-making context of scientific
and management uncertainty, a comprehensive and integrated assessment
framework is an essential building block to provide managers with the
synthesized information necessary to not only identify the appropriate
management strategies and actions to implement but also to evaluate
their effectiveness in a timely manner and target the locations where
these actions should be directed.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Land Based Sources Inventory
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Loadings Characterization
DESCRIPTION: The goal of the Gulf of Mexico Land Based Sources
Inventory is to develop an integrated inventory of point, urban
nonpoint, and nonurban nonpoint sources of pollution and associated
nutrient discharge estimates for the coastal watersheds of the Gulf of
Mexico for a base year of 1991. Estimates will be available on a
seasonal basis, and can be aggregated by county, USGS hydrologic
cataloging unit, or estuarine drainage area. The inventory will be
completed in January 1997.
A prerequisite to developing a comprehensive management strategy
for the hypoxia zone is an understanding of the location, timing,
magnitude, and temporal and spatial distribution of pollutant sources
and discharges in coastal watersheds, and an assessment of the relative
contribution of discharges among various sources, both with and across
watersheds. This project will provide estimates of point and nonpoint
source pollution into each of the local coastal water areas of the Gulf
coastline. Local authorities can use the estimates to evaluate their
areas of responsibility to help establish a baseline for discharges and
to support the targeting of control strategies.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Habitat Suitability Project
CATEGORY: Nurtrient Management
SUBCATEGORY: Managing Coastal Resources
DESCRIPTION: The Gulf of Mexico Habitat Suitability Project
assembles information on key environmental parameters (e.g., salinity,
temperature, substrate, dissolved oxygen, etc.) as inputs to a habitat
suitability model that attempts to target areas of differing
environmental fitness for selected finfish and crustacea in Gulf
estuaries. A pilot study has recently been completed for Pensacola Bay
for oysters, white shrimp, and spotted sea trout. A protocol for
application of the approach to other estuarine systems in the Gulf is
currently being developed.
The results of the habitat suitability analyses for the estuaries
and near coastal areas affected by the hypoxic zone could provide
insights regarding the impact of various management strategies under
consideration on these systems. For example, one strategy that has been
discussed to mitigate the delivery of nutrients to the mouth of the
Mississippi River is to divert flow to Barataria Bay and Breton/
Chadeleur Sounds. Such diversions would have a significant impact on
the environmental conditions and species in these systems. The habitat
suitability information could be used to evaluate pre- and post-
diversions conditions resulting from these management actions.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment;
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Coastal Assessment Framework
CATEGORY: Program/Policy
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Planning and Assessment)
DESCRIPTION: NOAA's Coastal Assessment Framework is a digital set
of spatial areas that has been developed to provide a consistently
derived framework that managers and analysts can use to organize and
present information on the Nation's coastal, near-ocean, and Great
Lakes resources. The framework encompasses over 80 percent of the land
areas within the contiguous United States and includes the drainage
basins of nearly all the Nation's rivers. It is available on CD-ROM or
can be downloaded from NOAA's internet site.
The Coastal Assessment Framework could serve as the starting point
for building an ``integrated'' spatial decision-analysis system to
support management strategy development to address the Mississippi
River hypoxia zone. Actual development and application of such a
framework would be the logical next step in a long-term management
process. The goal would be to design a tool to make the best use of
existing management programs and projects at the Federal, state, and
local levels, and to identify where to implement effective and cost
efficient new management strategies over time. The system should
include data and information that will help mangers: (1) determine the
current status of the ecosystem; (2) detect changes and trends;
validate and verify predictive models; (3) enhance the knowledge and
understanding of the processes affecting the ecosystem; (4) serve as an
early warning of future problems; (5) and most importantly, evaluate
the efficacy of local and regional nutrient management strategies and
policies.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
National Ocean Service: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Gulf of Mexico Estuarine and Offshore Living Marine
Resources Mapping
CATEGORY: Nutrient Management
SUBCATEGORY Managing Coastal Resources
DESCRIPTION:
NOAA's Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) project currently
includes information on the presence, distribution, and relative
abundance by five life stages of over 40 fish and invertebrate species
in the 31 estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. Information in ELMR is
currently being updated to support the development of Environmental
Sensitivity Maps for oil spill response in the Gulf of Mexico. As part
of the update process, the distribution of species will be refined from
three to five salinity zones within each estuarine system. In addition,
characterization of the presence, distribution, and relative abundance
of up to 10 important offshore species will be undertaken.
Knowledge of the fish and invertebrate distributions in ELMR will
be extremely useful in understanding the impact of the hypoxic zone on
both offshore and estuarine dependent species. Moreover, if this
information could be combined with other habitat parameters to produce
habitat suitability models, managers could evaluate the impact of
phenomena such as the hypoxia zone on fisheries productivity and
availability of habitat.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; National
Ocean Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Education and Understanding; Predictive Models
DESCRIPTION: The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)
is a Federal-State cooperative program that manages a national system
of estuarine research reserves through long-term protection of the
estuarine resources. This management provides a basis for research,
enhancement of public awareness and education, and collection and
provision of information for better management of regions.
Weeks Bay, a small estuarine embayment of Mobile Bay, Alabama, was
designated a Reserve in 1986. The Weeks Bay NERR encompasses a variety
of habitat that provides support for a variety of organisms including
critical nursery ground for fish and shellfish. Ongoing research
programs include assessment and abatement of non-point source pollution
and hydrodynamic modeling. The Reserve also has a volunteer program to
enhance public involvement in estuarine protection. Activities in the
Weeks Bay NERR are jointly funded by Federal and State dollars as well
as grants.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; National
Ocean Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Environmental Sensitivity Index
CATEGORY: Science/Research
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Environmental Mapping)
DESCRIPTION: The most widely used approach to sensitive environment
mapping in the United States is NOAA's Environmental Sensitivity Index
(ESI) approach. This approach systematically compiles information in
standard formats for coastal shoreline sensitivity, biological
resources, and human-use resources. The ESI's are an important tool in
spill response, to reduce the environmental consequences of the spill
and cleanup efforts. Current work with the Environmental Protection
Agency focuses on extending the ESI methodology to inland rivers, and
smaller ponds and streams. While these Riverine Sensitivity Index maps
were developed to assist in the development of inland spill response
plans, both this work and the coastal EST's have broader applicability
for resource management purposes.
The ESI strategy emphasizes standard methods for shoreline
sensitivity rankings, data structures for organizing resource
information, and map formats, for both electronic and hard copy output.
NOAA is developing advanced applications to apply the advantages of
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for data access by local resource
managers. NOAA is undertaking a wide-ranging program to promote open
ESI standards and develop digital ESI databases for high-priority
coastal areas in partnership with individual States and other Federal
agencies. NOAA and the State of Texas completed ESI mapping along the
upper Texas coast in 1995. NOAA and the States completed in Alabama and
Mississippi in 1996. The State of Florida recently completed ESI
mapping for the entire state. The State of Louisiana plans to begin ESI
work in 1997. The state of Texas will begin ESI work for the remaining
coastal areas of the state in 1997.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; National
Ocean Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Coastal Zone Management Program
CATEGORY: Program/Policy
SUBCATEGORY: Other (Assessment, Monitoring, and Management of
Wetlands and Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution; Education)
DESCRIPTION: The National Ocean Service/Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (NOS/OCRM) provides technical and programmatic
assistance and grant funding to States/territories under the authority
of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. OCRM administers the
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program in partnership with twenty-nine
Federally approved programs, and five developing programs. Each fiscal
year, CZM States/territories submit projects for OCRM approval, that
are consistent with CZMA statutory program mandates, as they relate to
coastal resource management. This allows CZM States/territories to
develop and implement projects in a variety of national priorities
areas; including, wetlands protection and coastal nonpoint source
pollution. For States/territories in the Gulf Region (including
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands), annual CZM funding is a total of about $8.6 million.
The state of Texas is in the process of seeking Federal program
approval, and has also received CZM funding to support development of
its program. To address the issue of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,
OCRM would encourage building upon the current or planned resource
assessment, monitoring, education and management regimes of the
Federally approved CZM programs for controlling nutrients and other
nonpoint source pollution.
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; National
Ocean Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
Section 6217--Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
CATEGORY: Nutrient Management
SUBCATEGORY: Nutrient Source Management
DESCRIPTION: NOAA and EPA are jointly responsible for the
administration of the coastal nonpoint program established under
section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA). Under CZARA, the 29 States and territories with coastal zone
management programs which have received federal approval under section
306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act are required to develop and
implement programs to protect and restore coastal waters. The program
requires States to implement management measures for nonpoint sources
including agriculture, forestry, urban development, marinas, and
hydromodification. Management measures must also be implemented for
wetlands protection, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems.
Section 6217 also requires that state programs include enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure the widespread implementation of the
management measures where education, voluntary programs and incentives
do not result in management measure implementation. Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi all are developing coastal nonpoint source
pollution controls as part of their state coastal management programs
and Texas will also have a nonpoint program as part of its CZMA program
when it receives final approval. Under section 6217, States and
territories received funding for program development. From 1992 through
1996, $13 million was provided to the 29 States and territories.
g. united states department of agriculture (usda)
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Environmental Quality Incentives Program
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
provides in a single, voluntary program flexible technical, financial,
and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who face serious
threats to soil, water, and related natural resources on agricultural
land and other land, including grazing lands, wetlands, forest land,
and wildlife habitat. Assistance will be provided in a manner that
maximizes environmental benefits per dollar expended. Producers will be
aided in malting beneficial, cost-effective changes to conserve and
improve soil, water, and related natural resources on their farm and
ranch operations. $200 million is to be made available for each of
fiscal years 1997 through 2002. Fifty percent of the funding available
for the program will be targeted at practices relating to livestock
production.
Needs Assessment and Selecting Priority Areas
The program will primarily be available in priority conservation
areas throughout the Nation. The priority areas will be watersheds,
regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having
significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns. The
State Conservationist, with the advice of the State Technical
Committee, sets priorities for the program. State approved priority
areas are submitted to the Chief of NRCS, who consults with other
national agencies and conservation partners to determine a priority for
funding. The Chief makes funding decisions, with concurrence of Farm
Service Agency for the priority areas. State Conservationists, with the
advice of the State Technical Committee, may also determine that
program assistance is needed by producers located outside of funded
priority areas that are subject to environmental requirements, or who
have other significant natural resource concerns. States establishing
programs to accelerate adoption of cost-effective, special-emphasis
practices will be given priority for these funds. Conservation Plan and
Contract Program participation is voluntary and initiated by the
producer who makes an application for participation. Contract
applications will be accepted throughout the year. The Farm Service
Agency county committee approves for funding the highest ranking
applications. Approved applicants are responsible for developing and
submitting a conservation plan encompassing the producer's farming or
ranching unit of concern. The conservation plan, when implemented, must
protect the soil, water, or related natural resources in a manner that
meets the purposes of the program and is acceptable to NRCS and the
conservation district.
The contract, developed and administered by Farm Service Agency,
provides for cost-sharing and incentive payments between the producer
and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture for applying the
needed conservation practices and land use adjustments within a
specified time schedule. Because fifty percent of the available EQIP
funds are to be targeted at natural resource concerns relating to
livestock production, it is expected that a significant portion of the
program will be for conservation practices that address non-point
source water quality concerns caused by animal manure. The program is
expected to assist with the reduction of excess nutrient loading within
the watershed. EQIP is expected to be operational in November, 1996, at
which time the funding decisions for program delivery in priority areas
and other locations will be made. Projections on the number of priority
areas or the amount of funds to be expended in the Gulf of Mexico
drainage basin cannot be estimated at this time.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Program/Policy Activities
DESCRIPTION: The Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) is jointly
administered at the national and regional level by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Forest Service (FS), both
agencies are located in the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The NRCS administers FIP at the State and county level in
consultation with the State Forester. State forestry provides the
technical assistance needed to install timber production practices on
the land. FIP provides cost-share assistance, up to 65 percent of the
cost of installing practices. Three timber production practices are
available: FP1, Planting Trees; FP2, Improving a Stand of Forest Trees;
and FP3, Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration. The U.S. Forest
Service is responsible for determining the States, to receive funding
for FIP, which have the greatest potential for producing the most
efficient timber stands. The State Forester recommends the counties
within the respective State where the program will be offered, to
maximize the results of the cost-share funds. FIP participants in
thirty-one of the thirty-three States in the Mississippi River drainage
system, received $8,200,885.00, or 89 percent of the total FIP cost-
share payments earned in the 1995 fiscal year. A total of 154,147
acres, or 93 percent of the total FIP acres treated in the 1995 fiscal
year were located in the Mississippi River drainage system. The funding
level, nationally, for FIP in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 has been
$6,325,000.00. FIP practices, especially tree planting, provides
watershed protection by reducing soil erosion, filtering chemicals,
providing forest cover for nutrient uptake and reducing runoff from
entering into the streams flowing into the Mississippi River. Other FIP
practices improve forest stands, preventing their conversion to
agriculture land and increasing their nutrient uptake efficiency and
productivity. These ``win-win'' actions would benefit the landowner by
providing timber sales for the future and would reduce the soil erosion
running off into the Mississippi River system and Gulf of Mexico.
AGENCY: USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
PROGRAM: Agroforestry ``Working Trees for Agriculture''
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Program/Policy Activities
DESCRIPTION: ``Working Trees for Agriculture'' is a national
project involving numerous agencies and nongovernmental organizations
to increase the understanding, acceptance, and use of agroforestry
practices to attain more diverse and sustainable agricultural land-use
systems. The project has two parts: (1) jointly develop and deliver a
portfolio of agroforestry technology transfer and awareness activities
to field specialists, so they understand the technologies, how to apply
them and enable them to assist landowners to apply the practices; and
(2) a privately-funded national program that involves local youth
groups planting and maintaining agroforestry demonstration projects and
using them for conservation education. The National Agroforestry
Center, located at Lincoln, Nebraska, provides leadership for the
``Working Trees for Agriculture'' project. The National Agroforestry
Center is a partnership of the USDA Forest Service and Natural
Resources Conservation Service and provides National leadership in
Agroforestry research and technology transfer. Agroforestry practices,
such as, riparian buffer strips, streambank bioengineering, alley
cropping, timberbelts, field windbreaks and animal waste disposal
plantings intercept and store excess nutrients, filter chemicals,
reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and reduce runoff.
Agroforestry can be a valuable alternative for providing watershed
protection to keep our water clean and more suitable for recreational
use, domestic water use, and fish and wildlife habitat.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Conservation Reserve Program
RESPONSE/CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: At the Federal level, the USDA-Farm Service Agency
(FSA) administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which provides
for the conversion of certain cropland to permanent vegetative cover,
wildlife habitat, or tree plantings. Technical assistance for the CRP
is provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). There
have been thirteen public sign-up/enrollment periods since the
inception of the program in 1986. More than 33 million acres are
currently enrolled. The 1996 Farm Bill established a cap of 36.4
million acres eligible for enrollment at any time.
Land eligibility requirements generally encourage the most highly
erodible and the most environmentally sensitive lands to be enrolled
into the CRP. As a result, land which likely is yielding substantial
sediment, nutrients, and pesticides constitute the majority of land
currently enrolled in the CRP. Changes in the 1996 Farm Bill are
expected to allow better targeting of environmentally sensitive acres
including riparian buffers, waterways, and grass filter strips. A
provision to allow continuous sign-up and automatic approval for land
enrolled in these and similar practices promise to make the CRP even
more successful in coming years.
Scope and extent of CRP to the Gulf of Mexico drainage: In the 33
States contributing to the drainage to the Gulf of Mexico,
approximately 31.4 million acres of cropland is currently enrolled in
the Conservation Reserve Program. According to the latest Natural
Resources Inventory (NRI), average soil loss reduction due to CRP
participation in these States is approximately 17.6 tons per acre, per
year. In 1996, annual contract payments for land enrolled in CRP from
within the Gulf of Mexico drainage was $1,572,654,934.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Program/Policy Activities
DESCRIPTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an
agency located in the United States Department of Agriculture,
administers the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The WRP is a voluntary
program through which a landowner agrees to the restoration and
protection of agricultural wetlands on his or her land by selling a
conservation easement to the United States. NRCS compensates landowners
for the conveyance of the easement and provides cost-share assistance
for the installation of practices that restore wetlands. Additionally,
NRCS may enter into restoration cost-share agreements with landowners
without acquiring an easement. NRCS provides up to 100 percent cost-
share assistance for the restoration practices on lands enrolled
through permanent easement, and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance
for the restoration practices on lands enrolled through 30-year
easements or restoration cost-share agreements.
Landowners apply for enrollment in the program during an announced
sign-up period. NRCS evaluates the eligibility of the acres offered,
ranks the eligible offers according to environmental and cost criteria,
and then extends offers to the landowners with the high priority lands.
The NRCS administers WRP at the State level in consultation with the
State Technical Committee, authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3861. The greatest
enrollment of lands occurs in the Mississippi drainage system. The
funding level, nationally, for WRP has been approximately $80 million
annually. Enrollment of WRP acres in the Mississippi River drainage
system provides watershed protection by reducing flood hazards,
enhancing riparian buffer areas, filtering chemicals, increasing forest
cover, and reducing runoff from entering into the streams flowing into
the Mississippi River.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Title XII Wetland Conservation Provisions
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Program/Policy Activities
DESCRIPTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an
agency located in the United States Department of Agriculture,
administers the wetland conservation (WC) provisions of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended, 16 U.S.C 3821 et seq. The WC
provisions link eligibility for certain USDA program benefits to land
management measures. In particular, producers are ineligible for
program benefits if they produce an agricultural commodity on a wetland
converted after December 23, 1985, or, after November 28, 1990, convert
a wetland that makes the production of an agricultural commodity
possible. The WC provisions have helped reduce the number of wetland
acres lost to agricultural conversion to a fraction of the acres that
were converted prior to 1985. Due to the distribution of agricultural
wetlands, most of the impact of the WC provisions occurs within the
Mississippi River drainage system. The WC provisions protect the
functions and values of wetlands within the Mississippi watershed by
enhancing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, improving
water quality, attenuating the water flows due to floods, and
recharging ground water supplies.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Program
RESPONSE/CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: The USDA Water Quality Program provides funds for
research, education, technical assistance, data collection, and program
evaluation. These funds are allocated among five USDA agencies, and are
used to address various aspects of water contamination by agricultural
chemicals, including plant nutrients, from chemical fertilizers and
animal manures. About one-half of the annual expenditures are made
within agency for research (e.g., the Management Systems Evaluation
Area projects conducted largely within the Mississippi drainage), and
associated component-research programs conducted by the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations. The other expenditures are used to
implement specific State identified projects to address agriculture-
related water quality problems. Of these, approximately 20 (of 74)
Hydrologic Unit Area Projects and two (of 16) Demonstration Projects
are located in the Mississippi drainage. Since 1990, the USDA Water
Quality Program has invested some $60 million in such efforts in the
Gulf of Mexico watershed.
To address the hypoxia issue, USDA intends to build upon current
voluntary, incentive-driven approaches. Specifically, USDA would
encourage a renewed emphasis on nutrient management within the
education, financial, and technical assistance components of the
Program. Wider use of the Pre-Sidedress Nitrogen Test; increased soil
testing for nutrient availability; improved management of animal
manures applied to croplands; adoption of controlled drainage; and the
use of improved irrigation management techniques, can reduce farmer
costs and reduce inputs of nitrogen to the watershed. These ``win-win''
actions would reduce the potential loadings to the river system and the
Gulf of Mexico. USDA and its State cooperators will also share examples
from other regions where such strategies have reduced input costs and
nitrogen loads to the aquatic environment.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Initiative
RESPONSE/CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: Overview
At the Federal level the USDA administers the USDA Water Quality
Program, which provides funds for research, education, technical
assistance, and program evaluation. These funds are allocated among
five USDA agencies, and are used to address various aspects of water
contamination by agricultural chemicals, including plant nutrients from
chemical fertilizers and animal manures. About one-half of the annual
expenditures are made within agency for research (most notably, the
Management Systems Evaluation Area projects conducted largely within
the Corn Belt and largely within the Mississippi drainage). These
research programs are conducted in cooperation with the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations. The other expenditures are used to
implement specific State-identified projects to address agriculture-
related water quality problems. Of these, approximately 20 (of 74)
Hydrologic Unit Area Projects are located in the Mississippi drainage,
along with two (of 16) Demonstration Projects.
For addressing the hypoxia issue, USDA intends to build upon
current voluntary, incentive driven approaches. Specifically, USDA
would encourage a renewed emphasis on nutrient management within the
education and technical assistance components of the Program. In
particular, wider use of the Pre-Sidedress Nitrogen Test, deep soil
sampling, and recognizing the nutrients in animal manure applied to
croplands can reduce farmer input costs, and reduce inputs of nitrogen
to the watershed. These ``win-win'' actions would reduce the potential
loadings to the river system and the Gulf of Mexico. USDA and its State
cooperators will also share examples from other regions where such
strategies have reduced input costs and nitrogen loads to the aquatic
environment. Since 1990, some $3 million has been expended on
Demonstration Projects and Hydrologic Unit Area Projects in the
watershed.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Initiative
RESPONSE/CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: Management System Evaluation Areas
At the Federal level the USDA Water Quality Program provides funds
for research through the Agricultural Research Service and the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. These
funds are allocated among the agencies for component research and the
Management System Evaluation Area program coordinated by five
Midwestern States: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Ohio.
Watershed, field, and plot sized research addresses various aspects of
water contamination by agricultural chemicals, including plant
nutrients from chemical fertilizers and animal manures. These research
programs are conducted in cooperation with the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, USGS, and EPA. For addressing the hypoxia issue,
USDA will continue support of the MSEA program which was funded at
$17.8 million in 1996. Of this, $15 million was allocated to ARS, and
$2.7 million to CSREES, USDA and its partners are continuing efforts to
address agricultural, and environmental issues.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Initiative
RESPONSE/CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: Hydrologic unit assessment areas
At the Federal level the USDA Water Quality Program provides funds
for technical assistance and education through the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service. In the early 1990's, the Farm Service Agency also
assisted by proving financial assistance. Funds are allocated among the
agencies for 78 hydrologic unit assessment areas located in every state
except Nevada and Alaska. All sites were selected in 1990 and 1991 in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These
projects address various aspects of water contamination by agricultural
chemicals, including plant nutrients from chemical fertilizers and
animal manures.
For addressing the hypoxia issue, USDA will continue support of the
HUA program which was funded at $16 million in 1996. Of this, $11
million was allocated to ARCS, and $4.2 million to CSREES.
Specifically, USDA would encourage a renewed emphasis on nutrient
management within the education and technical assistance programs of
the Water Quality Initiative. Since 1990, some $3 million has been
expended in the Mississippi watershed.
AGENCY: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
PROGRAM: Water Quality Initiative
RESPONSE/CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY: Water Quality/Nutrient Management
DESCRIPTION: Demonstration Projects
At the Federal level the USDA administers the USDA Water Quality
Program, which includes funds for demonstration projects in 16 States.
All were selected in 1990 and 1991. Four of the projects are within the
Mississippi River drainage. They are located in Arkansas, Iowa,
Nebraska, and South Dakota. Funds are allocated among two USDA
agencies, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These large-
scale projects are used to address various aspects of water
contamination by agricultural chemicals, including plant nutrients from
chemical fertilizers and animal manures.
For addressing the hypoxia issue, USDA intends to build upon
current voluntary, incentive driven approaches. Specifically, USDA
would encourage a renewed emphasis on nutrient management within the
education and technical assistance components of the Program. In
particular, wider use of the Pre-Sidedress Nitrogen Test, deep soil
sampling, and recognizing the nutrients in animal manure applied to
croplands can reduce farmer input costs, and reduce inputs of nitrogen
to the watershed. These ``win-win'' actions would reduce the potential
loadings to the river system and the Gulf of Mexico. USDA and its State
cooperators will also share examples from other regions where such
strategies have reduced input costs and nitrogen loads to the aquatic
environment. In 1996, some $6 million was expended on Demonstration
Projects.
appendix a-1
research tools available
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Research on
restoration techniques
DESCRIPTION: This Risk Management Research Plan for Ecosystem
Restoration in Watersheds is still under development, although it is
almost ready for external peer review. This plan is intended to
describe the risk management research needed over the next five years
to identify and develop ecosystem restoration practices and
technologies that facilitate cost-effective decision-making by local
communities and stakeholder groups engaged in watershed planning and
place-based environmental protection. This multimedia, inter-
disciplinary program integrates and coordinates a broad range of
scientific and engineering capabilities focused on the risk management
research needs of selected highly ranked risks. The scope of the plan
is limited to the activities of the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, and further limited to Community-Based Environmental
Protection and restoration of damaged or impaired aquatic ecosystems in
a watershed planning context. While not excluding other areas, this
plan places special emphasis on the developing fringe areas upstream of
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and developing coastal and estuarine
areas. It does not contain specific projects. While this plan has no
specific focus on the hypoxia issue, it is anticipated that some of the
restoration techniques it encompasses will be applicable to the
nutrient reduction needs of the Gulf of Mexico, and transferable to
numerous watersheds within the Gulf's extensive drainage Basin.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Ecosystem Research Division/Athens GA: (1)
Hydrologic Simulation Model-FORTRAN, and (2) Water Analysis Simulation
Program (WASP)
RESPONSE CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Science/Research/Understanding
nutrient transport mechanisms and Loadings characterization
DESCRIPTION: The Hydrologic Simulation Model-FORTRAN (HSPF) is
complete and is not, as such, ``activities underway.'' HSPF has
applicability in the Mississippi River Basin, but its application there
would require extensive resource commitments. It is currently being
applied to the Minnesota River Basin, for example, for nonpoint source
modeling, and has been applied in the Iowa River Basin and Yazoo River
Basin for pesticides. HSPF is currently being used for the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model, as a tool in meeting the 40 percent nutrient
reduction goal for the Bay. This model is only applicable to upland
watersheds with free-flowing rivers. The Water Analysis Simulation
Program (WASP) is a more advanced stream transport model, which is more
applicable to large rivers with complex hydrodynamics, and can be used
on regulated (not free-flowing) rivers. It has been used widely,
including on Lake Erie, for nutrient reduction goals and elsewhere for
fate and transport of pesticides and toxic substances. It is currently
being developed for application in the Everglades for evaluating
mercury.
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
PROGRAM: Office of Research and Development/National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NERL)/Mid-Continent Ecology
Division
CATEGORY: Research related to Hypoxia
SUBCATEGORY: Other
DESCRIPTION: Research will be conducted to improve our
understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics,
land-use patterns, and water quality. These relationships will include
the effects of forest fragmentation and wetland distribution on the
dynamics of nutrients in streams and rivers. Although the initial
geographic focus of this research is the Great Lakes basin, the
information obtained should be transferable to the upper Mississippi
River basin. As the research develops, the focus of the effort will be
expanded to include this portion of the Mississippi River. The
information will assist in determining the extent to which land-use
patterns in the upper Mississippi River effect nutrient loadings that
may contribute to the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico as well as
providing insights as to what modifications in current practices may
assist in alleviating these loadings. This research is an in-house
effort with approximately 6 person years expended annually starting in
fiscal year 1997.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.013
Attachment 4
gulf of mexico hypoxia assessment plan
1. Background
Nutrient over-enrichment from anthropogenic sources (human
activities) is one of the major stresses impacting coastal ecosystems.
There is increasing concern in many areas around the world that
nutrient enrichment from multiple sources is having pervasive
ecological effects on shallow coastal and estuarine areas. These
effects include reduced sunlight, loss of aquatic habitat, a decrease
in dissolved oxygen, and impacts on living resources. Depending on the
amount and types of nutrients in an ecosystem, algal production can be
either limited or enhanced. Generally, excess nutrients lead to
increased algal production and increased availability of organic carbon
within an ecosystem, a process known as eutrophication. This algal
``over production'' may sink to the bottom and decay, consuming most
(hypoxia), if not all (anoxia) of the available oxygen in these bottom
waters. On a national scale, there are increasing concerns for the
effects of nutrient over-enrichment and associated problems such as
eutrophication, hypoxia, and increases in harmful algal blooms in
coastal ecosystems. Because nutrient enrichment can have multiple
impacts, which can include increases in ecosystem productivity as well
as hypoxia, this underscores the need for careful assessment of the
causes of and impacts of nutrient enrichment.
There are multiple sources of excessive nutrients in watersheds,
both point and non-point, and the transport and delivery of these
nutrients is a complex process which is controlled by many factors
including not only the chemistry, but also the ecology, hydrology, and
geomorphology of the various portions of a watershed and that of the
receiving system. Both the near-coastal hydrodynamics that generate
water column stratification and the nutrients that fuel primary
productivity contribute to the formation of hypoxic zones. Human
activities on land can add excess nutrients to coastal areas or
compromise the ability of ecosystems to remove nutrients either from
the landscape or from the waterways themselves.
Hypoxia occurs naturally in many parts of the world (e.g., Black
Sea, Baltic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight). While hypoxic and
anoxic environments have existed throughout geologic time, their
occurrence in shallow coastal and estuarine areas appears to be
increasing, most likely accelerated by human-induced activities (Diaz
and Rosenberg, 1995). As a result, ecological problems associated with
the occurrence of low oxygen conditions are increasing on a global
scale (Ortner and Dagg, 1995).
Scientific investigations in the field and the laboratory have
documented an enormous area of the Louisiana (USA) continental shelf
with seasonally-depleted oxygen levels (<2mg/l) extending as much as 20
meters from the bottom depending on the water depth (Figure 1). The
oxygen depletion begins in late spring, reaches a maximum in mid-
summer, and disappears in the fall. After the Mississippi River flood
of 1993, the spatial extent of this zone doubled to over 18,000 km
2 and has remained about that size each year since (through
mid-summer 1997). Model simulations and research studies, including
retrospective analyses, have produced considerable evidence that
nutrient loading from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya river systems is
the dominant factor in creating this hypoxia problem (Atwood et al.
1994). The hypoxic zone forms in the middle of the most important
commercial and recreational fisheries in the coterminous United States
and threatens the economy of this region of the Gulf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.014
In response to a petition from the Earthjustice Defense Fund
(formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.), the Gulf
of Mexico Program held a conference in December 1995 to outline the
issue and identify potential actions. Following that conference, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened an interagency group of
senior Administration officials (``the Principals'') to discuss
potential policy actions and related science needs. After two meetings,
the Principals asked an interim working group (IWG) to develop
recommendations for action. The IWG made three recommendations that
were endorsed by the Principals at a meeting in June 1997:
--Establish a formal coordinating structure led by the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the ``Task
Force'');
--Highlight and emphasize a series of existing programs and actions,
focused on identifying immediate win-win, no-regret actions;
and,
--Support an initiative for both stewardship and scientific support
elements.
The Task Force has initiated a two-track effort to respond to the
hypoxia issue. The first is an ecosystem/watershed management track, to
identify near-term ``win-win'' actions to reduce excess nutrient loads.
The second track is an assessment of the state of scientific knowledge
and understanding of the problem. The plan presented here describes the
science assessment track.
As part of the process of developing potential actions, the EPA
asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to
conduct a scientific assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf
hypoxia through its Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). While NOAA has been asked to lead this CENR scientific
assessment, oversight involves several federal agencies and the
assessment itself is being conducted by teams that include academic,
federal, and state scientists from within and outside the Mississippi
River watershed. The assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf
hypoxia is intended to provide scientific information that can be used
to evaluate nutrient management strategies, and to identify gaps in our
understanding of this problem. While the focus of the assessment will
be on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, the effects of changes in nutrient
concentrations and loads and nutrient ratios on water quality
conditions within the Mississippi-Atchafalaya riverine systems will
also be addressed.
Under the leadership of CENR, a Scientific Evaluation and Support
Committee (SESC) was formed to conduct the hypoxia science assessment.
The SESC or ``Hypoxia Work Group'' is comprised of representatives from
the following governmental organizations:
1. Dept. of Agriculture
2. Dept. of Commerce/National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
[LEAD]
3. Dept. of Defense/Army Corps of Engineers
4. Dept. of Defense/Office of Naval Research
5. Dept. of Energy
6. Dept. of Health & Human Services/National Institute of
Environmental Health Services
7. Dept. of Interior/Minerals Management Service
8. Dept. of Interior/U.S. Geological Survey
9. Dept. of State
10. Environmental Protection Agency
11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
12. National Science Foundation
13. Smithsonian Institution
2. Approach and scope of the scientific assessment
2.1 The Mississippi watershed and hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico
Seasonally severe and persistent hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen
conditions) occurs on the continental shelf of the northern Gulf of
Mexico to the west of the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River
deltas. The areal extent of the hypoxia zone has ranged from 16,000-
18,000 km \2\ since 1993 (Rabalais et al., in press). Hypoxia occurs
below the pycnocline (layer where water density increases rapidly with
depth) from as early as late February through early October, but it is
most widespread, persistent and severe in June, July, and August
(Rabalais et al., 1996).
There is spatial and temporal variability in the distribution of
the hypoxia on the shelf which is, in part, related to the amplitude
and timing of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya discharges. These waters
originate in the vast Mississippi watershed which encompasses more than
40 percent of the area of the conterminous 48 states (Figure 2). Two-
thirds of the flow from this system enters the Gulf through the
Mississippi River while the remaining third enters through the
Atchafalaya River. Together, these two rivers account for 90 percent of
the fresh water inflow to the Gulf of Mexico (Rabalais et al., 1996).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.015
The linkages between the freshwater inflow from the Mississippi/
Atchafalaya River systems (and subsequent nutrient flux) and net
surface productivity and bottom water oxygen deficiency have been
established (Atwood et al., 1994; Justice et al., 1993; Rabalais et
al., 1996). Freshwater discharge and nutrient flux from the Mississippi
and Atchafalaya Rivers strongly influence the distribution and
intensity of the hypoxia, along with water column stratification and
mixing (Rabalais et al. 1991). Analyses of sediment cores from the
Louisiana shelf in the Mississippi River delta bight indicate that the
increased eutrophication and hypoxia seen in the northern Gulf of
Mexico are related to increased nutrient loadings from the Mississippi
River (Rabalais et al., 1996).
Nutrient loadings associated with eutrophication enter coastal
marine systems via atmospheric, surface runoff, and groundwater
pathways. Nutrient concentrations in the Mississippi River have
increased dramatically in this century, and have accelerated since
1950, coincident with increasing fertilizer usage (Turner and Rabalais,
1991). Factors such as tile drainage (technique used to drain excess
soil moisture from agricultural lands) and other changes on the
agricultural lands of the Midwest U.S., atmospheric deposition of
nutrients from airsheds within and outside of the Mississippi
watershed, nonpoint discharges from urban and suburban areas, and point
discharges throughout the Mississippi Watershed and in the Gulf of
Mexico all have contributed to increases in nutrients.
The nutrients delivered by the rivers and deposited directly in the
Gulf of Mexico increase primary production and may also stimulate fish
production locally in the Gulf. Carbon derived from this primary
production sinks out of the upper water column, decomposes at depth,
and leads to seasonally-severe oxygen depletion in the lower water
column and at the seabed (Turner and Allen, 1982; Rabalais et al.,
1991, 1992; Bierman et al., 1994; Justic et al. 1996, 1997). The
oxygen-stressed bottom community is characterized by limited taxa,
characteristic resistant fauna, and reductions in abundance, species
richness and biomass. Effects of hypoxia on fishery resources include
direct mortality, altered migration, reduction in suitable habitats,
changes in food resources, increased susceptibility to predation, and
disruption of life cycles including aspects of spawning, recruitment,
and migration.
2.2 Scientific goal and approach
The goal of the hypoxia science assessment is to document the state
of knowledge of the extent, characteristics, causes, and effects (both
ecological and economic), of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The assessment will also compile existing information on nutrient
sources, identify alternatives for reducing nutrient inputs, and
examine the costs and benefits associated with reducing the nutrient
loads. The assessment will build upon the outcomes of the December 1995
Louisiana Hypoxia Conference and related efforts that have brought
together scientists, managers, and regulators to discuss the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxia problem.
The effort will include a series of six interrelated reports,
examining various aspects of the hypoxia issue. They will be developed
by six teams with experts from within and outside government and will
be reviewed by independent experts. The research teams will analyze
existing data and will apply it to existing models of the watershed-
gulf system to aid in identifying magnitudes of nutrient load
reductions needed to effect a significant change in the extent and
severity of the hypoxia. The teams will not conduct new research.
However, if in the course of addressing these issues, researchers
encounter obstacles due to the limitations of current understanding,
they are encouraged to specifically identify what additional research
or data would be needed to fill the gap. Results will be shared, as
appropriate, among the teams to determine baseline boundaries, notably
in topics where loadings estimates are related to responses. Once the
individual topic papers are completed, they will be used to develop a
final integrated assessment that will be used by the Task Force to
evaluate alternative solutions to the hypoxia problem. The topic papers
and integrated assessment will be subjected to a rigorous independent
review. Public comments will be solicited and considered in both the
topic paper and integrated assessment phases of the assessment process.
Both the review process and public input are described in more detail
in section 3 of this Plan.
The six topic papers will address the following:
Topic 1. Characterization of hypoxia: distribution, dynamics, and
causes.--This report will describe seasonal, interannual, and long-term
variation of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and its
relationship to nutrient loadings. It will also document the relative
roles of natural and human-induced factors in determining the size and
duration of the hypoxic zone. Lead: Nancy Rabalais, Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium.
Topic 2. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia.--This
report will evaluate the ecological and economic consequences of
nutrient loading, including impacts on Gulf of Mexico fisheries and the
regional and national economy. It will articulate both ecological and
economic consequences and, to the extent appropriate, their
interaction. Ecological co-lead: Robert Diaz, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. Economics co-lead: Andrew Solow, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Center for Marine Policy.
Topic 3. Sources and loads of nutrients transported by the
Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico.--This report will identify the
sources of nutrients within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya system and
within the Gulf of Mexico with two distinct components. The first is to
identify where, within the basin, the most significant nutrient
additions to the surface water system occur. The second, more difficult
component, is estimating the relative importance of specific human
activities in contributing to these loads. Lead: Donald Goolsby, U.S.
Geological Survey.
Topic 4. Effects of reducing nutrient loads to surface waters
within the basin and Gulf of Mexico.--This report will estimate the
effects of nutrient source reductions in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya
Basin on water quality in these waters and on primary productivity and
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Modeling analyses will be conducted to
aid in identifying magnitudes of load reductions needed to effect a
significant change in the extent and severity of the hypoxia. Upper
watershed co-lead: Patrick Brezonik, University of Minnesota. Gulf of
Mexico co-lead: Victor Bierman, Limno-Tech.
Topic 5. Evaluation of methods to reduce nutrient loads to surface
water, ground water, and the Gulf of Mexico.--The main focus of this
report will be to identify and evaluate methods to reduce nutrient
loads to surface water, ground water, and the Gulf of Mexico. The
analysis will not be restricted to only reduction of sources. It will
also include means to reduce loads by allowing the system to better
accommodate those sources through, for example, modified hydraulic
transport and internal cycling routes. Lead: William Mitsch, Ohio State
University.
Topic 6. Evaluation of social and economic costs and benefits of
methods (identified in topic # 5) for reducing nutrient loads.--In
addition to evaluating the social and economic costs and benefits of
the methods identified in topic 5 for reducing nutrient loads, this
analysis will include an assessment of various incentive programs and
will include any anticipated fiscal benefits generated for those
attempting to reduce sources. Lead: Otto Doering, Purdue University.
These six topics will be addressed in the context of the following
relationships within the Mississippi River watershed and the northern
Gulf of Mexico:
--the relationship between nutrient loads discharged at various
places in the watershed and sub-watersheds of the Mississippi
and the nutrient loads that appear in the mainstem and the
relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources to the
mainstem nutrient load;
--the relationship between these nutrient loads and the water quality
of the Mississippi-Atchafalaya Basin;
--the relationship between the nutrient loads that are delivered to
the mainstem and the loads that are delivered to the Gulf of
Mexico;
--the relationship between nutrient loads delivered to the northern
Gulf of Mexico from sources other than the Mississippi/
Atchafalaya systems; and,
--the relationship between the nutrient loads delivered to Gulf of
Mexico and the ecological responses and impacts (i.e., primary
productivity, bottom hypoxia, ecological and economic effects).
2.3 Assessment process
In its early deliberations, the Hypoxia Work Group agreed on the
six topics to be developed as outlined above, identified a point of
contact in NOAA to lead/coordinate the overall effort, identified
leaders for each of the topic paper teams, and recommended potential
team members and reviewers for each topic paper. The Team Leads worked
with these recommendations and their own ideas to construct teams of
experts to address each topic. Team Leads then developed mini-proposals
for each topic that were reviewed by the Hypoxia Work Group and were
also reviewed by other Team Leads. The content and approaches to each
topic paper were described and discussed at a meeting of the Team Leads
and the Hypoxia Work Group in August 1997. At that workshop,
participants identified linkages and noted where critical gaps existed
among topics and determined an appropriate approach to complete an
integrated assessment of the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia.
The Hypoxia Work Group coordinated with the Team Leads to estimate
costs and to identify sources of funds and in-kind support. A second
workshop of the Hypoxia Work Group and Team Leads was held in October
1997, where final adjustments were made to the proposals, the proposals
were approved, and the review process outlined. The Hypoxia Work Group
convenes periodic workshops (about every 2-3 months) to monitor
progress of the assessment, resolve issues between teams, and recommend
mid-course adjustments as necessary.
All six proposals were initially reviewed by the interagency
Hypoxia Work Group that was formed by the CENR to oversee the
assessment, and by the five team leads for the other six reports in the
series. The proposals were revised according to the Work Group and team
lead comments, and were approved at the second meeting of the Work
Group in October 1997.
The topic papers and all other related products and reports will be
provided in electronic and hardcopy form to the Gulf of Mexico Program
Office copies to NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program Office. Review and
oversight of the development of each topic paper will be through
several steps: a review of the outline of the report, a presentation of
initial findings to the Hypoxia Work Group, and a review of the draft
report. The Hypoxia Work Group will review and recommend adjustments on
the outlines in coordination with the Team Leads. Drafts of each report
will be subjected to a rigorous independent peer-review facilitated by
an independent Editorial Board.
The primary and ultimate target audience for the integrated
assessment is the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force, currently led by EPA, and composed of senior management
officials from State agencies and Tribal organizations as well as the
following Federal Agencies:
--Environmental Protection Agency
--Department of Agriculture
--Department of Defense/Army Corps of Engineers
--Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
--Department of the Interior
--Department of Justice
--White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
The six individual reports, to be completed by fall/winter 1998,
will be used to develop the final integrated assessment that will be
used by the Task Force to evaluate alternative solutions. The
Integration Team will be selected by the Hypoxia Work Group and will be
composed of the assessment team leads and additional government and
academic experts where necessary. A diagram that outlines the basic
steps of the assessment process is shown in Figure 3. Specific detail
on the review process, public and stakeholder input, and the functions
of the Editorial Board are provided in Section 3 of this Plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.016
3. Renew process
3.1 Review of the Six Topic Papers
The Hypoxia Work Group will select an Editorial Board to facilitate
review and revision of the first six reports. The Editorial Board will
be volunteer, independent, and composed of individuals who are
considered experts in related fields, and will be selected by the
Hypoxia Work Group from nominations provided by the Task Force and
other organizations.
The Editorial Board will work with the Hypoxia Work Group to select
reviewers for the six team reports. The draft reports will be sent out
for review and the results will be returned to the Hypoxia Work Group
which will distribute them to the Editorial Board and the authors. The
authors will modify their papers and otherwise respond to the reviews.
Lead authors will be required to document in writing their rationale
for incorporating or rejecting each significant comment received from
reviewers. The Editorial Board will then be asked to compare the review
comments and revisions to insure that the review comments have been
addressed. If the comments are adequately addressed, the topic paper
will be considered complete. If the comments require further revision,
the Editorial Board members will serve as brokers between the lead
authors and reviewers to ensure that recommended changes are addressed.
3.2 Review of the Integrated Assessment
When the Integration Team completes a draft of the Integrated
Assessment, the Hypoxia Work Group will oversee an external review and
public comment period. The Hypoxia Work Group, or designated federal
personnel will be responsible for developing any recommendations based
on the findings and public comments on the integrated assessment. Once
the Integrated Assessment is acceptable to the Hypoxia Work Group, it
will be delivered to the full CENR for review. It will be the
responsibility of the Hypoxia Work Group, using whatever means
necessary, to respond to the CENR comments.
3.3 Public input
Public input plays a critical role in the policy process. It was
public concern and action, in fact, that brought national attention to
the problem of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and prompted CENR to
undertake this scientific assessment. The CENR Hypoxia Assessment
process has been designed to both keep the public informed and involved
while ensuring accuracy and objectivity of the information that it
provides. Thus, the reports will be developed by specialists, subject
to rigorous peer review, then made available for public comment. Public
input will be solicited via the World Wide Web as the final individual
topic papers are completed.
Once all the topic papers are complete, the written public comments
will be included with them and given to the Integration Team. The
Integration Team will address the public comments in the preparation of
the Integrated Assessment. The six topic papers will also be made
available at public meetings and other fora. Once the Integrated
Assessment is complete, it will be made available for public comment. A
public workshop (or series of workshops) will be held to obtain
stakeholder input to the Integrated Assessment. Results of the workshop
will be summarized and included as a part of the final Integrated
Assessment.
4. Timeline
4.1 Topic papers
The individual topic papers will be completed by fall/winter 1998.
Schedules for these and intermediate steps are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start date...................................................... 1/98 2/98 10/97 2/98 2/98 1/98
Outline complete................................................ 3/98 5/98 3/98 4/98 3/98 6/98
Present findings................................................ ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\
) ) ) ) ) )
Draft ready for review.......................................... 7/98 9/98 8/98 9/98 6/98 9/98
Review complete................................................. 9/98 11/98 10/98 11/98 8/98 11/98
Final report.................................................... 10/98 12/98 11/98 12/98 9/98 12/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TBD.
4.2 Integrated assessment
Initial synthesis and organization of the integrated assessment
will begin in fall 1998 beginning with the results of topic papers that
are complete at that time. A draft of the integrated assessment may be
ready for review as early as winter 1998/99, though the actual schedule
will be determined by the Hypoxia Work Group once the individual topic
papers are completed. The review and revision periods for the draft
integrated assessment will also be determined by the Hypoxia Work
Group. Once complete, the final integrated assessment will be delivered
to the Task Force.
5. References
Atwood, D.K., A. Bratkovich, M. Gallagher, and G. Hitchcock (eds.)
1994. Papers from NOAA's Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity
Study--Special Dedicated Issue. ``Estuaries'' 17(4):729-911.
Bierman, V.J., S.C. Hinz, W.J. Wiseman, Jr., N.N. Rabalais, and
R.E. Turner. 1994. A preliminary mass balance model of primary
productivity and dissolved oxygen in the Mississippi River plume/inner
gulf shelf region. ``Estuaries'' 17: 886-899.
Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 1995. Marine benthic hypoxia: a
review of its ecological effects and the behavioral responses of
benthic macrofauna. ``Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual
Review.'' Vol. 33:245-303.
Justic, D., N.N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1993.
Seasonal coupling between riverborne nutrients, net productivity and
hypoxia. ``Marine Pollution Bulletin'' 26(4): 184-189.
Justic, D., N.N. Rabalais, and R.E. Turner. 1996. Effects of
climate change on hypoxia in coastal waters: A doubled CO2
scenario for the northern Gulf of Mexico. ``Limnology and
Oceanography'' 41(5):992-1003.
Justic, D., N.N. Rabalais and R.E. Turner. 1997. Impacts of climate
change on net productivity of coastal waters: implications for carbon
budgets and hypoxia. ``Climate Research'' 8:225-237.
Ortner, P.B., and M.J. Dagg. 1995. Nutrient-enhanced coastal ocean
productivity explored in the Gulf of Mexico. ``Trans. Amer. Geophys.
Union'' 76(10).
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, W.J. Wiseman, Jr., and Q. Dortch.
1997. Consequences of the 1993 Mississippi River Flood in the Gulf of
Mexico. ``Regulated Rivers'' (in press).
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, W.J. Wiseman,
Jr., and B.K. Sen Gupta. 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi
River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf.
``Estuaries'' 19:286-407.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1992.
Distribution and characteristics of hypoxia on the Louisiana shelf in
1990 and 1991, pp. 15-20. In Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean
Productivity. Publication number TAMU-SG-92-109, Sea Grant Program,
Texas A & M University, Galveston, Texas.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr., and D.F.
Boesch. 1991. A brief summary of hypoxia on the northern Gulf of Mexico
continental shelf: 1985-1988, pp. 35-47. In: R.V. Tyson and T.H.
Pearson (eds.), Modern and Ancient Shelf Anoxia. Geological Society
Special Publication No. 58. London.
Turner, R.E. and R.L. Allen. 1982. Bottom water oxygen
concentrations in the Mississippi River Delta Bight. ``Contributions in
Marine Science'' 25: 161-172.
Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 1991. Changes in Mississippi River
water quality this century: implications for coastal food webs.
``BioScience'' 41:140-147.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.017
TABLE 2.--SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY FUNDING FOR CENR HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific and
Direct support other support
of teams staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA..................................... $234,000 $194,000
NOAA.................................... 112,900 255,000
USGS.................................... 150,000 ..............
USDA.................................... 65,000 60,000
COE..................................... .............. 10,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 561,900 519,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
small business compliance assistance efforts
Question. On April 28, the Senate Committee on Small business held
a hearing on Environmental Compliance Tools for Small Business.
Witnesses placed great importance on compliance assistance programs
ensuring the confidentiality of the information shared or discovered
through the compliance assistance and of the source of the compliance
assistance inquiry. Please describe EPA's policy regarding confidential
treatment of the information exchange and the identity of small
businesses seeking assistance from EPA's numerous hotlines,
clearinghouses, Compliance Assistance Centers, Section 507 Small
Business Assistance Program and other compliance assistance efforts.
Answer. EPA has a strong commitment to providing compliance
assistance to small businesses who contact the Agency's hotlines,
clearinghouses and program experts located throughout EPA headquarters
and regional offices. It is the Agency's policy and practice that these
callers requesting compliance assistance may choose to remain
anonymous. This means that the caller is not required to provide any
information, such as his name, phone number, address or any other
identifying information to the hotline staff in order to obtain the
assistance he seeks.
Compliance Assistance Centers, established in partnership with
industry, academic institutions, and environmental groups, also allow
callers to remain anonymous.
EPA does not determine the practices of the Section 507 Clean Air
Act Small Business Assistance Programs, which are developed and
operated by the states. EPA believes that any policies concerning
anonymity or confidentiality would vary by state. EPA does have a
policy that applies to information obtained by state agencies during
the course of delivering compliance assistance. The policy, called the
Enforcement Response Policy for Treatment of Information Obtained
Through Clean Air Act Section 507 Small Business Assistance Programs,
allows a small business assistance program, if independent of the
delegated state air enforcement program, to keep confidential
information that identifies the names and locations of specific small
businesses with violations revealed through compliance assistance.
sip: mobile source category
Question. On April 28th, Mr. Benjamin Y. Cooper with the Printing
Industries of America recommended that EPA provide State Implementation
Plan credits for Section 507 programs and other small business
compliance assistance activities. The credits would be based on good
faith estimates of emission reductions to result from the various
compliance assistance efforts.
With credits already provided for the mobile source category, are
there any legal impediments to providing such credits for compliance
assistance programs?
If the credits are applied to sources that are not identified as
having federally enforceable permits, would any reductions gain be
considered excess emission credits?
Under the present system, what is your level of confidence in the
accuracy of estimated emissions for areas sources contained in State
Implementation Plans?
Does the Masters Printers Program in Massachusetts provide any
lessons that could be used to derive evaluation techniques for the SIP
credit recommendation?
Answer. For purposes of responding to this question, EPA assumes
that ``credits'' refers to emission reduction credits given for
purposes of demonstrating attainment or rate of progress.
There are legal impediments to providing State Implementation Plan
(SIP) credits for compliance assistance programs. It is not within the
scope or intent of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to directly provide emission
reduction credits for compliance assistance. The purpose of compliance
assistance is to bring small businesses into compliance with the
underlying standard.
However, if sources are willing to voluntarily take on emission
limitations, we could give credit for demonstrated emission reductions.
In order to receive credit for reductions of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants, emission rate requirements must
be enforceable through a permit or other means.
Emission Inventories are compilations of emission estimates for
sources in a specific geographic area such as an urban or metropolitan
area or an entire state. These inventories allow air quality planners
to account for the air pollution coming from different sectors
(automobiles, industries, consumers, etc.) And to prepare plans for
reducing emissions from specific sectors or source categories to
improve air quality to acceptable levels.
Emission inventories are composed of:
--(1) point or major sources (e.g., power plants or manufacturing
industries)
--(2) stationary area sources (e.g., landfills or windblown dust)
--(3) on-road mobile sources (e.g., automobiles and trucks)
--(4) non-road mobile sources (e.g., construction equipment and
boats)
--(5) biogenic sources (e.g., forests)
The highest confidence in emission estimates is in the point or
major sources because of the greater focus on these sources in the past
and the larger amount of test data available for such sources. The next
highest level of confidence is in estimates of emissions from on-road
mobile sources because of recent focus on these sources and on the
relative accuracy of the MOBILE model and available activity data
(vehicle miles traveled for roadways). Next would be stationary area
and non-road mobile sources.
While much work has been done to improve our understanding of
emissions from all of these categories, emissions from stationary area
and non-road mobile sources need the most work. There is a growing
recognition of their contribution to air quality exceedences and much
work remains to be done in order to improve our confidence in these
estimates. Because of the complexity of many of these sources, we need
to prepare emission models similar to the MOBILE model to account for
the parameters that have the greatest impact on their emissions and we
need to identify better sources of information on activity levels
(e.g., amount of boat traffic along rivers and tributaries). The use of
ambient air measurements will also help us to improve our understanding
of and confidence in these emission estimates.
In response to the final question, EPA has learned some lessons
from the Massachusetts Printing Partnership (MPP) that could be
transferred to a SIP credit program. For example, one way to calculate
the impact of compliance assistance activities on emissions in the
printing industry is to take a random-sample of chemical use at
printing facilities and look at changes over time. The MPP program did
this and calculated a 2,000 lb. reduction in VOC's that resulted from
their program.
compliance assistance centers
Question. Please explain what ongoing assistance and financial
support EPA plans to provide the original four compliance assistance
centers to ensure that each center is viable.
Answer. The Compliance Assistance Centers Program is a reinvention
initiative to provide regulated entities with easy access to
environmental compliance information that is plain-language, sector-
specific, and covers all environmental media. Information is provided
through ``virtual'' means such as Internet web-sites, e-mail discussion
groups, fax-back systems and toll-free numbers. Compliance Assistance
Centers are developed through partnerships between EPA and the industry
partners that represent the sectors served. In this partnership EPA
offers credibility and industry brings access to clients.
In addition, the Centers have coordinated with the states to assist
them in their outreach efforts to industry, to facilitate their
delivery of sector-specific regulatory information, to serve as the
delivery mechanism for their pollution prevention and compliance
assistance materials, and to build their capacity to meet the
environmental needs of the businesses in their states and localities.
Given the partnership nature of this program and limited resources,
EPA has asked that the Centers, which are funded through cooperative
agreements, attempt to move towards self-sustainability over a multi-
year period. For those Centers whose primary audience is small
businesses, EPA expects that if the industry served values the services
of the Center, they will contribute to its long-term sustainability. We
recognize that achieving financial sustainability is an incremental
process that will take some time to achieve. Therefore EPA has decided
to incrementally fund each of the original four Centers to help account
for the shortfall between their actual annual operational costs and the
funds raised from outside sources. Under this scenario, the Federal
contribution will decrease over time as the partner contribution
increases.
The workplans for the remaining five centers will be reviewed as
their present funding nears its end. As far as possible the approach
will be the same as the original four; move towards long-term self-
sustainability. However, for the Centers whose primary audience are
states and local governments (Printers, Agriculture, and Local
Governments centers), EPA realizes that the ability of these groups to
raise funds is more limited and therefore EPA will continue requesting
funding for these Centers as necessary.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
pm: visibility monitors class i areas
Question. How many visibility monitors are now deployed in and
around our mandatory class I Federal areas?
Answer. There are currently 58 class I areas that have monitoring
to measure PM-2.5 concentrations for visual air quality and other
related data. A little over half of these monitoring sites (30) are
part of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) network. The remaining sites are what we call ``protocol''
sites. They are operated by the Federal Land Managers and follow the
same IMPROVE data collection and analysis protocols.
Question. Where are they? In what States? In what mandatory class I
Federal areas?
Answer. See attachment for the States and mandatory class I Federal
areas.
Question. What types of data do they collect?
Answer. The IMPROVE sites collect a variety of visibility related
data: aerosol (PM-2.5 and PM-10 mass and chemical composition), optical
(light extinction and light scattering), and scene (35 mm photography).
The ``protocol'' sites in some cases may not have the full suite of
measurements. Standard techniques are used to calculate visual air
quality (expressed in terms of light extinction, visual range, and
deciviews) from aerosol data collected from each site.
FEDERAL CLASS I AREAS SHOWING STATUS OF MONITORING CODES
[No Monitoring = 0; Improve = 1; Protocol = 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land manager State Name Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS.......................... AK.............. Bering Sea...... 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... AK.............. Denali Preserve 1
NP.
FWS.......................... AK.............. Simeonof........ 0
FWS.......................... AK.............. Tuxedni......... 0
Forest Service............... AL.............. Sipsey 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AR.............. Caney Creek 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AR.............. Upper Buffalo 1
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... AZ.............. Chiricahua NM... 1
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Chiricahua 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Galiuro 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... AZ.............. Grand Canyon NP. 1
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Mazatzal 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Mount Baldy 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... AZ.............. Petrified Forest 2
NP.
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Pine Mountain 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... AZ.............. Saguaro NM...... 2
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Sierra Ancha 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Superstition 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... AZ.............. Sycamore Cany. 0
Wild..
Forest Service............... CA.............. Agua Tibia 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Caribou 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Cucamonga 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Desolation 2
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Dome Land 2
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Emigrant 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Hoover 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. John Muir 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Joshua Tree NM.. 0
Forest Service............... CA.............. Kaiser 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Kings Canyon NP. 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Lassen Volcanic 2
NP.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Lava Beds NM.... 0
Forest Service............... CA.............. Marble Mountain 0
Wild..
Forest Service............... CA.............. Minarets 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Mokelumne 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Pinnacles NM.... 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Point Reyes NS.. 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Redwood NP...... 2
Forest Service............... CA.............. San Gabriel 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. San Gorgonio 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. San Jacinto 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. San Rafael 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Sequoia NP...... 2
Forest Service............... CA.............. South Warner 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Thousand Lakes 0
Wild..
Forest Service............... CA.............. Ventana 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CA.............. Yolla Bolly 0
Middle Eel
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CA.............. Yosemite NP..... 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... CO.............. Black Canyon of 0
the Gunnison NM.
Forest Service............... CO.............. Eagles Nest 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CO.............. Flat Tops 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CO.............. Great Sand Dunes 2
NM.
Forest Service............... CO.............. La Garita 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CO.............. Maroon Bells- 0
Snowmass
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... CO.............. Mesa Verde NP... 1
Forest Service............... CO.............. Mount Zirkel 2
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CO.............. Rawah Wilderness 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... CO.............. Rocky Mountain 1
NP.
Forest Service............... CO.............. Weminuche 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... CO.............. West Elk 0
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... FL.............. Chassahowitzka.. 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... FL.............. Everglades NP... 2
FWS.......................... FL.............. St. Marks....... 0
Forest Service............... GA.............. Cohutta 0
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... GA.............. Okefenokee...... 1
FWS.......................... GA.............. Wolf Island..... 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... HI.............. Haleakala NP.... 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... HI.............. Hawaii Volcanoes 0
NP.
Nat'l Park Ser............... ID.............. Craters of the 2
Moon NM.
Forest Service............... ID.............. Hells Canyon 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... ID.............. Sawtooth 2
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... ID.............. Selway- 2
Bitterroot
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... KY.............. Mammoth Cave NP. 1
FWS.......................... LA.............. Breton.......... 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... ME.............. Acadia NP....... 1
FWS.......................... ME.............. Moosehorn....... 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... MI.............. Isle Royale NP.. 0
FWS.......................... MI.............. Seney........... 0
Forest Service............... MN.............. Boundry Waters 1
Canoe Area.
Nat'l Park Ser............... MN.............. Voyageurs NP.... 2
Forest Service............... MO.............. Hercules-Glades 0
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... MO.............. Mingo........... 0
Forest Service............... MT.............. Anaconda-Pintler 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... MT.............. Bob Marshall 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... MT.............. Cabinet 0
Mountains
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... MT.............. Gates of the 0
Mountains
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... MT.............. Glacier NP...... 1
FWS.......................... MT.............. Medicine Lake... 0
Forest Service............... MT.............. Mission 0
Mountains
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... MT.............. Red Rock Lakes.. 0
Forest Service............... MT.............. Scapegoat 0
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... MT.............. UL Bend......... 0
Forest Service............... NC.............. Joyce-Kilmer- 0
Slickrock
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NC.............. Linville Gorge 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NC.............. Shining Rock 1
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... NC.............. Swanquarter..... 0
FWS.......................... ND.............. Lostwood........ 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... ND.............. Theodore 0
Roosevelt NP.
Forest Service............... NH.............. Great Gulf 2
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NH.............. Presidential 0
Range-Dry River
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... NJ.............. Brigantine...... 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... NM.............. Bandelier NM.... 2
FWS.......................... NM.............. Bosque del 0
Apache.
Nat'l Park Ser............... NM.............. Carlsbad Caverns 0
NP.
Forest Service............... NM.............. Gila Wilderness. 2
Forest Service............... NM.............. Pecos Wilderness 0
FWS.......................... NM.............. Salt Creek...... 0
Forest Service............... NM.............. San Pedro Parks 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NM.............. Wheeler Peak 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NM.............. White Mountain 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... NV.............. Jarbridge 1
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... OK.............. Wichita 0
Mountains.
Nat'l Park Ser............... OR.............. Crater Lake NP.. 1
Forest Service............... OR.............. Diamond Peak 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Eagle Cap 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Gearhart 0
Mountain
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Kalmiopsis 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Mount Hood 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Mount Jefferson 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Mt. Washington 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Mountain Lakes 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Strawberry 0
Mountain
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... OR.............. Three Sisters 2
Wilderness.
FWS.......................... SC.............. Cape Romain..... 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... SD.............. Badlands NP..... 2
Nat'l Park Ser............... SD.............. Wind Cave NP.... 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... TN.............. Great Smoky 1
Mount. NP.
Nat'l Park Ser............... TX.............. Big Bend NP..... 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... TX.............. Guadalupe 2
Mountains NP.
Nat'l Park Ser............... UT.............. Arches NP....... 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... UT.............. Bryce Canyon NP. 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... UT.............. Capitol Reef NP. 0
Nat'l Park Ser............... UT.............. Canyonlands NP.. 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... UT.............. Zion NP......... 0
Forest Service............... VA.............. James River Face 2
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... VA.............. Shenandoah NP... 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... VI.............. Virgin Islands 2
NP.
Forest Service............... VT.............. Lye Brook 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WA.............. Alpine Lake 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WA.............. Glacier Peak 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WA.............. Goat Rocks 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WA.............. Mount Adams 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... WA.............. Mount Rainier NP 1
Nat'l Park Ser............... WA.............. North Cascades 0
NP.
Nat'l Park Ser............... WA.............. Olympic NP...... 0
Forest Service............... WA.............. Pasayten 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WV.............. Dolly Sods 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WV.............. Otter Creek 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WY.............. Bridger 1
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WY.............. Fitzpatrick 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... WY.............. Grand Teton NP.. 0
Forest Service............... WY.............. North Absaroka 0
Wilderness.
Forest Service............... WY.............. Teton Wilderness 0
Forest Service............... WY.............. Washakie 0
Wilderness.
Nat'l Park Ser............... WY.............. Yellowstone NP.. 2
Canada/US.................... ................ Roosevelt 0
Campobello.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals by code:
No site....................................................... 98
IMPROVE....................................................... 30
Protocol...................................................... 28777
pm: cost of visibility monitors
Question. What does it cost to install a visibility monitor on
average?
Answer. Purchase and deployment cost is $20,000 per site.
Question. What does it cost to operate one of these monitors each
year?
Answer. The Federal Land Managers (NPS, FS and FWS) provide the
field personnel to operate the monitors at an approximate cost of
$5,000 per site. The operation cost to EPA and the States is zero.
Question. What does it cost to analyze and store the data from a
visibility monitor each year?
Answer. Filter procurement and laboratory analysis is $30,000 per
site for a total of $900,000 per year for the 30 site IMPROVE network.
An additional $12,000 per site or $350,000 national total per year
provides support for data analysis, storage and quality assurance.
Question. How much of these costs are paid by EPA and how much by
the States?
Answer. 100 percent of the costs are paid by EPA and none by the
States.
pm: additional visibility monitors
Question. How many additional visibility monitors does EPA plan to
deploy?
Answer. EPA plans to deploy an additional 78 sites in or near
Federal class I areas. Twenty additional sites will be established in
1998 and the other 58 in 1999. The existing 30 IMPROVE monitors will
also be upgraded to new equipment standards. In total, the expanded
IMPROVE network will consist of 108 monitors.
Question. Where will they be located? In what States? In what
mandatory class I Federal areas?
Answer. The locations of the first 20 sites are currently under
discussion among the Federal Land Managers and the States. A list of 30
candidate class I Areas for new 1998 monitoring has been prepared. See
BUR-Attachment B.
Question. Will they collect the same types of data as the current
monitors?
Answer. Current plans and funding only allow for aerosol
monitoring. The new aerosol measurements will utilize an upgrade to the
existing IMPROVE sampler which will facilitate more frequent data
collection while maintaining consistency with the historical
measurements. Standard techniques are used to calculate visual air
quality (expressed in terms of light extinction, visual range, and
deciviews) from aerosol data collected from each site.
Question. Will the costs for new monitors be the same as for
existing monitors? If not, what are the differences?
Answer. The procurement cost for new monitors will be slightly
higher than the older costs. This reflects technology upgrades in
addition to costs associated with inflation.
Question. How much of these costs are paid by EPA and how much by
the States?
Answer. One hundred percent of the cost will be paid by EPA.
Question. How much of these funds for existing and future monitors
are reflected in EPA's budget request fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request reflects 100 percent of
the cost to analyze and store data from the 1999 operational network
and to establish new 58 sites in 1999.
______
Attachment B
List of 30 Candidate Class I Areas for 1998 IMPROVE Deployment
The following list is the result of a selection process by the
Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service
which met on January 29th to review sites for consideration for the
expanded IMPROVE monitoring in scheduled for 1998. One of the primary
basis for selecting the sites listed below was to fill geographic gaps
in the current aerosol monitoring program. Sites are organized by FLM
and represent each FLM's top 10 priority list.
ATTACHMENT B.--LIST OF 30 CANDIDATE CLASS I AREAS FOR 1998 IMPROVE
DEPLOYMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEW NPS FS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breton, LA...................... Theodore Eagle Cap, OR.
Roosevelt, ND.
St Marks, FL.................... North Cascades, WA Sawtooth, WA.
Mingo, MO....................... Joshua Tree, CA... Cohutta, GA.
Witchita Mount., OK............. Guadalupe Great Gulf, NH.
Mountains, TX.
Bosque del Apache, NM........... Capital Reef, UT.. San Gabrial, CA.
Seney, MI....................... Bad Lands, SD..... Anaconda-Pintler,
MT.
Tuxedni, AK..................... Grand Tetons, WY.. Bridger, WY.
Swanquarter, NC................. Petrified Forest, Wheeler Peak, NM.
AZ.
UL Bend, MT..................... Zion, UT.......... Mt. Hood, OR.
Salt Creek, NM.................. Olympic, WA....... Sycamore Canyon,
AZ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
regional haze: visibility research spending
Question. To what extent has EPA coordinated the dissemination of
visibility and PM-2.5 monitors?
Answer. EPA recognizes the importance in coordinating the
monitoring networks for visibility and PM-2.5. Visibility impairment in
class I areas is caused primarily by fine particles. Measurements of
fine particles in class I and rural areas can help characterize the
regional transport of fine particles. The visibility aerosol monitor
(called the IMPROVE PM-2.5 sampler) is very comparable to the PM2.5
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor which will be utilized in the
new PM2.5 network. In fact, the PM-2.5 monitoring regulations provide
for coordination between the two networks by allowing the States to use
the IMPROVE PM2.5 sampler in lieu of the PM-2.5 FRM at regional
background/transport monitoring sites (2 required per State). This
allows the visibility monitors to provide background and regional
transport information to the PM-2.5 program in a format which is
comparable to the PM-2.5 aerosol measurements.
EPA Regional Offices are working closely with the States to
coordinate the development and review of PM-2.5 network designs; an
important component of which is regional transport and regional
background monitoring, with existing and potential new IMPROVE
visibility monitoring site locations.
Furthermore, EPA chairs the Interagency IMPROVE Steering Committee
which oversees the development of the nation's visibility network. This
committee consists of representatives of State agencies, Federal Land
Management Agencies, EPA, and NOAA. All parties are working very
closely to meet their mutual needs for PM-2.5 and visibility
monitoring. EPA has an interagency agreement with the National Parks
Service. Through this cooperative mechanism, together with the advice
and oversight of the Interagency IMPROVE Steering Committee, visibility
monitors are procured and deployed in the field; and data are
collected, analyzed and disseminated.
Question. How can the visibility monitors be used to provide
background data for the PM-2.5 network?
Answer. The visibility aerosol monitor (called the IMPROVE PM2.5
sampler) is very comparable to the PM-2.5 Federal Reference Method
(FRM) monitor which will be utilized in the new PM-2.5 network. In
fact, the PM2.5 monitoring regulations allow the States to use the
IMPROVE PM-2.5 sampler in lieu of the PM-2.5 FRM at regional
background/transport monitoring sites (2 required per State). This
allows the visibility monitors to provide background and regional
transport information to the PM-2.5 program in a format which is
comparable to the PM-2.5 aerosol measurements.
Question. How much value is lost to the PM-2.5 network if
visibility monitors are used as background sites?
Answer. The IMPROVE visibility monitors are located in rural,
remote areas of the country which are ideal to characterize regional
background concentrations. Therefore, the IMPROVE monitors represent an
important and integral part of the national PM monitoring network and
that their use as background sites obviates the need for funding other
monitors for essentially the same purpose. They also provide important
supplementary information regarding regional transport.
Question. What can be learned about visibility from the PM-2.5
monitors?
Answer. Visibility-related information can be derived from PM-2.5
monitors. Fine particles are principally responsible for visibility
impairment and a statistical relationship exists between fine particle
mass and light extinction. In addition, all PM-2.5 monitors permit at
least limited chemical speciation. Speciated data provides a basis for
developing reliable estimates of seasonal and annual average visibility
conditions. Accordingly, the dense network of PM-2.5 monitors which is
currently under development will help identify the extent of regional
haze and contributing sources. Although the monitors will largely be
located in urban areas, the trends in urban air quality and related
urban visibility will help track reductions in regional emissions which
are responsible for impairment of visual range in rural areas. In
addition, many of the PM-2.5 network's regional transport and regional
background monitors are expected to provide the capability for full
chemical speciation. This will supplement the characterization of
particles in rural areas which affect visual range.
regional haze: visibility research spending
Question. How much money has EPA spent on visibility research since
1990? Pleas break down your estimate by:
--calendar year starting with 1991 and provide separate line items
for Project MOHAVE, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission, and each of the other mandatory class I Federal
areas. State in a two dimensional matrix showing how much was
spent on each of the six factors listed in Sec. 169B(a) in each
air shed containing mandatory class I Federal areas.
Answer. Best estimates for visibility research since 1990 are:
By Calendar year
1991: Project MOHAVE: $2,766,000.--Visibility Monitoring for all
Class I areas: $500,000; Contribution to National Academy of Sciences
review of Visibility Science $100,000.
1992: Project MOHAVE: $724,000.--Visibility Monitoring for all
Class I areas: $1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $207,000;
Inter-Agency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling: $700,000.
1993: Project MOHAVE: $450,000.--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $486,000;
Inter-Agency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling: $290,000.
1994: Project MOHAVE: $117,000.--Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission: $1.4 million; Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I
areas: $900,000; Visibility Impairment and Process and Measurement
Research: $550,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $429,000.
1995: Project MOHAVE: $290,000.--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $226,000.
1996: Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I areas:
$1,000,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $186,000.
1997: Project MOHAVE $300,000.--Visibility Monitoring Support for
all Class I areas: $1,200,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $343,000.
1998: Visibility Monitoring Support for all Class I areas:
$2,300,000; Castnet Visibility Monitors: $300,000.
NOTE: The work itemized above does not include substantial
resources to develop new regional modeling platforms, such as MODELS3.
EPA has spent approximately $6.1 million on regional particulate model
development. These air quality models will be used by EPA and the
States for strategy assessment during the coordinated implementation of
ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze programs.
By State
No specific research was conducted by EPA specifically on a State-
by-State basis.
By research area
There are four categories of research noted in Sec. 169B(a) of the
Clean Air Act. Because Sec. 169B did not require, and EPA did not
specifically address, research on these categories by air shed the
following summary is simply presented by the four categories:
(A) Expansion of current visibility related monitoring in class I
areas; $8.9 million on expand Class I visibility monitoring including
expansion of eastern mandatory Federal Class I areas. $4.6 million on
Project MOHAVE field study and follow-up analysis work to support the
Grand Canyon visibility Transport Commission. EPA has funded
approximately $2.2 million for Castnet Visibility monitors.
(B) Assessment of current sources of visibility impairment
pollution and clean air corridors: $1.4 million.
(C) Adaptation of regional air quality models for the assessment of
visibility: $700,000 directly on visibility models plus work on new
regional model platforms, such as MODELS3 (approximately $6.1 million).
(D) Studies of atmospheric chemistry and physics of visibility:
$650,000.
regional haze: non-epa funding
Question. If any of the research offered as responsive to this
congressional directive came from budgets other than EPA's, please
indicate how much came from which agencies by year and by account.
Answer. None of the funds identified above came from any other
agency. However, significant funding has been committed each year by
the Department of the Interior to collect and analyze visibility
information. The Department of the Interior, National Park Service
spends approximately $1.9 to $2.5 million per year on visibility
monitoring in mandatory Federal Class I areas, totaling approximately
$18 million over the period 1991-1998. Also within the Department of
Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent approximately $90,000
per year since 1993 on monitoring of visibility in wilderness areas.
Funding for visibility monitoring has been supported by the Department
of Agriculture for their mandatory Class I wilderness areas. Their
support averages approximately $400,000 per year over the period 1995
through 1998, totaling approximately $1.6 million. In addition the
Department of the Interior contributed significantly to the work
conducted under Project MOHAVE, which also supported the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.
regional haze: visibility knowledge
Question. What has EPA learned about visibility since 1990? Please
present your answer in a two-dimensional matrix with six factors from
Sec. 169B(a) defining one dimension and the air sheds containing the
mandatory class I Federal areas defining the other dimension?
Answer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.018
regional haze: publication date of findings
Question. When does EPA plan to publish its final findings from its
visibility research performed to date?
Answer. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), as required by
Sec. 169B(a), issued its interim findings on visibility research in
October 1995. The EPA has been working on research related to
visibility, particularly focusing on fine particulate modeling, since
that time. The EPA shares its research findings periodically, but does
not currently have specific plans to publish a compendium of such
findings. However, much information is routinely included in EPA's
periodic revisions to the criteria documents for particulate matter and
other pollutants related to visibility impairment.
regional haze: research in air sheds
Question. What research needs to be performed in the air sheds
around the country on the six factors listed in Sec. 169B(a) to support
the development of the data, methods, and other regulatory tools needed
by the States to implement the visibility protection program?
Answer. No research is needed before the States can begin to
implement the visibility protection program. As the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) noted in its 1993 report ``Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas,'' page 11; ``Current scientific
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility''. The NAS goes on
to state that continued regulatory progress will need more research on
items related to atmospheric processes, monitoring, and emissions
control strategies. All of these items are also being worked on and are
directly related to programs to protect the human health from exposure
to fine particulate matter as well as to visibility protection. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has committed to providing the
funding for visibility monitoring in Class I Federal areas and will be
working with the States on technical issues such as the refinement of
existing air quality models refinement and the development of
appropriate emissions factors as the States implement the regional haze
program.
Question. How much will this follow-up research cost?
Answer. As indicated above, there is no need for additional basic
research before implementing a regional haze visibility protection
program and therefore no associated costs for follow-up research. As
noted by the NAS and other organizations, better technical information
and more refined tools will be needed over time in order to continue to
implement the program. The EPA will be consulting with the States on
the technical needs to implement control programs and will allocate
available funds to ensure the best support for addressing these
technical needs.
Question. How long will it take to perform this research and to
develop the tools needed by the States?
Answer. The tools are available now to begin implementation of the
program. Refinement of the tools and the building of databases, with
information regarding emissions inventories, emissions factors,
particle data, and other atmospheric conditions data will be an ongoing
process that has been and will be supported by the EPA to the extent
funds are available.
Question. Is this schedule and budget reflected in your budget
request for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Yes. The EPA has requested funds to address visibility
monitoring and technical tool refinement. The EPA will also assist
States through the State Grant process to meet further needs identified
by the States.
169(b): report findings
Question. When did EPA publish its report under Sec. 169B(b)? Did
this report cover all regions of the country?
Answer. The 169B(b) report, entitled ``Effects of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA Report to
Congress,'' was published in October 1993. (EPA-452/R-93-014). A copy
of this report is attached.
Question. What were the findings of that report as to trends in
emissions and visual air quality for each air shed containing a
mandatory Class I Federal area?
Answer. The report conducted a preliminary assessment for the
entire country in order to identify the geographic areas of the country
likely to see changes in visibility impairment due to existing Clean
Air Act requirements. These geographic areas are shown in Figure ES-3
(page vi) at the beginning of the report. More detailed assessment were
performed for the Eastern United States and for the Southwestern United
States. For these areas, the Environmental Protection Agency conducted
an analysis comparing emissions and visibility for two scenarios: a
baseline (1985 for the Eastern States, 1988 for the Southwest) and
predictions for the year 2010. These calculations showed, as displayed
in Figure ES-7 and discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 of the
report, that much of the East should experience perceptible
improvements by the year 2010, largely from reductions expected under
title IV of the Clean Air Act (Act). The calculations for the
Southwestern U.S., discussed in Chapter 5, show that perceptible
improvements in visibility are not expected in the Southwestern U.S.
from existing Act programs.
Question. How well do these findings compare with actual trends in
emissions and visual air quality?
Answer. Because the report looked forward only to the year 2010, it
is too early to make a direct comparison to the emission and air
quality projections in the report. However, for further information we
are attaching a copy of our most recent air quality trends report--
chapter 3 of this report discusses recent trends in visibility.
Question. What were the reasons for the disparities between EPA's
projections and actual trends?
Answer. Because no direct comparison has yet been made, it is too
early to judge whether or why disparities will occur.
Question. What provisions of the CAA, as amended, and what
regulations promulgated under the CAA did that report address?
Answer. The Clean Air Act programs whose effects were included in
the comparison are shown in Table 4-1 (page 22) of the report.
Question. Did that report address the Kyoto protocol or the
Administrations's plans for mitigating the effect of the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Answer. Because those efforts were not known at the time it was
prepared, the report did not address the effects of global warming or
greenhouse gas programs.
169(b): provisions, regulations and programs
Question. What provisions (e.g., Title III), regulations (e.g., the
new ambient standards for ozone and PM-2.5), and Administration
programs should EPA address in the Agency's next attempt to satisfy the
Sec. 169B(b) requirement?
Answer. Section 169B(b) requires that every 5 years after the first
report (the report noted above) that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) must ``conduct an assessment of actual progress and
improvement in visibility in class I areas.'' Because the report is to
be based on actual progress and improvement, such an assessment can be
performed using monitoring data and we do not believe that the types of
analyses that EPA performed for the first report are required. As EPA
prepares the next report on the actual status and trends in air
quality, we will consider whether and to what extent such analyses
would be useful as a matter of discretion.
169(b): report and cost
Question. When can EPA prepare a comprehensive report under
Sec. 169B(b), and how much will it cost? Is this cost reflected in your
current budget request?
Answer. Section 169B required a report on progress and improvements
in visibility that are likely to result from implementation of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 other than the provisions of section
169B. Subsequent reports are required by section 169B to assess actual
progress and improvements in visibility and do not call for further
analyses of other Clean Air Act provisions. The EPA plans to deliver
the report on 5-year progress and improvements in visual air quality
later this year, and the costs of preparing this report are included in
the budget request.
169(b): trend assessment
Question. The CAA's Sec. 169B(b) requires EPA to assess the actual
trends in emissions and visual air quality in mandatory class I Federal
areas from 1970 to the present for all regions of the country
containing mandatory class I Federal areas. Has EPA responded to this
commitment? If so, please provide us with a copy of the response when
you respond to this letter.
Answer. The EPA has not assessed actual trends from 1970 to the
present.
Question. If not, why not?
Answer. Section 169B(b) requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to ``conduct an assessment of the progress and improvements in
visibility in class I areas that are likely to result from the
implementation of the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 other than * * * (the visibility provisions).'' This section does
not require an assessment of the effects of the Clean Air Act (Act)
overall (i.e., since 1970) but only the effects of those changes that
were made to the Act in 1990. As noted above, the attached October 1993
report fulfills EPA's initial commitment under section 169B(b).
169(b): trend assessment date and report
Question. When does EPA plan to conduct the assessment and prepare
the comprehensive report under Sec. 169B(b) regarding actual trends,
both of which were required by 1997? How much will it cost to respond?
Is this cost reflected in your current budget request?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to deliver the
report on 5-year progress and improvements in visual air quality later
this year, and the costs of preparing this report are included in the
budget request.
regional haze: report on visibility monitoring
Question. The CAA's section 169A(3) requires EPA to publish in a
Report to Congress the visibility monitoring, modeling, and assessment
tools that the Agency is required to include in final visibility rules.
This provision of the CAA requires EPA to provide Congress with this
Report six months before those rules go final. When does EPA plan to
send us that report?
Answer. Section 169A(3) called for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to complete within 18 months of enactment of section 169A
a study and report to Congress describing available methods for
visibility monitoring, modeling, and assessment of strategies to make
progress toward the national goal of remedying existing and preventing
future visibility impairment. This report was issued by EPA in October
1979 and is entitled ``Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to
Congress'' (EPA-450/5-79-008).
The availability of technical methods for visibility monitoring,
modeling, and strategy assessment is also discussed in the National
Academy of Sciences 1993 report entitled ``Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas.'' One of the important findings in
this report is that: ``Current scientific knowledge is adequate and
control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to
improve and protect visibility.'' Another important conclusion is the
following:
Visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources
on a regional scale through the use of several kinds of models.
In general, the best approach for evaluating emission sources
is a nested progression from simpler and more direct models to
more complex and detailed methods. The simpler models are
available today and could be used as the basis for designing
regional visibility programs; the more complex models could be
used to refine those programs over time.
Question. Does EPA intend to delay the regional haze rules until
six months after we have received this report?
Answer. The dates established in section 169A for reporting on
methods and for adopting rules establish two independent requirements.
While section 169A(3) called for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to report on available methods and technical tools, section
169A(4) calls for EPA to promulgate regulations to assure reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. As noted above,
EPA's report was issued in October 1979. The regulations called for
under section 169A(4) were promulgated on December 2, 1980 and
addressed impairment of visibility that was reasonably attributable to
a single source or small group of sources. The rules proposed on July
31, 1997 are designed to address the remainder of the visibility
problem, that is, the impairment of visibility over broad geographic
areas as the result of transport of emissions from numerous sources
within large transport regions.
regional haze: tools for visibility monitoring
Question. What tools for visibility monitoring, modeling, natural
conditions assessments, and source analyses does EPA plan to provide
for the States before they are put on deadlines to develop visibility
SIP's?
Answer. Consistent with the National Academy of Sciences report,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that many technical
tools are already available to address regional haze. For example, data
related to air quality and visibility for 30 sites has been collected
under the Inter-Agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) program since 1988. In addition, the EPA is also funding a
significant expansion of the IMPROVE network and has a visibility
monitoring guidance document under development. This expanded network
will help the States, Federal land managers, and EPA to better estimate
natural conditions. Furthermore, EPA has a number of technical tools
and guidance under development for implementing the program which
should be available before States are required to develop, assess, and
adopt control strategies. The EPA is developing the REMSAD and MODELS3
regional models which will help the States to estimate fine particles,
their constituents, and the associated visibility levels for different
scenarios. These models will be useful for developing future control
strategies designed to attain the PM-2.5 standards to make reasonable
progress under the regional haze program.
Question. How much will it cost to develop these tools? Is this
cost reflected in your current budget request?
Answer. With respect to visibility monitoring, seventy new
visibility sites in or near Federal Class I areas are planned for
deployment in 1998 and 1999. The estimated costs are $2.5 million for
1998, and $4.4 million for 1999. Starting in the year 2000,
approximately $3.6 million per year will be needed for the expanded
network of 100 visibility sites. With respect to modeling, the EPA has
spent more than $6.1 million during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998. The estimated budget request for continued development and
evaluation of these models in fiscal year 1999 is $2.3 million.
visibility transport commissions
Question. The CAA's Sec. 169B addresses visibility transport
regions and commissions and works with other provisions to explain the
lead role that States have on defining the substantive content of
reasonable progress. What are the conditions under which EPA should
establish visibility transport commissions?
Answer. Under section 169B(c), the Administrator may establish a
transport region when petitioned by two or more Governors of affected
States, or when the Administrator herself has reason to believe that
the current or projected interstate transport of air pollutants from
one or more States contributes significantly to visibility impairment.
If a transport region is established, the Clean Air Act (Act) requires
the Administrator to establish a transport Commission. In addition, the
Act specifically required the establishment of a commission for the
region affecting visibility in the Grand Canyon National Park.
Question. How many visibility transport commissions has EPA
established?
Answer. One. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
Question. Why did EPA decide to organize these visibility transport
commissions and not others?
Answer. The purpose of commissions, as provided by section 169B(d),
is to assess scientific and technical data and other available
information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility and to make
recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on what
measures should be taken to remedy such impacts. Since EPA has proposed
rules, based on the established science and technical information
identified in part by the National Academy of Sciences, which would
establish programs in each State and encourage States to work together
to address visibility impairment, EPA did not deem it necessary to
establish additional transport commissions. Furthermore, the
Administrator has not been petitioned by any Governors to establish a
transport region and therefore a commission.
grand canyon visibility commission
Question. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. How
much money did the GCVTC spend each year?
Answer. The Grand Canyon Commission Visibility Transport Commission
(Commission) relied on the Western Governors' Association for its
financial operations which should have complete records of the
expenditures made by the Commission.
Question. What were the sources of these funds (e.g. EPA grants
from discretionary funds, line items from Federal appropriations bills,
or State funds)?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contributed
$250,000 per year for fiscal years 1991 through 1996 for Administrative
functions. The EPA also funded approximately $1,400,000 in fiscal year
1994 to support policy analysis needed to develop the strategies
options of the commission. To EPA's knowledge there were no line items
from Federal appropriations bills. Over the life of the Commission the
Western Governors' Association contributed approximately $15,000 and
the Western Petroleum Institute contributed approximately $25,000.
Question. How much of these funds were spent on administrative
matters, and how much on substantive matters?
Answer. The base funding of $250,000 per year was primarily for
administrative functions and to ensure that all stakeholders were able
to attend various meetings sponsored by the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission. The one-time grant of approximately $1,400,000 to
the Commission provided it with the funds to build an Integrated
Assessment System to model visibility changes and costs associated with
various emissions control strategies. In addition that one-time money
allotment contributed to qualitative studies of effects on factors
related to health, social and economic impacts.
Question. How much of these funds were spent on travel and expenses
for personnel from the Federal Government, State Governments, the
Tribes and environmental groups.
Answer. None of these funds were used for travel by any Federal
Government personnel. The Western Governors' Association would have
records on exact amounts for travel by State, Tribal and Environmental
group participants.
multi-state organizations of visibility protection
Question. What is the value of a multi-state organizations during
the post-regulation phase of the visibility protection program?
Answer. After the Environmental Protection Agency sets the
requirements for States to address regional haze visibility impairment
as part of their State Implementation Plans, a multi-State organization
will provide one means for States to communicate on issues related to
the transport of pollutants, including policies to address that
transport. Given the regional character of visibility impairment, the
EPA believes that these organizations serve very important consultative
and coordination functions.
gcvtc's recommendation
Question. One of the GCVTC's recommendations was for a successor
body to carry the Commissions's work forward. What are EPA's views as
to the sensibility of that recommendation?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the
States' and Tribes' desires to organize a successor body to the GCVTC.
The Western Regional Air Partnership was officially formed in
September, 1997, and EPA has been a full participant in the process at
the request of the States and Tribes.
multi-state organization post-regulation
Question. Does EPA intend to fund this post-regulation multi-state
organization.
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set aside
approximately $369,000 this year for funding the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) through the Western Governors' Association. The EPA
is planning to fund the WRAP for approximately $150,000 in fiscal 1999.
Additionally, EPA will work with the States participating in the WRAP
in allocating available grant funding as the States request to fund the
WRAP in future years.
multi-state organization criteria
Question. What discretion do the Western States have to configure
their multi-state organization to implement the regional haze rules and
still attract Federal funds?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency does not intend to
dictate the particular structure or configuration of multi-state
organizations to implement the regional haze rule. Western States may
configure an organization for the purposes of discussing how each State
or Tribe may implement the requirements of the regional haze rule, and
those efforts could be supported by Federal funds to the extent allowed
by law. For instance, if those multi-state organizations want to
include all stakeholders (including non-governmental participants),
then the exclusive use of Federal funds to conduct such a process may
subject that process to the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Question. What criteria does EPA intend to use to decide how much
money the Agency will give to this multi-state organization?
Answer. The States may choose to fund from Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grants regional groups the States deem necessary for
implementing the Clean Air Act. In fiscal year 1999 and beyond, EPA
intends to consider funding of multi-state organization based on the
consent of the States involved. However, EPA has not at this time
established specific criteria for future funding of multi-state
organizations. The EPA anticipates that decisions will be based in part
on the combination of available funds and the scope and purposes for
which State organizations request them.
Question. Has the EPA consulted with all of the Western States
about the scope of these criteria?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has coordinated
with the organization representing all of the States, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA), on many
issues regarding future funding of multi-state organizations. As noted,
at this time EPA has no set of criteria regarding the future funding of
multi-state organizations.
Question. If no, why not; and when will that consultation take
place?
Answer. Consultations with STAPPA/ALAPCO and the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials are ongoing. Additionally, the
Environmental Protection Agency will consult with any group of States
wishing to discuss the funding of a particular multi-state
organization.
multi-state organization budget
Question. What budget does the Western multi-state organization
have for its work?
Answer. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is still in its
formative stage and has a preliminary budget of approximately $408,000
for fiscal year 1998 that includes mainly administrative functions.
Main items in the fiscal year 1998 budget include approximately
$200,000 for travel, and $100,000 for support of the Western Governors'
Association in its role as administrative co-chair.
Question. What level of support does EPA plan for the Western
multi-state organization?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approximately
$369,000 set aside for a grant application from the Western Governors'
Association.
Question. If the Federal Government does not provide funds for the
budget of the Western multi-state organization, will we have imposed an
unfunded mandate on the Western States?
Answer. While the EPA strongly encourages and supports multi-state
coordination and planning, EPA is neither imposing a specific
requirement for multi-state organizations, nor requiring that such
organizations be created.
The Western Regional Air Partnership is a voluntary organization
formed by the States and Tribes and EPA participates at the request and
consent of the States and Tribes. No unfunded mandate issues are
implicated by the Western Regional Air Partnership.
Question. Is the financial need of the Western multi-state
organization reflected in your budget request?
Answer. The proposed budget for the EPA includes an allocation for
State grants. Currently EPA is planning to distribute $150,000 of those
fund to the Western Regional Air Partnership in fiscal year 1999. The
EPA will work with States participating in the Western Regional Air
Partnership in getting agreement from them on the proper level of
funding from the remaining State grant allocations for use by the WRAP.
In addition, EPA will work with the States on their level of support
for the WRAP in future years.
visibility transport commissions in other regions
Question. What is the value of visibility transport commissions in
other regions?
Answer. Establishment of a visibility transport commission does not
impose a statutory duty to develop a long-term regional haze strategy
for the transport region. The EPA applauds the efforts of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission in going beyond the minimum
statutory goals in developing a comprehensive long-term strategy for
the Colorado Plateau. EPA believes that integrated efforts by regional
planning bodies are needed to develop the long-range strategies.
However, because there is a critical need for States to coordinate
efforts to address long-range transport of PM 2.5 and ozone precursors,
as well as visibility impairment, EPA does not believe that visibility
transport commissions are the best approach to achieving this regional
coordination.
multi-state organization post-regulation in other regions
Question. What is the value of multi-state organizations during the
post-regulation phase of the visibility protection program where there
have been no visibility transport commissions?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that
regional planning between States will be an important aspect of
implementing the new regional haze program. EPA used the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process to establish the Subcommittee on
Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze under the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee. EPA agrees with its recommendations that certain
planning activities could be effectively integrated across programs.
The planning work of multi-state organizations could involve a number
of activities, including the enhancement of PM-2.5 emissions
inventories and the assessment of regional strategies through
application of regional modeling tools.
However, EPA does not propose to establish a requirement for States
to undertake regional planning. While EPA strongly encourages States to
collaborate in regional planning, EPA has proposed to leave it to the
States' discretion to decide whether to petition the Administrator for
the creation of visibility transport commissions, pursue some other
approach using existing or new organizations, or choose to not conduct
regional planning at all.
Question. Does EPA intend to fund post-regulation multi-state
organizations in other regions?
Answer. The EPA intends to use its funding to support the
implementation efforts of States and multi-state organizations in a
number of ways. The EPA will continue to provide Federal funds to
States under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act to be used
for direct implementation of air quality programs, including the
regional haze program. The EPA will consult with groups of States
wishing to discuss support for funding a particular multi-state
organization. Any decision by EPA to fund regional organizations will
only be made with the support and concurrence of the affected States.
multi-state organization and regional haze
Question. What discretion do the States have to configure their
multi-state organizations to implement the regional haze rules and
still attract Federal funds?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not intend
to dictate the particular structure or configuration of multi-state
organizations. States may configure an organization for the purposes of
discussing how each State or Tribe may implement the requirements of
the regional haze rule, and those efforts could be supported by Federal
funds to the extent allowed by law. For instance, if those multi-state
organizations want to include all stakeholders (including non-
governmental participants), then the exclusive use of Federal funds,
other than grant funds, to conduct such a process may subject that
process to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
multi-state organization funding criteria
Question. What criteria does EPA intend to use to decide how much
money EPA will give to these multi-state organizations? Has EPA
consulted with all of the States about the scope of these criteria? If
not, why not; and when will that consultation take place?
Answer. At present, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
not earmarked any specific funds, or developed specific criteria for
allocating any funds to multi-state organizations conducting regional
haze planning. The States may choose to fund from EPA grants any
regional groups the States deem necessary for implementing the Clean
Air Act. The EPA intends to fund multi-State organizations only with
the consent of the States involved. The EPA has held discussions with
State representatives on many issues regarding future funding of multi-
state organizations, and EPA will continue to consult with interested
groups of States to explore the most effective approaches for multi-
state planning.
Question. Are these criteria spelled out in EPA's proposed rules?
If not, why not?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not include
specific criteria in the proposed regional haze rule for allocating any
funds to multi-state organizations conducting regional haze planning.
One reason for this is that at the time the proposed rule was under
development, EPA, the States, and other stakeholders were participating
in discussions (as part of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and its
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze process)
about the most appropriate ``institutional mechanism'' for the conduct
of regional air quality planning. The EPA intends to continue working
with the States to explore the most effective approaches for multi-
state planning.
multi-state organization criteria vs. sip criteria
Question. Will EPA fund a State that chooses to work alone as it
develops its record and SIP?
Answer. States are currently funded under section 105 to conduct
activities such as visibility planning and implementation. To the
extent that multi-state organizations are funded from section 105 grant
allocations, a State choosing not to participate in such an
organization would not be asked to forfeit section 105 grant funds
allocated to it for the purpose of preparing visibility plans.
Question. Will the criteria be different for this funding decision
from those criteria used for multi-state organizations?
Answer. As noted above, the Environmental Protection Agency has not
developed specific criteria for allocating any funds to multi-state
organizations or to individual states conducting regional haze
planning, but EPA anticipates that it would establish such criteria
based on equitable considerations.
multi-state organization budget in other regions
Question. What budget does EPA intend for the multi-state
organizations in other regions?
Answer. The States may choose to fund from Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grants regional groups the States deem necessary for
implementing the Clean Air Act. In fiscal year 1999 and beyond EPA
intends to consider funding of multi-state organization based on the
consent of the States involved. However, EPA has not at this time
established specific criteria for future funding of multi-state
organizations. The EPA anticipates that decisions will be based in part
on the combination of available funds and the scope and purposes for
which State organizations request them.
Question. If the Federal Government does not provide funds for the
budget of these multi-state organizations, will we have imposed an
unfunded mandate on the States?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging, but not
requiring, the formation of multi-State organizations. EPA, therefore,
is not imposing an unfunded mandate on the States.
Question. Is the financial need of the multi-state organizations
for other regions reflected in your budget request?
Answer. The States may choose to fund from Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grants regional groups the States deem necessary for
implementing the Clean Air Act. In fiscal year 1999 and beyond EPA
intends to consider funding of multi-state organization based on the
consent of the States involved. However, EPA has not at this time
established specific criteria for future funding of multi-state
organizations. The EPA anticipates that decisions will be based in part
on the combination of available funds and the scope and purposes for
which State organizations request them.
visibility transport plan revision under 169(b)
Question. In his floor statement introducing Sec. 169B in 1990,
Senator Adams, who authored the provision, explained that only States
included in a visibility transport region would be expected to revise
their plans in order to implement any supplemental requirements added
by the EPA under Sec. 169B(e)(1). Why has EPA required all States to
prepare visibility SIP's when only 8 sat on the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees that
States should not be bound by control strategy decisions made by other
States or organizations without an opportunity to participate in the
assessment and planning process. However, all states are obligated by
section 169A to address the causes of visibility impairment. In 1980,
EPA issued visibility rules under section 169A of the Act to address
impacts on Class I areas that could be attributed to single sources or
small groups of sources. In that rulemaking, EPA stated it would issue
rules dealing with regional haze when better technical information on
the pollutants and sources responsible for haze became available. The
science of regional haze is now well understood and the tools necessary
to address the problem of regional haze now exist. Section 169A directs
EPA to develop a program to address visibility impairment in all of the
mandatory Federal Class I areas. Because this obligation had yet to be
fulfilled for regional haze, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments gave EPA
a statutory deadline for issuing regional haze rules: 18 months after
EPA received the GCVTC report. The EPA received the report in July 1996
and is committed to finalizing the rule as soon as possible. In its
July 1997 action setting the particulate matter standards, EPA
highlighted the regional nature of visibility effects, and that the
regional haze program would be needed to address the visibility effects
associated with PM.
visibility transport plan to convene commission
Question. Now that 44 States have filed comments asking that the
proposed rule not be implemented in their jurisdictions, does EPA plan
to convene visibility transport commissions before a visibility rule is
applied to States outside the GCVTC and to mandatory class I Federal
areas not on the Colorado Plateau?
Answer. States submitting comments on the proposed rule requested a
variety of changes to the rule, but only a few of them questioned
whether emissions from sources within their borders caused or
contributed to visibility impairment such that they should be required
to participate in regional haze planning. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) noted in its proposal that available evidence indicated
that emissions from sources within each State contribute to impairment
of visibility in at least one Class I area located within another
State. Thus, participation by all States in more refined planning and
assessment will be needed to confirm or refute this evidence. The EPA
has no current plans to establish additional transport commissions.
Section 169B gives EPA the discretion to create transport commissions,
but does not require that EPA establish them. Where such a commission
is established, the Commission's statutory charge is to develop a
report to the Administrator on recommendations regarding (1) clean air
corridors, (2) requirements for new and major sources in such
corridors, and (3) EPA regulations to address long term strategies.
Hence, even if a Commission is established, there is no requirement
that the result will be a long-term regional haze strategy for the
region.
regional haze: implementation using sesarm
Question. In the Southeastern U.S., the States--in a spirit of
cooperation--have proposed using its SESARM to implement the regional
haze program. Does EPA plan to fully fund this effort?
Answer. The States may choose to fund from Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grants regional groups the States deem necessary for
implementing the Clean Air Act. In fiscal year 1999 and beyond EPA
intends to consider funding of multi-state organization based on the
consent of the States involved. However, EPA has not at this time
established specific criteria for future funding of multi-state
organizations. The EPA anticipates that decisions will be based in part
on the combination of available funds and the scope and purposes for
which State organizations request them.
Question. Does EPA's proposed budget include full funding for
SESARM's work?
Answer. The States may choose to fund from Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) grants regional groups the States deem necessary for
implementing the Clean Air Act. In fiscal year 1999 and beyond EPA
intends to consider funding of multi-state organization based on the
consent of the States involved. However, EPA has not at this time
established specific criteria for future funding of multi-state
organizations. The EPA anticipates that decisions will be based in part
on the combination of available funds and the scope and purposes for
which State organizations request them.
Question. If we decide not to fund EPA to complete its tasks under
Sec. 169 A and B, but to give the money instead to the States as they
work together in visibility transport commissions or other multi-state
organizations, what will be the costs of this alternative effort?
Answer. Because the geographic size, nature and scope of activities
by multi-state organizations could vary substantially, as could the
technical efforts needed to support them, it is not possible to
estimate the costs of such activities.
Question. Would a failure to fund either EPA or the States for
these tasks impose an unfunded mandate on the States?
Answer. Since the Environmental Protection Agency has neither
mandated the formation of such organizations nor established specific
requirements for them to carry out, this would not constitute an
unfunded mandate.
regional haze: budget for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000
Question. What is EPA's budget for the regional haze program in
fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Funding for the regional haze program has been constant
over the three year period of fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2000 and is
funded at $1,930,000 per year.
Question. What will these funds be spent on?
Answer. For all three years, these funds will be spent to support
visibility monitoring in Class I areas via the IMPROVE network
($1,250,000); support for the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative
(SAMI) to continue their efforts in assessing acid deposition and
visibility impairment ($380,000) and for general regional haze support
($300,000).
Question. Compare these proposed funding levels with the States
visibility budgets and with the funding that EPA plans to offer to
support the States on visibility.
Answer. With the initial State Implementation Plan revisions for
visibility not due until possibly late in fiscal year 1999, EPA has not
seen State budgets for visibility work. These are currently being
negotiated with States as part of the fiscal year 1999 grant
negotiations process. EPA does not anticipate a large funding effort
regarding visibility with this initial SIP revision. As individual
States prepare more specific SIP revisions addressing regional haze, we
do anticipate more resources being directed towards this program.
Question. Has EPA assessed the adequacy of the Federal grants to
the States with respect to the visibility issue in light of the other
demands on the States' resources?
Answer. The current effort regarding visibility SIP preparation in
the States is fairly minimal. Accordingly present funding for regional
haze support has been a lower priority than funding for the ozone
program and the fine particle program. Following the submission of the
States initial visibility SIP's, EPA will reassess its grant funding
priorities to consider additional needs for regional haze along with
its need to support the fine particle monitoring network as well as
expanded efforts in the air toxics program.
visual air quality: fires on federal lands
Question. During your testimony before the Committee, you indicated
that the visual air quality associated with prescribed fire would be
excluded from the data base. I interpret this remark to mean that there
will be no States supervision over the visual air quality effect in
mandatory class I Federal areas of fire on Federal lands and that the
effect on visual air quality of emissions from fire on Federal lands
would not alter the rights and responsibilities of other source owners.
Is the interpretation consistent with the intent of the visibility
protection program and the manner in which the EPA plans to implement
it?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency has provisions in its
regulations which allow States determining whether they are violating
national ambient air quality standards to exclude high values that
occur as a result of certain natural events, such as wildfires and dust
storms. In addition, recognizing that wildfires can produce unhealthful
concentrations of pollution, EPA has taken steps to work with Federal
land managers to craft policies which recognize that controlled burning
is carried out in many instances to reduce the likelihood, frequency,
and severity of wildfires, thereby contributing to improved air
quality. The policy recently announced by EPA, the Department of
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture is intended to address this
issue with regard to the role of fire in the implementation of PM2.5
air quality standards, and is intended to encourage practices which
both reduce the need for burning and which reduce the emissions
resulting from fire when burning must be conducted. We expect to pursue
additional efforts with these agencies to address the role of fire in
the achievement of reasonable progress for visibility.
Section 169A does not require actions to eliminate all sources of
visibility impairment, but rather directs EPA and States to remedy and
prevent impairment of visibility that is ``man-made.'' Thus it is
important to distinguish between impairment that would result from
fires which are an important part of natural ecological processes, and
fires which are a consequence of a long history of fire suppression in
this country and current efforts to conduct prescribed burning to
restore the natural fire cycle. EPA is working with Federal land
managers to identify ways to account for and discount, for visibility
analyses, impairment from prescribed fire which is equivalent to that
which would have occurred naturally and therefore would not be
considered ``man-made.'' This degree of impairment would thus not
affect State obligations to provide for reasonable progress in their
SIP's. Some prescribed burning is conducted for reasons other than
restoring the natural fire cycle and reducing the risk of wildfire. The
effects of such burning will need to be addressed if it hinders
reasonable progress.
class i federal areas prescribed fires
Question. How much impairment in the mandatory class I Federal
areas is derived from prescribed fire (by mandatory class I Federal
area) and how much is it expected to grow?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency does not have estimates
of how much visibility impairment is due to prescribed fire by each
class I area. For some regions of the country, the major pollutant from
prescribed fire, elemental carbon, is usually less than 10 percent of
the total visibility impairment. This include impacts from wildfire
which emit much more elemental carbon than prescribed fires over a
multi-year period. Estimates of growth for prescribed fire range up to
a 5-fold increase in some areas of the western United States where fire
suppression has been based on work completed for the Grand Canyon. Use
of prescribed fire is not expected to grow that much in other areas of
the country. The effect on visual air quality of this increase is
difficult to predict since there may be an associated decrease in
wildfire emissions.
class i federal areas visitors experience
Question. Given the impairment associated with fire, how serious is
EPA in its commitment to improve the visitors' experience in the
mandatory Class I Federal areas if the Agency plans to exclude fire
data from the data base that State regulators will use?
Answer. It is important to note that the wildland fire policy which
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued is an interim
policy. One of the primary reasons for this was the fact that the
regional haze program is not final. The EPA intends to re-examine this
policy when the regional haze program is finalized to insure
consistency of approach in dealing with the issue of wildland fires.
The EPA does not plan to exclude the data from fire from the visual air
quality data base but, as noted above, intends to distinguish, in
assessing the degree of visibility improvement that may be needed,
between that which is natural (not ``man-made'' or its equivalent) and
that which would not have occurred under a natural fire cycle. Thus,
EPA expects States to consider the causes of visibility impairment and
develop strategies which are responsible to those contributions.
exclude fire data from data base
Question. Did EPA include in its proposal the notion of excluding
fire data from the data base and the methodology for excluding fire
data?
Answer. In its existing visibility regulations and in the preamble
to its proposed rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in fact,
identified fire emissions as one of a variety of sources which must as
a general matter be considered in strategies to achieve reasonable
progress.
Question. If not, why not?
Answer. Since, except as described above, the EPA is not intending
to exclude data from fire events in the tracking visibility in the
mandatory Class I Federal areas, it was not necessary to make this a
part of its proposed rule.
Question. How can EPA take comment on an issue if it is not noticed
in proposed rules?
Answer. The EPA solicited comment on all aspects of its proposed
rule. However, EPA proposed no specific regulatory requirements or
exemptions for fire emissions, but rather left to States' discretion
the selection of appropriate sources to include in their control
strategies, commensurate with the nature and extent of visibility
impairment in their class I areas.
regional haze: federal agencies
Question. Congress has a long history of requiring Federal agencies
to live by the same rules that State and private sector live by. (e.g.,
the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (Public Law 102-386)). Please
explain how the regional haze rule proposal honors, if at all, this
policy?
Answer. The proposed regional haze rule is structured so States
determine a set of strategies to make reasonable progress toward the
national goal. As section 118 of the Clean Air Act establishes,
requirements to address air quality which the State impose on sources
within that state, such as a strategy to address all prescribed fire,
would apply to Federal management practices in the same manner as they
would apply to any nongovernmental entity.
use of fire in national forests
Question. Please explain why EPA focuses on the use of fire in the
national forests rather than more benign methods of addressing the fuel
crisis, such as mechanical treatment?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked closely
and cooperatively with Federal Land Managers (FLM's) and other
stakeholders in the development of the Interim Wildland Fire Policy. As
a part of this process it became apparent that FLM's base their
decision to use a land management tool such as prescribed fire on
several factors, but the needs of the ecosystem are the primary
motivating factors. Mechanical treatment is not always desirable or
feasible. Some ecosystems require fire to achieve and maintain a
sustainable state because fire performs some functions that other
treatments cannot. For example, some species of trees cannot reproduce
without fire because their seeds will not open any other way. Fire also
returns nutrients to the soil which is a function no other treatment
can duplicate. Mechanical removal (or thinning) of trees and forest
debris is performed sometimes in preparation for a prescribed burn to
reduce the intensity of the fire and thus reduce smoke. It is also done
alone as a fuels reduction treatment where it is physically possible to
do so. However, in some cases the site is too remote, the forest too
dense, and/or the slope of the land too great to allow the use of the
heavy equipment needed to perform mechanical removal. Mechanical
removal can also be more expensive than prescribed fire. If the
management goal is to kill insects that destroy trees (another function
fire performs), pesticide use may be banned and has adverse
environmentally consequences that must be considered.
The EPA supports the responsible use of prescribed fire under a
smoke management program as one of the most effective land management
tools available to restore our ecosystems to a healthy state.
regional haze: federally funded highways
Question. How, if at all, will the regional haze rules, as
proposed, affect the pre-construction review process for Federally
funded highways?
Answer. The regional haze rule, as proposed, does not mandate any
changes to the pre-construction review process for Federally funded
highways.
Question. Please describe the process the States will have to
include in their SIP's to handle the FLM's involvement in this review
process.
Answer. Under the existing visibility protection program
established in 1980, States must consult with Federal Land Managers in
revising SIP's to address visibility, including revisions to the long-
term strategies. The proposed regional haze provisions do not change
this basic existing SIP requirements.
Question. Is this process described in the proposed rules? If not,
why not? When does EPA plan to solicit public comment on this process?
Answer. The existing visibility protection program established the
requirement for States to consult with the Federal Land Managers. The
regional haze proposal applies that requirement for consultation to the
strategies to address regional haze and to elements of the State
Implementation Plans requiring the technical expertise of the Federal
Land Managers. These provisions were noticed in the regional haze
proposal. Again, the regional haze rule does not require Federal Land
Manager review of transportation projects unless the State wants to
establish such review as part of its strategy make reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal.
Question. What assurances do we have that the additional level of
bureaucratic review by the Park Service or the Forest Service to assess
regional haze impacts from highway construction or use will not be as
intrusive as it has become in the context of new source review for
major stationary sources?
Answer. The States may choose the strategies needed for making
reasonable progress including more review of transportation plans, but
there is no requirement in the regional haze rule to require such
reviews. Moreover, while Federal Land Managers have an important
consultative role, nothing in the propose rule establishes a Federal
new source review requirement for highway construction independent from
the normal environmental review and air quality planning requirements
which already exist under the Clean Air and National Environmental
Policy Acts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
pm: congressional directive
Question. What actions has your agency taken to comply with
Congress's directive? It is my understanding that only $8 million
dollars have been utilized to this point? How did you spend the
funding? Why have you elected not to use the rest of the funds? How
much of the $49.6 million will be obligated in fiscal year 1998? On
what programs?
Answer. The agency has taken and continues to take extensive
actions to address the congressional directive. First, the EPA base
program, which includes intramural research and investigator-initiated
grants, has proceeded without delay. The intramural base program is
funding research including exposure assessment with intensive
monitoring of ambient air in several cities, health studies including
identification of key components of PM and mechanisms by which PM
elicits toxicity, epidemiology studies of sensitive sub-populations,
and source characterization studies to identify the contribution to
ambient PM from less well understood sources. The base grants program
is anticipated to fund complementary research on mechanisms of
toxicity, epidemiology and exposure error. EPA published a Request for
Applications for the base grants program at the end of September 1997,
and in May 1998 an external scientific peer panel reviewed submitted
applications. Selection of recipient organizations is anticipated to
occur this summer. We expect the major portion of the base program
funding, including the grants program, to be obligated during this
fiscal year.
Secondly, as directed by Congress in Appropriations bill, EPA
entered into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
develop a report on research priorities for particulate matter. The
first report was received on schedule on March 31, 1998, in which NAS
recommended a number of high priority research areas. The agency is
currently evaluating ongoing research efforts and obligating funds
consistent with the NAS recommendations. With the exception of funds
for the NAS contract and for expansion of research efforts by the
Health Effects Institute, and consistent with the appropriations
language, the remaining fiscal year 1998 funds were held in reserve
until the NAS report was delivered.
At this time, the Agency intends to obligate $47.4 million in
fiscal year 1998. The $8 million for PM Research Centers will not be
obligated in fiscal year 1998. The PM Research Centers Request for
Applications was developed after receipt of the NAS report, consistent
with Congressional direction that the Centers be targeted to priority
needs. Funds cannot be obligated for these Centers in fiscal year 1998
due to the time required for university investigators to develop
Centers proposals (a period of 5 months is allowed) and to peer review
and select the recipient organizations.
pm: schedule for implementation
Question. In the EPA's October Federal Register Notice, your agency
did recognize that scientific uncertainties associated with the health
and environmental effects of PM and the means of reducing such effects
remained. Doesn't the narrow time frame of the schedule for
implementation limit the use of any new research? Considering the
controversy surrounding this rule, isn't it imperative that your agency
consider the results of this directed and objective science prior to
full implementation of the rule? If not, please explain.
Answer. Based on the President's implementation memorandum that was
published along with the revised PM and ozone standards on July 18,
1997, full implementation of the PM standards is expected by 2012-2017.
Clearly, this is not a ``narrow'' schedule. In the initial stages, the
fine particle monitoring network will be established to collect air
quality data to designate areas. At the same time the next periodic (5
year) review of the standards will be conducted, concluding in 2002.
Designation of nonattainment areas will take place after that review is
completed, in 2002-2005, and State Agencies will submit implementation
plans for meeting the new standards during the years 2005-2008.
Therefore, still a further periodic review of the NAAQS is required
before the time the new PM standards are fully implemented.
During these years, EPA anticipates receiving numerous reports of
research findings on the health and environmental effects of PM. The
results of new studies will be reviewed during the course of upcoming
PM NAAQS reviews, as has been done in previous NAAQS criteria reviews.
EPA has numerous efforts underway to obtain input from scientists
outside the agency on issues related to PM implementation, such as the
development of research-oriented PM monitoring sites. EPA is also
actively working to address the issues and recommendations made by the
National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Research Priorities for
Particulate Matter. EPA will clearly be able to give full consideration
to the results of new scientific studies prior to the full
implementation of the new PM NAAQS.
pm: nas recommendation of highest priority
Question. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that the
President's Budget request is insufficient to support the particulate-
matter research agenda recommended in its report for addressing the
highest priority research needs. The Committee recommended that
Congress set funding at the $49M level for the next several years.
Isn't funding of that level needed to assure progression in the
research? If not, please explain.
Answer. As indicated by the NRC and recognized by the Agency, a
substantial level of funding is needed for particulate matter (PM)
research, and the Agency is committing substantial resources in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to address the research needs. Below is
a comparison of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimated
fiscal year 1998 Enacted Budget and fiscal year 1999 President's Budget
Request to the National Research Council (NRC)/National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) recommendations for PM Research. To summarize, the NRC
recommends $39.6M in fiscal year 1998 and $45.7M in fiscal year 1999 be
spent on PM research to address their highest priority research areas
for a total of $85.3M. EPA has in its fiscal year 1998 Enacted Budget
$50.2M for PM research (plus an additional $5.2M in certain
Congressional ``add-ons'' as listed below). For fiscal year 1999, the
President's Budget Request includes $28.7M for PM research within EPA's
Office of Research and Development and $15M for monitoring ``super
sites'' within EPA's Office of Air and Radiation; a total of $43.7M
related to PM research needs in fiscal year 1999. EPA's combined PM
research-related budget for these two years is $93.9M (plus an
additional $5.2M in certain Congressional ``add-ons'').
The $8M funding for five university-based research centers focusing
on PM-related health effects, as provided for in the fiscal year 1998
Appropriations, will be funded in fiscal year 1999. The Agency waited
for the NRC's recommendation of priority research areas before issuing
a Request for Applications for PM research centers to focus on these
priority research areas. Upon receipt of the NRC's recommendations, EPA
immediately prepared the Request for Applications, which was announced
May 19, 1998 and provides a five-month period for submitting
applications. As a result, grants supporting the centers will not be
awarded until the beginning of fiscal year 1999. Therefore, we expect
fiscal year 1998 funding of PM research to be $42.2 (plus the $5.2M in
certain Congressional ``add-ons''.) Whereas, the fiscal year 1999
funding for EPA's PM research efforts, including the fiscal year 1998
resources for the centers, will be $51.7M.
Additional support for PM-related research in fiscal year 1998 come
from $5.2M Congressional ``add-ons'' which are not strictly focussed on
PM research but which provide support for such research through
activities in allied fields. These funds are listed at the bottom of
the following table.
COMPARISON OF EPA ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGETS TO NRC RECOMMENDATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC recommendations-- EPA
fiscal year estimated President's
budget
------------------------- enactment fiscal year
fiscal 1999
1998 1999 year 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. NRC highest priority research areas......................... 39.6 45.7 42.7 22.6
II. Implementation-related research, not identified in NRC ........... .......... 7.5 6.1
report as among highest priorities............................
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Sections I and II............................ ........... .......... 50.2 28.7
================================================
III. OAR Monitoring ``super sites''............................ ........... .......... ......... 15.0
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Sections I, II, and III...................... ........... .......... 50.2 43.7
================================================
IV. Five University-based Research Centers: Centers (earmarked ........... .......... -8.0 8.0
in fiscal year 1998; grants awarded in fiscal year 1999)......
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... ........... .......... 42.2 51.7
================================================
Other fiscal year 1998 Enacted Congressional ``Add-ons:''
Lovelace................................................... ........... .......... 2.0 ...........
Johns Hopkins.............................................. ........... .......... 1.5 ...........
Jewish Lung Ctr............................................ ........... .......... 1.7 ...........
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... ........... .......... 5.2 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The research in the Congressional ``Add-ons'' (above) broadly supports Air-related research, including PM.
air standards: industry air emissions
Question. Over the last year, the EPA has promulgated or proposed
several rules that effect air emissions by industry. These include the
recently promulgated Cluster Rule which imposes Maximum Achievable
Control Technology on air emissions, the new ozone and particulate
matter rules, the proposed regional haze rule and the NOx
SIP Call rule which further controls air emissions from mid-western
states, including Alabama, that are carried by air current to the
Northeast. Has the EPA reviewed the big picture to view the cumulative
effect of these rules?
Answer. Final action on the review of the ozone standard was
published July 18, 1997. The standard will provide increased protection
to the public, especially children and other at-risk populations,
against a wide range of ozone-induced health effects, including
decreased lung function, primarily in children active outdoors;
increased respiratory symptoms, particularly in highly sensitive
individuals; hospital admissions and emergency room visits for
respiratory causes, among children and adults with pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma; inflammation of the lung, and
possible long-term damage to the lungs. The new standard will provide
increased protection to the public welfare against ozone-induced
effects on vegetation, such as agricultural crop loss, damage to
forests and ecosystems, and visible foliar injury to sensitive species.
The next review of the ozone standard is scheduled to be completed mid-
2002.
Final action on the new suite of primary standards for Particulate
Matter (PM) was also published July 18, 1997. The primary standards
will provide increased protection against a wide range of PM-related
health effects, including premature mortality and increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits, primarily in the elderly and
individuals with cardiopulmonary disease; increased respiratory
symptoms and disease, in children and individuals with cardiopulmonary
disease such as asthma; decreased lung function, particularly in
children and individuals with asthma; and alterations in lung tissue
and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The new
secondary standards, in conjunction with a regional haze program, will
provide appropriate protection against PM-related public welfare
effects including soiling, material damage, and visibility impairment.
The next review of the PM standards is scheduled to be completed mid-
2002.
EPA integrated the development of the Paper and Pulp Manufacturing
Cluster rules to address the emissions of hazardous air pollutants and
toxic pollutants to the water to provide greater protection of human
health and the environment, reduce the cost of complying with the
wastewater regulations and air emissions controls, promote and
facilitate coordinated compliance planning by industry, promote and
facilitate pollution prevention, and emphasize the multimedia nature of
pollution control.
The Agency envisioned a long-term approach to environmental
improvement that is consistent with sound capital expenditures. This
approach stemmed from extensive discussions with a range of
stakeholders. The effluent limitations guidelines and standards and air
emissions standards are only one component of the framework to achieve
long-term environmental goals. The overall regulatory framework
includes incentives to reward and encourage mills that implement
pollution prevention beyond regulatory requirements.
The EPA attempts to account for the cumulative cost and benefit
impacts of its rules to the extent possible. For example, the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and proposed Regional
Haze rule included an assumption of the likely reductions which would
result from the proposed rule to require 22 states and the District of
Columbia to submit state implementation plans (SIP) that address the
regional transport of ground-level ozone, the main component of smog.
In addition, it looked at the implementation of those three rules
jointly because of the similarities in the pollutants that contribute
to these problems (particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and organics)
and sources of those pollutants. Similarly, the same analysis included
an assumption of the likely reductions resulting from the Paper and
Pulp Manufacturing Cluster Rule. Both the regional ozone transport rule
and the Cluster rule will precede the full implementation of the PM and
Ozone NAAQS and Regional Haze rule. However, both of these rules
changed since the assumptions were developed for the NAAQS analysis so
that the benefit and cost estimates done for the NAAQS do not reflect
the most recent version of these other rules. EPA is now revising the
analyses for the proposed regional ozone transport rule and the
proposed regional haze rule which will better characterize the
interactions between these various rules. Because of the changes to the
various rules since the analyses were started it is not appropriate to
just add the monetized costs and benefits of these rules together to
come up with an overall cost and benefit of them collectively.
Also under Section 812(b) of the 1990 CAAA, Congress required EPA
to look at the prospective costs (from 1990 into the future) of the
Clean Air Act. This work is now underway. This analysis should be able
to address the question about cumulative costs and benefits associated
the Clean Air Act.
regional haze: cost of visibility standards
Question. The proposed new regional haze rule is a major new
regulatory initiative which will have a significant impact on numerous
states, including Alabama. Why is the EPA so actively pursuing the
Regional haze State Implementation Plan by 1999 when the health based
PM 2.5 standards are scheduled to go into effect in 2005?
Answer. Section 169B of the Clean Air Act calls for State to submit
an Implementation Plan (SIP) on year from the promulgation of the
regional haze regulation. Recent legislation has changed that one-year
SIP submittal requirement to a varying schedule which is tied to
designations of areas as attainment or unclassifiable for PM-2.5 or to
plan revisions needed to address nonattainment areas. In the proposal
EPA had established a schedule of commitments under the one-year SIP
requirement which envisioned States developing control strategies in
coordination with plan requirements for PM-2.5. The recent legislation
is intended to authorize EPA to directly coordinate these SIP
requirements. As with the original proposal, EPA's intent continues to
be one of coordinating regional haze rule SIP control strategies dates
with those for PM-2.5 implementation.
Question. How much would it cost to fully implement these new EPA
visibility standards nationwide?
Answer. The proposed regional haze program would not establish a
firm visibility ``standard'' to be achieved across the country, and
measures to achieve progress in improving visibility will be determined
by the States. As a result, it is not possible to do more than estimate
the costs of implementation at this time. The draft regulatory impact
analysis for the proposed regional haze program recognized the
flexibility provided by the proposed rule by describing costs and
benefits in terms of a likely range. The estimated annual costs range
from $0.0 to $2.7 billion, and the estimated annual benefits range from
$0.0 to $5.7 billion (in 1990 dollars). As EPA considers appropriate
revisions to its rule the regulatory impact analysis will be revised to
take such changes into account.
regional haze: state implementation plan by 1999
Question. Realizing that visibility issues are currently being
addressed by the PM-10, PM-2.5, ozone, and acid rain rules, what
additional reductions over the next 10 years does your science predict
from the regional haze rule? Please list the additional public health
benefits of the proposed ruling that are new to the benefits of the
rulings listed above.
Answer. Reductions from other air quality programs will lead to
improvements in visibility and can be taken into account in
establishing progress targets. The recent transportation bill clarifies
that the schedule for submissions of state plans addressing regional
haze should be harmonized with the schedule for PM-2.5 SIP submissions.
As noted in the response to the previous question, however, the States
would have flexibility in establishing progress targets under the haze
program, including the flexibility to take reductions from other air
quality programs into account in establishing these targets. It is
accordingly difficult to predict the extent of additional emission
reductions that would be achieved over the next 10 years due to the
regional haze program. The draft regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for
the proposed regional haze rule evaluated a scenario in which targets
of 1 deciview improvement in the worst visibility days over the next 10
years were achieved in all class I areas. In the RIA the annual
benefits due to the regional haze program alone were estimated to range
from $0 to $5.7 billion, including $4.5 billion attributed to
additional public health benefits incremental to the PM-2.5 standard.
The EPA intends to revise the RIA in conjunction with the final rule,
and these estimates may change as a result of any changed assumptions
in the proposed rule or proposed RIA.
Question. If this proposed rule is truly driven by public health
concerns, why does it target areas in attainment?
Answer. The purpose of the proposed regional haze program, as
required under section 169A of the Clean Air Act, is to improve
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas. These areas are
primarily national parks and wilderness areas which are generally
located in attainment areas. Because additional reductions in fine
particles may result in additional public health benefits beyond what
are expected from the PM-2.5 NAAQS for certain locations, these
benefits were included in the regulatory impact analysis prepared for
the proposed regional haze rule.
regional haze: deciview
Question. What is the EPA's definition of a deciview? Why are
national state parks used for the Mandatory Class I areas?
Answer. The deciview scale is a scale for measuring haze, just like
the Celsius scale is a scale for measuring temperature or the decibel
scale is a scale for measuring noise levels. The deciview scale is set
so that zero deciview is equal to no haze, just like zero degrees
Celsius is set at the temperature that water freezes, and zero decibel
is often set to quiet conditions. A change of 1 deciview in either very
hazy conditions or very clean conditions is considered just perceptible
by the average person for many of the complex views of terrain and sky
experienced from class I areas, just like a 1 decibel change in sound
is considered perceptible whether in a quiet or loud room. Thus, the
deciview scale characterizes visibility in constant increments related
to human perception across the range of possible conditions (for
example, from clear to hazy conditions). In general, an improvement of
1 deciview in a hazier environment will require a greater amount of
emission reductions than an equivalent perceived change in a cleaner
environment. This is analogous to having to shout to be heard in a
noisy room versus speaking normally to be heard in a quiet room. The
original paper describing the scientific basis for the deciview was
published in Atmospheric Environment, a peer-reviewed journal
(Pitchford (EPA) and Malm (NPS), ``Development and Application of a
Standard Visual Index,'' Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 28, No. 5,
1994).
The EPA includes national parks on the list of mandatory Class I
areas because section 162 defines mandatory Federal Class I areas as
all international parks, national wilderness areas and national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and national parks exceeding
6,000 acres, and which were in existence on August 7, 1972.
regional haze: industry emissions standard
Question. Is it possible that the proposed regional haze rule could
result in emission standards being applied to industrial sources that
are more stringent than standards that would be required under the
ozone and particulate matter standards? If so, please explain.
Answer. The proposed regional haze rule would require that States
develop a regional haze program to meet the Clean Air Act's (Act's)
requirement for ``reasonable progress,'' taking into account the
factors set forth in the statute, i.e., the costs of compliance, the
time needed for compliance, energy and nonair quality impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of existing sources. In light
of these statutory factors, EPA believes that the Act provides States
with considerable discretion regarding the regional haze program. Under
the proposal, States would be able to develop integrated and
coordinated programs for regional haze at the same time as they are
developing plans for the new particulate matter standards, and to
determine the best mix of strategies that meet the needs of both
programs. Depending on the degree to which strategies to achieve PM 2.5
standards also contribute to visibility improvements, additional
controls could be required for some number of sources. It is not
possible for the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate at this
time what sources might be affected or to what extent, as these
questions depend upon decisions to be made by the States.
regional haze: changes proposed by states
Question. It is my understanding that the EPA has received over
1,200 comments on the proposed rule. At least 43 states requested major
changes to the proposal, including flexibility in control strategies,
the use of regional planning efforts to implement the program,
additional time to develop the SIP's and the alignment of the regional
haze implementation schedule with that of PM 2.5 schedule. Will you
take the additional time to make the changes, re-propose the rule, and
allow for additional time for public comment?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still in the
process of evaluating the comments from States and all other
stakeholders on the proposed rule and is considering options for
several issues. If EPA decides based on these comments that significant
changes to the rule are warranted, EPA would consider the need for
reproposal at that time.
global warming: kyoto
Question. Under Secretary of State Eizenstat testified before the
Senate that there is no administration intent to implement the Treaty
without ratification. Additionally, he stated that no new authority is
needed to implement the administration's plan to address global
warming, except for the emissions trading program. What is your view of
these comments?
Answer. As Administration witnesses have stated in recent
Congressional hearings on this topic, the Administration will not
implement the Kyoto Protocol before the Senate has provided advice and
consent to its ratification. The President has, however, proposed that
the United States take steps now that represent good environmental,
economic, and energy policy. These steps include the domestic programs
and tax credits in the fiscal year 1999 budget to help develop and
deploy energy efficient and low pollution technologies. These voluntary
measures, if fully funded and enacted, will go a long way to turn
around the trend of increasing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. They
represent an economically prudent insurance policy against climate
change risks, and our win-win initiatives.
As discussed in the attached legal opinion of the General Counsel
of the Environmental Protection Agency, existing authority to address
greenhouse gases does not easily lend itself to establishing a ``cap-
and-trade'' emissions trading program, which the Administration
believes would be the most flexible and cost-effective way to address
greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. In his October 22, 1997,
climate policy speech, the President proposed such an approach (based
on our positive experience in controlling acid rain), but not for
implementation before 2008.
global warming
Question. What programs is the EPA currently involved with that
relate to global warming? Please include a description of any direct
funding to the states for programs. What is the funding level for these
programs? How does this compare to last year's levels?
Answer. Below is a table outlining the programs the EPA is
currently involved with that relate to Global Warming as well as the
enacted spending plan for fiscal year 1998 and the fiscal year 1999
President's request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999
1998 Enacted President's
plane budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPM Account............................. $72,478.9 $158,502.1
Industry Initiatives................ 20,893.9 51,600.0
Buildings........................... 38,785.0 78,100.0
Carbon Removal...................... .............. 3,400.0
Transportation...................... 4,800.0 12,002.1
Engaging Developing Countries....... 5,000.0 8,400.0
State and Local Outreach............ 3,000.0 5,000.0
S&T Account............................. 16,950.7 46,905.5
Transportation...................... 16,950.7 46,905.5
-------------------------------
Total............................. 89,429.6 205,407.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1991, EPA has provided funding to states for global warming
projects including analyzing the impacts of climate change on states,
demonstrating energy efficient technologies and policies that result in
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, conducting GHG emissions inventories
and mitigation options, and educating stakeholders on the risks of
climate change. In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 the funding
level was $2.0 million.
global warming: climate change information
Question. Has the administration, including the EPA, expanded
climate change information in its public outreach efforts, such as
agency web sites, publications and workshops? Please detail your
Agency's activities pertaining to climate change information last year
and all planned activities for 1998 and 1999. Please explain the
organization and goals of the climate change workshops? How many
taxpayer dollars are being spent on these activities?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, EPA expanded its climate outreach
program by improving our existing web site and increasing the number of
regional conferences. Our outreach efforts were expanded in order to
reach certain populations that are particularly vulnerable to or
interested in the risks of climate change. EPA's material reflects
their information needs.
The current outreach budget of $2.25 million provides outreach for
five constituency areas: costal communities, innovative businesses,
medical and public health professions, and meteorologists. Additional
funding in fiscal year 1999 would include outreach to other at-risk
areas, including agriculture, forestry, education, travel and tourism,
and insurance. Such funding would also develop more in-depth workshops
around the country to reach people unable to travel to the 10 EPA
regional office locations where all workshops have been held to date.
global warming: fiscal year 1998 external budget
Question. How much of your fiscal year 1998 budget for climate
change is used in the form of grants or contracts to outside
organizations? In dollars, what is the growth over the last three
fiscal years? Please identify the organizations, the amount awarded and
the purpose of the award.
Answer. Of the $90 million appropriated for fiscal year 1998 to EPA
by Congress for the Climate Change Action Plan, approximately $75.6
million will be used in the form of extramural expenditures for grants
and contracts. There has been no growth in this area over the last
three fiscal years, in fact, levels have gone down since fiscal year
1995. Attached please find a listing of contracts and grants issued in
fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
global warming: conferences
Question. How much has the EPA spent in fiscal year 1998 funds to
set-up or co-sponsor Conferences on implementation?
Answer. EPA has spent no fiscal year 1998 funds to set-up or co-
sponsor conferences on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. EPA does
conduct climate change outreach activities in fulfillment of its
commitment under the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio
Treaty), as well as our broader obligation to educate the public about
the environment. These activities are authorized under section 103 (a),
(b) and (g) of the Clean Air Act, section 102(2)(F) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, and section 1103 of the Global Climate
Protection Act of 1987. The U.S. is also a Party, as ratified by the
Senate, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Article 6 of the Convention specifically states the following:
In carrying out their commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(i),
the Parties shall:
(a) Promote and facilitate at the national and, as appropriate,
subregional and regional levels, and in accordance with national laws
and regulations, and within their respective capacities:
--(i) the development and implementation of educational and public
awareness programs on climate change and its effects;
--(ii) public access to information on climate change and its
effects;
--(iii) public participation in addressing climate change and its
effects and developing adequate responses.
EPA's climate change outreach efforts are designed to educate the
American public about the science, economics, diplomacy, and technology
regarding global warming. These efforts have been under way since
fiscal year 1996.
global warming: flexible phase in from 2008-2012
Question. Administration officials have argued that the flexible
phase in from 2008-2012 will give the U.S. enough time to adopt the
technology and new practices necessary to meet the targets with little
economic sacrifice. However, the protocol stipulates that each
participating nation shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in
achieving its commitments under the protocol. Doesn't achieving this
goal require immediate implementation in order to obtain the
reductions?
Answer. The Kyoto Protocol provides a decade of lead-time before
any binding commitments take effect. During this time the Senate will
have ample opportunity to consider whether to give advice and consent
to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol's call for
``demonstrable progress'' by 2005 is, by intention, not a specific,
binding obligation like the emission limitation commitment for the
period 2008-2012. In this respect, the 2005 goal is more like the 1992
Framework Convention's non-binding aim for the year 2000. Independent
of the Kyoto Protocol, the Administration is pursuing a host of actions
as a matter of good environmental and good energy policy--including
efforts to promote energy efficiency, to increase the use of renewable
forms of energy, to improve air quality, and to develop new
technologies. Our efforts in these areas make sense with or without the
Kyoto Protocol and will be good for businesses and consumers and good
for our environment in either case. If the Protocol is ultimately
ratified, these programs will easily fulfil any contemplated
interpretation of the Protocol's 2005 goal.
tri: correct information
Question. What action is the EPA taking to assure that information
available to the public through the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and
the Sector Facility Indexing Project is correct?
Answer. EPA has extensive quality assurance procedures in place to
assure the accuracy of its TRI data. They include:
The TRI reporting software (the AFR, or Automated Form R), which is
used for over 60 percent of forms, has a large variety of edit checks
built in to check the data as they are entered and to prompt the user
to correct errors as they occur. When the data are submitted
electronically like this, the possibility of keying errors is
eliminated. Approximately two-thirds of the reports are submitted
electronically.
For data that come in on paper and are keyed, there is also a
variety of edit checks for the keyers.
Once the data are entered (or electronically uploaded), a number of
other quality assurance/quality control steps are taken. These include:
--The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
Reporting Center performs duplicate/revision processing to
ensure that Form R information that might have been sent in as
a revision or a duplicate is not double-counted.
--EPA performs checks on all submissions that show annual release
values of 500,000 pounds or greater per facility. We also check
large increases or decreases based on previous years reporting.
--EPA mails to each TRI state contact State Reconciliation Reports,
which are listings of facility-level data received for each
state for the top 30 facilities with the highest releases for
each environmental media; states can request listings for more
facilities. We ask each state contact to check these reports
and let us know if any information is missing or inaccurate. We
also compare the holding of the state and Federal TRI
collections to make sure that both have the same sets of
facilities and chemicals.
--In order to check overall data entry, EPA takes a 3 percent
sampling of hardcopy Form R data as represented on the system
and compares them to actual submitted information. The EPCRA
Reporting Center (EPA contractor) does a similar review: it
checks 6 percent of the hardcopy forms. The Reporting Center
also checks a small sampling of magnetic media data to make
sure they translate correctly from the submitted diskettes to
the system during Aupload.
The EPCRA Reporting Center notifies submitters of errors and gives
them opportunities to submit revisions.
Release Value Reports are sent out for each form that is submitted.
They display all the release values for the submitter's own review.
(About 110,000 are sent to 38,000 facilities).
Finally, after all of these steps occur and the data are nearly
ready for release to the public, Agency and contractor programmers make
various runs against the database looking for anomalous situations for
investigation. (For example, once we discovered that a facility
reported that it had released several million pounds of metal to air,
whereas in previous years it had reported 250 or 500 pounds; there was
no keying error. There was, however, a reporting error that the
facility then corrected.) When errors are found, they are investigated
and the issue resolved.
In order to assess the quality of the data and to determine how to
improve guidance to facilities subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting,
EPA has undertaken voluntary data quality site surveys. The surveys are
designed to assess how well facilities understand the TRI reporting
requirements and, therefore, how well they prepare their TRI reports.
The TRI data quality report that was produced with data collected from
site visits for Reporting Years 1994 and 1995 is available on the
Internet and can be accessed through the TRI home page. (www.epa.gov/
opptintr/tri).
When facilities request to withdraw their data from the TRI
database, EPA reviews their request to assess whether it is merited.
EPA is considering instituting a similar procedure for requests to
revise TRI data already in the database.
EPA worked for three years to identify the facilities to be
included in the SFIP and to collect and verify the data. Each facility
received a copy of its compliance and enforcement data for review to
make sure that any problems were identified before the information was
distributed through the SFIP. We also sent the corrections to EPA
Regions and states to correct the underlying databases.
Prior to the industry data review, EPA specifically asked the
states to review the data and make changes as appropriate. Based on
these data reviews, EPA believes that the information in the underlying
databases is generally of high quality.
The accuracy of the data depends upon reliable reporting by states,
local agencies, and industry. Accuracy also depends on correct
recording of information by regulatory agencies at local, state, and
Federal levels. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure
the highest quality and consistency of data in the SFIP.
tri: educate public on emissions
Question. I was disturbed to learn that in one known instance, a
group misused information available through TRI as part of a fund
raising scheme. What is the EPA doing to educate the public that these
emissions are fully reviewed by the EPA and are within the limitations
set by Federal Government as posing no significant health risk or harm
to the public?
Answer. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a key element of
EPA's right-to-know program. One of the key TRI documents available to
the public, both electronically and in hard copy, is the annual TRI
data release book. This book summarizes and explains the TRI data for a
given year and includes information on trends over time. In explaining
the TRI data, the Agency points out that the releases that are reported
to TRI include both those that are the subject of permits under
Federal, state or local statutes and those that are not. The Agency
does not make assurances when issuing the TRI data that there are no
significant health risks associated with the releases. The purpose of
the TRI program is to provide communities with information to make
assessments and decisions at the local level. The Agency is working to
provide more and more tools to allow communities to assess the impact
of releases reported to TRI.
Question. The Internet is a wonderful resource if properly managed.
How is the EPA safe-guarding the integrity of its data and assure that
it is not misused?
Data quality assurance procedures are the most important way in
which EPA assures the integrity of its TRI data. A summary of these is
provided as Attachment A below. In addition, to educate the public and
to prevent misuse of the data the Agency provides the public with
explanations of the TRI data and their limitations through a variety of
media, including the annual data release book, brochures, newsletters,
conferences and the internet. In addition to explaining the limitations
associated with the data, these materials also explain how best to use
the data, and direct the reader to other sources of information that
are available to help users assess the potential impact of releases.
The Agency also has TRI user support services that the public can
access by phone or e-mail. These outreach materials and support
services represent the Agency's concerted efforts toward assuring
appropriate uses of TRI data, and preventing the misuse of the data.
______
Attachment A: TRI Data Quality Assurance Procedures
EPA has extensive quality assurance procedures in place to assure
the accuracy of its TRI data. They include:
The TRI reporting software (the AFR, or Automated Form R), which is
used for over 60 percent of forms, has a large variety of edit checks
built in to check the data as they are entered and to prompt the user
to correct errors as they occur. When the data are submitted
electronically like this, the possibility of keying errors is
eliminated. Approximately two-thirds of the reports are submitted
electronically.
For data that come in on paper and are keyed, there is also a
variety of edit checks for the keyers.
Once the data are entered (or electronically uploaded), a number of
other quality assurance/quality control steps are taken. These include:
--The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
Reporting Center performs duplicate/revision processing to
ensure that Form R information that might have been sent in as
a revision or a duplicate is not double-counted.
--EPA performs checks on all submissions that show annual release
values of 500,000 pounds or greater per facility. We also check
large increases or decreases based on previous years reporting.
--EPA mails to each TRI state contact State Reconciliation Reports,
which are listings of facility-level data received for each
state for the top 30 facilities with the highest releases for
each environmental media; states can request listings for more
facilities. We ask each state contact to check these reports
and let us know if any information is missing or inaccurate. We
also compare the holding of the state and Federal TRI
collections to make sure that both have the same sets of
facilities and chemicals.
--In order to check overall data entry, EPA takes a 3 percent
sampling of hardcopy Form R data as represented on the system
and compares them to actual submitted information. The EPCRA
Reporting Center (EPA contractor) does a similar review: it
checks 6 percent of the hardcopy forms. The Reporting Center
also checks a small sampling of magnetic media data to make
sure they translate correctly from the submitted diskettes to
the system during Aupload.
The EPCRA Reporting Center notifies submitters of errors and gives
them opportunities to submit revisions.
Release Value Reports are sent out for each form that is submitted.
They display all the release values for the submitter's own review.
(About 110,000 are sent to 38,000 facilities)
Finally, after all of these steps occur and the data are nearly
ready for release to the public, Agency and contractor programmers make
various runs against the database looking for anomalous situations for
investigation. (For example, we discovered one year that a facility
reported that it had released several million pounds of metal to air,
whereas in previous years it had reported 250 or 500 pounds; there was
no keying error. There was, however, a reporting error that the
facility then corrected.) When errors are found, they are investigated
and the issue resolved.
In order to assess the quality of the data and to determine how to
improve guidance to facilities subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting,
EPA has undertaken voluntary data quality site surveys. The surveys are
designed to assess how well facilities understand the TRI reporting
requirements and, therefore, how well they prepare their TRI reports.
The TRI data quality report that was produced with data collected from
site visits for Reporting Years 1994 and 1995 is available on the
Internet and can be accessed through the TRI home page. (www.epa.gov/
opptintr/tri).
When facilities request to withdraw their data from the TRI
database, EPA reviews their request to assess whether it is merited.
EPA is considering instituting a similar procedure for requests to
revise TRI data already in the database.
EPA worked for three years to identify the facilities to be
included in the SFIP and to collect and verify the data. Each facility
received a copy of its compliance and enforcement data for review to
make sure that any problems were identified before the information was
distributed through the SFIP. We also sent the corrections to EPA
Regions and states to correct the underlying databases.
Prior to the industry data review, EPA specifically asked the
states to review the data and make changes as appropriate. Based on
these data reviews, EPA believes that the information in the underlying
databases is generally of high quality.
The accuracy of the data depends upon reliable reporting by states,
local agencies, and industry. Accuracy also depends on correct
recording of information by regulatory agencies at local, state, and
Federal levels. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure
the highest quality and consistency of data in the SFIP.
tri: environmental information to public
Question. At one point, I recall an effort by the EPA's enforcement
office under the GPRA to qualify violations in the variety of reports
you release by including with the fine amount of information, whether
there was human or environmental harm from the violation, what the
company did to rectify the violation, whether the violation was
voluntarily reported, etc. It is important that this information is
included in the databases to more fully inform the public. What is the
status of that proposal? What is the EPA's time frame to accomplish it?
Answer. EPA has moved forward with this proposal. The Agency is
conducting a pilot project on case conclusion data sheets (CCDS) as a
result of recommendations made by the Measures of Success Workgroup in
March 1995. Under this project, EPA collects the following information
for concluded administrative and judicial enforcement actions:
--Expected costs of compliance (i.e. injunctive relief costs);
--Type of actions taken to comply (e.g. industrial process change,
emissions reduction, training);
--Names and amounts of pollutants to be reduced, prevented or
controlled;
--Qualitative nature of the impact (e.g. human health or ecosystem
protection); and,
--Details on Supplemental Environmental Projects, including costs and
environmental benefits such as above.
In fiscal year 1995, EPA collected information on all concluded
judicial orders and on compliance orders with penalties. In fiscal year
1996, EPA expanded the collection to include all administrative and
judicial actions regardless of accompanying penalty.
Information from the data sheets was compiled and included with end
of year reporting for 1995, 1996, and 1997. This information has been
summarized and widely distributed to managers in the Agency. It has
also been released publicly.
Additionally, one of the tasks under the National Performance
Measures Strategy, which grew from a series of national stakeholders
meetings with industry, environmental, community, academic,
governmental and media groups (announced with the end-of-year press
release in December 1997), is to conduct an evaluation of the case
conclusion or expected environmental benefit data and the processes for
creating that information, and to enhance its comprehensiveness and
accuracy. The majority of this evaluation will be concluded by the end
of fiscal year 1998.
tri: global warming potential
Question. To what extent will your Agency's risk management
activities take account of the global warming potential (GWP) of
chemicals, production processes or facilities? Will the Sector Facility
Indexing Project include GWP among the factors it examines?
Answer. The programs within the Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances under the authority of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) include the
New, Existing and Chemical Testing programs. These programs screen and
manage the risks chemicals pose to human health and the environment.
Risks to human health and the adverse effects on wildlife and
ecosystems are the primary focus of the TSCA risk assessment. Risk
screens focus on human toxicity, hazard and exposure.
The authority, granted under TSCA is the ultimate embodiment of
pollution prevention, as it allows EPA to prevent the introduction of
unacceptable toxic chemicals into the marketplace before they can harm
public health or the environment. This pre-commercial evaluation also
provides incentives for the swift introduction of safer alternatives to
toxic chemicals. Through the Premanufacture Notification, Design for
the Environment, Green Chemistry, and other efforts, EPA encourages the
chemical industry at the earliest stages of research and design to
produce and use safer, less polluting chemicals. EPA works with
industry to identify methods to reduce all types of pollution in
production process, and to prevent the transfer of pollution from one
media to another. The Design for the Environment program, the Green
chemistry program and the Environmentally Preferable Products program
target separate audiences--manufacturers, chemistry researchers, and
Federal purchasing agents--to promote and encourage safer products to
preserve and protect human health and the environment.
The Sector Facility Indexing Project has no plans at this time to
include GWP among the factors it examines. SFIP draws upon existing
databases (i.e., AFS, PCS, RCRIS) which do not currently provide
information regarding greenhouse effects.
clean water: section 106 grant priorities
Question. The Section 106 Operating Grant is the principal water
quality operating grant received by the states from EPA. A part of this
grant is for Ground Water Quality Management which in Alabama is
unfunded by the state. Section 106 has been historically used to
provide broad based assistance to the states. Since the decision to
reallocate the funds is not statutory based, what prompted the EPA to
act at this time?
Answer. Section 106(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that
the `` * * * Administrator shall make allotments to the several States
and interstate agencies * * * on the basis of the extent of the
pollution problem in the respective States.'' EPA developed the current
formula following passage of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) Amendments. EPA determined that a fixed formula, rather
than a yearly appraisal of needs would be the most effective way to
allocate Section 106 funds. Four factors were selected as components of
the formula: (1) number of industrial dischargers; (2) number of
municipal dischargers; (3) number of nuclear, oil, coal and gas power
plants; and (4) number of feedlots of more than 1,000 head. Population
was also a determining factor in the formula. These factors are no
longer appropriate, as they do not reflect the full range of concerns
in water quality programs today and because the data used for each
factor are more than 20 years old. EPA was prompted to revise the
Section 106 formula at this time, to ensure that the fiscal year 1999
increase in requested 106 grant funds is distributed in a manner
reflective of current State water quality programs and problems.
clean water: state position on priorities
Question. This reallocation would eliminate a major component of
Ground Water Management, for which no non-Federal dollars are available
in Alabama and other states to fill in for the loss of these vital
funds. What considerations are being given to the states' position on
this matter.
Answer. Groundwater protection continues to be a major priority for
EPA. We expect to continue the Section 106 funding set-aside for
groundwater. In addition, the Section 106 Formula State-EPA Revision
Workgroup has recommended that groundwater be included as a factor in
the revised Section 106 allocation formula. In addition to EPA Senior
Management, seven States are represented on this workgroup to ensure
full consideration of State positions on all components of the Section
106 program.
clean water srf: funding level
Question. I am very concerned about the EPA's planned cuts to the
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). This has been a very
successful program across the country, including Alabama. Why does the
EPA want to reduce funding to a program that is so positively embraced
by the states?
Answer. The Agency agrees that the Clean Water SRF program has been
very successful in providing low cost financing for communities with
critical wastewater infrastructure and other needs. The fiscal year
1999 President's Budget request of $1.075 billion in no way compromises
the Administration's long-term goal of capitalizing the Clean Water SRF
so that it will provide at least $2 billion annually in assistance to
communities to help fund critical water quality infrastructure projects
on a continual basis.
The attached chart displays the cumulative capitalization of the
Clean Water SRF assuming President's Budget funding levels and the
cumulative loan assistance provided by the SRF using those same
assumptions. As the chart indicates, the SRF will have provided over
$64 billion in loan assistance by the year 2016 under the President's
Budget funding assumptions (figures are in constant 1996 dollars). The
cumulative loan assistance provided includes state revolving fund
sources of funding in addition to the Federal capitalization, such as
state match, loan repayments, bond proceeds and fund earnings. As
already stated, the fiscal year 1999 Clean Water SRF request will help
achieve the Administration goal of providing at least $2 billion in
annual financial assistance through 2016 and well beyond. Also, when
combined with the Drinking Water SRF request, the Administration will
meet its goal of providing a total of $2.5 billion a year to
communities for both wastewater and drinking water needs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.019
clean water srf: fees as program income
Question. Fees are paid to the states by borrowers, such as
municipalities and water boards, for administrative expenses. States
need to retain flexibility in the utilization to support services to
these same borrowers. If designated program income by the EPA then
restrictions, conditions and prohibition will come into effect which
will eliminate flexibility by the states. Realizing the effects on the
states, please explain why the EPA is proposing designating CWSRF fees
as program income? Is the EPA also considering making this ruling
retroactive? If so, please identify the year.
Answer. The use of fees paid by borrowers of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans is governed by EPA's general grant
regulations at 40 C.F.R Part 31, which in turn are based on U.S.
government-wide OMB circulars. The general grant regulations define
program income as income received by a grantee of Federal funds that is
directly generated by a grant supported activity. 40 C.F.R. 31.25(b).
Under the general grant regulations, fees paid on CWSRF loans made from
Federal capitalization grant funds are program income.
Under the general grant regulations, states retain the flexibility
to use fees for administrative expenses of the CWSRF, for other
purposes of the CWSRF program (funding publicly-owned treatment works,
nonpoint source and estuary projects) and for state match. However,
such fees may not be used to fund state activities unrelated to the
CWSRF program. It has recently come to EPA's attention that some states
may have already used some of these fees for purposes unrelated to the
CWSRF program. EPA is currently assessing the extent to which fees have
been used by states for unrelated purposes, and, in collaboration with
the states, expects to complete the review and make a determination on
this matter by the end of the fiscal year. Any necessary corrective
action will be based on the results of the review.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Campbell
colorado's environmental audit law
Question. Why is the EPA attempting to stop this program when it
has shown that it does help to protect the environment?
Answer. EPA is working with Colorado to ensure that the Colorado
audit privilege and immunity law meets minimum Federal requirements for
the administration of Federally-approved environmental programs. EPA
has a statutory duty to ensure that states meet minimum Federal legal
enforcement and information gathering requirements in order to maintain
Federally-approved programs. Thus, EPA has worked with a number of
states (i.e., Utah, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, and Wyoming) to resolve
the legal issues with the respective states' audit privilege and
immunity laws so that these laws would no longer pose a barrier to
state administration of Federally-approved environmental programs.
While the Agency is opposed to audit privilege and immunity laws as a
matter of policy, when a state's audit privilege and immunity law meets
minimum Federal requirements, EPA will not serve as a barrier to
Federal authorization of state environmental programs to which it
applies. EPA will continue to make every effort to work with Colorado
officials to find a resolution that accommodates the interests of the
State while meeting minimum Federal requirements.
According to information provided to EPA by state officials, since
the Colorado audit privilege and immunity law became effective in 1995,
Colorado has received 28 disclosures under the audit law and has
resolved 23 of these, granting full immunity in 17 of the cases.
Because Colorado's law contains evidentiary privilege provisions,
however, an untold number of violations may be hidden in company files.
This privilege denies Colorado regulators the information they need to
determine the cause of violations, the environmental harm resulting
from violations, and the steps needed to correct the violation and
prevent recurrence. Additionally, in situations where citizens are
threatened or harmed, the State should have immediate and unencumbered
access to the best available information which may be present in an
audit report. Any documents or other data related to environmental
compliance under Colorado's law would have to be treated as
presumptively privileged, denying the State and the public relevant
information in emergency situations. Thus, the audit privilege law
interferes with the State's ability to obtain the information it needs
to protect human health and the environment with the public's right to
know.
Colorado's audit privilege and immunity law also immunizes serious
violations, including unpermitted discharges and those violations that
are a result of criminal negligence. For example, under Colorado's law,
a company can discharge pollutants into a stream without a permit and
if the company performs an audit and promptly discloses the violation,
the company will receive immunity for the unpermitted discharges. EPA
has expressed the concern that these immunity provisions do not meet
minimum Federal regulatory requirements for the administration of
Federally-approved environmental programs. In addition, as a matter of
public policy, EPA opposes statutory immunities such as Colorado's
because they eliminate the important deterrent effect of penalties and
allow companies that violate environmental laws to gain a competitive
advantage over companies that invest in environmental compliance.
national commission on higher education
Question. How do you feel about the Cost Commission's
recommendation that separate regulations should exist?
Answer. The Agency is aware of the problems faced by small
universities in disposing of their laboratory wastes. EPA is currently
putting together options on how to revise the hazardous waste manifest
and related standards under the Resource and Recovery Act's (RCRA)
program. As part of these manifest revisions, the Agency is studying
ways to reduce the financial and paperwork burden placed on educational
laboratories. To that end, EPA hopes to propose a system whereby wastes
at university laboratories could be transported to a central
consolidation point at the university under reduced requirements. These
reduced requirements would include a more streamlined paper system and
reduced record keeping as the waste moves from the various university
buildings to the central consolidation site. After the material is
consolidated it would be shipped offsite to a licensed treatment,
storage, or disposal facility (or TSDF).
The Agency is currently reviewing a Project XL proposal from the
New England Universities Laboratories that relates to this issue. If
approved, the project would demonstrate one option for addressing the
concern that existing RCRA regulations may not always be a good fit for
university laboratories.
fqpa: pesticide cancellations
Question. Colorado produced $4.2 billion in agricultural sales in
1996, in large part because of the use of pesticides. A long list of
pesticides used in Colorado to produce crops face immediate
restrictions and or cancellations, and there are many new pesticides
that have not been registered. What is the EPA proposing to do to
insure that the farmers in Colorado will have some form of pesticide to
use to produce their crops before the old ones are removed, and will
they be as cost effective as the old pesticides?
Answer. EPA is committed to making every effort to ensure that
farmers have the critical tools they need to grow our food. EPA wants
all affected growers to be able to anticipate and plan for our actions.
We are balancing tolerance reassessment with the introduction of new
products and pest control methods to help ensure that both chemical and
non-chemical alternatives are available.
EPA has stepped up its efforts to provide better, safer choices for
pesticides for farmers. In the past few years, EPA has created two new
programs aimed at expediting reviews and ultimately market entry of
lower risk products and safer substitutes. The Agency created the
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division. The types of products
registered in this Division generally have a non-toxic mode of action.
By combining the risk managers with the review scientists in one
division, we have been able to streamline the entire review process.
About half of post-Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new active
ingredients have been for biopesticides.
The second program, known as the Reduced-Risk Pesticide Program,
has been in place since 1994. Applications that come in under the
Reduced-Risk Program are placed at the head of the review queue. To
date, 17 new chemicals have been approved as reduced risk alternatives.
This program clearly provides an incentive for companies to develop
lower-risk products and safer substitute products. Among the 13
chemicals currently under review as part of this program, 5 new active
ingredients are potentially significant substitutes for some
organophosphate registered uses for which reviews should be completed
before tolerance reassessment on organophosphate pesticides is
completed. As stated in the Vice President's April 8 memorandum on food
safety, EPA is establishing an advisory process to ensure broad
stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of an
approach to tolerance reassessment for organophosphate pesticides.
In addition, EPA works with USDA on a regular basis to ensure that
the impact of its regulations and decisions on farmers is considered.
EPA and USDA also have a Memorandum of Understanding to foster
cooperative efforts to provide replacements for pesticides that are
likely to be subject to cancellation or suspension by EPA, or are
subject to voluntary cancellation based on risk or economic concerns.
This program is particularly important for minor use crops, such as
fruits and vegetables, which may face a lack of safe and effective pest
management alternatives.
fqpa: delaney clause
Question. When the Food Quality Protection Act was passed, the EPA
said that an extra margin of safety, put in place to protect infants
and children, would be imposed only with evidence of health effects.
But, already the provision has triggered the denial of two
registrations for crop protection products used on cotton, even though
cotton is not a food crop and any chemical applied to it would result
in little, if any, additional food exposure. Is this section of the act
effectively replacing the Delaney clause and zero risk?
Answer. Although the main purpose for producing cotton is to
produce fiber, cotton products such as seed and oil are used in food
products. Also, pesticide residues found on cotton by-products used as
animal feed may end up in meat and milk products. Risks from these
sources cannot be assumed to be inconsequential. These pesticide
residues must meet the same standard as any other pesticide residues
found in food, the Food Quality Protection Act's (FQPA) ``reasonable
certainty of no harm.''
fqpa: hypothetical vs actual pesticide use
Question. Why are decisions being based on unrealistic hypothetical
situations rather than on actual pesticide use?
Answer. EPA uses the best data available and does not base
regulatory decisions on unrealistic, hypothetical situations. The law
anticipates that the Agency would use real world data where available,
and it does. EPA routinely uses monitoring data, field trials and other
data to obtain a more accurate picture of actual use. The Agency also
utilizes data on the actual percent of crop treated, which is often
available. Where data are incomplete, EPA may compensate by using an
additional uncertainty factor or making a reasonable health-protective
assumption. This has long been EPA practice and the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) emphasizes the importance of uncertainty factors
where data are incomplete. Where risk estimates are used, EPA relies on
actual data supplemented with scientifically reviewed models and not on
worst-case assumptions.
regional haze: technical tools
Question. Why didn't EPA include any technical tools in its
regional haze proposal (e.g. to estimate the natural contribution to
visibility impairment; allocate to sources the visibility impairing
material measured in the mandatory Federal class I areas; or to
quantify the ratio of costs and visibility benefits for incremental
emission reductions)?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency believes that many
technical tools are available already to address regional haze, and
further guidance on the use of these tools is currently under
development and expected to be available in time for States to prepare
their control strategies. The availability of technical methods for
visibility monitoring, modeling, and strategy assessment is discussed
in the National Academy of Sciences 1993 report entitled ``Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.'' This report was
discussed in the preamble to EPA's proposed rule. One of the important
findings in this report is that: ``Current scientific knowledge is
adequate and control technologies are available for taking regulatory
action to improve and protect visibility.'' Another important
conclusion is the following:
Visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources
on a regional scale through the use of several kinds of models.
In general, the best approach for evaluating emission sources
is a nested progression from simpler and more direct models to
more complex and detailed methods. The simpler models are
available today and could be used as the basis for designing
regional visibility programs; the more complex models could be
used to refine those programs over time.
In addition, monitoring data has been collected from 1988 to the
present for 30 class I sites under the IMPROVE program. Chemical
composition and trends data is available for each of these sites,
providing important information needed to begin any process to estimate
natural conditions, to perform source attribution studies, and to
conduct modeling analyses. EPA also has a number of technical tools and
guidance under development for implementing the program. The EPA is
funding a significant expansion of the IMPROVE network and has a
visibility monitoring guidance document under development. This
expanded network will help the States, Federal land managers, and EPA
to better estimate natural conditions. The EPA is developing the REMSAD
and MODELS3 regional models which will help the States to estimate fine
particles, their constituents, and the associated visibility levels for
different scenarios. These models will be useful for developing future
control strategies designed to attain the PM-2.5 standards and make
reasonable progress under the regional haze program.
regional haze: funding for regional models
Question. How much money is being allocated by the agency to
develop regional models?
Answer. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) has spent $6.1 million dollars in the latest two fiscal years
(1997 and 1998) to develop regional models for fine particulates and
regional haze. The majority of these funds were spent in the
development of a scientifically advanced, but resource intensive
regional model called MODELS3. A smaller amount of funds were spent in
the development of a less scientifically rigorous and resource
intensive regional model called REMSAD. U.S. EPA has budgeted an
additional $2.3 million in fiscal year 1999 for the development and
evaluation of these two regional models.
regional haze: gcvtc's wrap
Question. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission has
established a successor organization, the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) which includes State and Tribal leaders and Federal
Agencies. The WRAP is struggling to develop many of the technical tools
(e.g. emissions inventories, regional models, etc.) that should have
been developed by EPA. Since the agency has failed to develop these
tools, as required by Congress, should money be diverted from the
agency and directed to the states or to regional organizations such as
the WRAP, especially since these tools will be necessary to implement
the very prescriptive regional haze program by the agency?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency worked closely with the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, the predecessor to the
WRAP, in the application of modeling and assessment tools. The Agency
has more recently developed a regional modeling system and is ready to
work with the WRAP in applying it to their area. The proposed regional
haze program does not require immediate strategies to be adopted by the
States, but rather envisions a period of assessment and strategy
development that is coordinated with implementation of the health
standards. Such time will allow the States and EPA, perhaps through
organizations of like the WRAP, to address all the technical needs in
developing a strategy to make reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal.
regional haze: gcvtc recommendations
Question. Given the fact that the GCVTC states have done a study
and have developed recommendations for improving visibility on the
Colorado Plateau, why didn't the agency indicate in the regional haze
proposal that following through with the Commission's recommendations
would constitute reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency did summarize the
strategies developed by the Commission explicitly in the preamble of
the proposed regional haze rule. The Agency specifically requested
comment on how to address these strategies, which are specific to
certain states and applicable to only 16 of 156 mandatory Federal Class
I areas nationwide, within its national rule. At the time of the
proposal, the Agency did not believe that it would be appropriate to
mandate the GCVTC strategies for all States to follow across the
country in its national rule. The EPA is currently evaluating all
comments received on this issue and intends to be responsive to them in
the final rule.
regional haze: additional improve monitors
Question. Why did the agency instead decide to propose a one
deciview target when that approach was rejected by Congress in 1990?
What are the agency's plans for deploying additional IMPROVE monitors
(especially in urban centers or intermediate transport centers) to fill
the data gaps to validate regional haze models?
Answer. Some comments have characterized the 1 deciview improvement
every 10 or 15 years in the proposed regional haze rule as an absolute
standard, similar to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) air
quality standards. This is not accurate. In the proposal, EPA proposed
to give the States flexibility to propose alternate targets that would
be more suitable to their situation. Because of this flexibility, the
proposed 1 deciview target would not be a mandatory target.
The EPA plans to deploy an additional 78 IMPROVE sites in or near
Federal Class I areas. Twenty additional sites will be established in
1998 and the other 58 in 1999. In addition, visibility-related
information can be derived from PM 2.5 monitors. Fine particles are
principally responsible for visibility impairment and a statistical
relationship exists between fine particle mass and light extinction. In
addition, all PM 2.5 monitors permit at least limited chemical
speciation. Speciated data provides a basis for developing reliable
estimates of seasonal and annual average visibility conditions.
Accordingly, the dense network of PM2.5 monitors which is currently
under development will help identify the extent of regional haze and
contributing sources. Although the monitors will largely be located in
urban areas, the trends in urban air quality and related urban
visibility will help track reductions in regional emissions which are
responsible for impairment of visual range in rural areas. In addition,
many of the PM 2.5 network's regional transport and regional background
monitors are expected to provide the capability for full chemical
speciation. This will supplement the characterization of particles in
rural areas which affect visual range.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
coeur d'alene basin
Question. Can you tell me whether EPA has expanded the site beyond
the 21 square mile ``Superfund Box'' designated by EPA nearly 5 years
ago? If it has been done, can you tell me exactly when that was done
and whether the public was invited to participate in the decision
making process? Please cite the statutory and regulatory authority used
to complete this action and provide the legal reasoning used to apply
this authority to the instant case. Please provide any scientific
evidence used as a basis for EPA action in this area with an
explanation as to how the relied upon evidence supports EPA's action.
Answer. EPA has not ``expanded'' the Bunker Hill site. Pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9605(c), implemented through
the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, EPA listed the
``Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical'' complex on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1983. See 40 C.F.R. Part 300, App. B, Table 1.
In the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) evaluation supporting the NPL
listing, the Bunker Hill facility was described by reference to
releases of hazardous substances in the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene
River, down the Coeur d'Alene River to Coeur d'Alene Lake.
Documentation Records for Hazard Ranking System, Bunker Hill Smelter,
at 10 (June 28, 1982). In accordance with the NCP, the HRS
documentation supporting the Bunker Hill NPL listing was made available
for public comment prior to the final listing in 1983. Public comments
were received from a number of parties, and EPA prepared a written
response to these comments. See EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Support Document for the National Priorities List at 11-3
(Sept. 1983).
Nowhere in the HRS documentation for Bunker Hill is the NPL
facility limited to the 21 square mile ``Superfund box'' commonly known
as the ``Bunker Hill Superfund Site.'' This area was identified by EPA
after the 1983 NPL listing as the priority for EPA's efforts based on
concerns for human health related largely to the areal deposition of
emissions from the lead smelter. Because the original NPL listing for
Bunker Hill was not limited to the ``Superfund box,'' there is no cause
now for formally ``expanding the site.'' There is, however, a need for
determining--with finality--the extent of this contamination, the risks
associated with this contamination, and the actions to address any
identified risks. These determinations will be made through the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) that EPA has begun for
the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The results of this RI/FS will be documented
in a Record of Decision, which will be supported by scientific evidence
and take into account a number of other factors, including cost
effectiveness and community concerns. EPA is currently involved in
developing a community relation plan (CPR) to map out community
involvement.
coeur d'alene: idaho's role
Question. I understood that EPA is committed to work cooperatively
with the state of Idaho and the local community in resolving the issues
associated with the Basin. If that is still true, will EPA allow the
state of Idaho to take a lead role in assessing the level of
remediation that needs to be completed, creating a cleanup plan
acceptable to the local community and facilitating a fair settlement
with the potentially responsible parties? Can EPA act on contaminants
that do not exceed drinking water standards?
Answer. EPA is committed to working cooperatively with the State of
Idaho and the local communities in resolving the issues concerning
mining contamination in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. EPA is also committed
to working cooperatively on these issues with the State of Washington,
the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Forest Service, mining companies, environmental groups, and other
interested parties. Because of the number of parties and complexity of
issues, impacting separate municipal, county, state, tribal, and
Federal jurisdictions, EPA has assumed the lead for conducting the RI/
FS.
An early element of the RI/FS process is the development of a
Community Relations Plan (CRP). See NCP Sec. 300.430(c). In accordance
with the NCP, we are currently conducting community interviews and
organizing public meetings in support of a Basin-wide CRP. The CRP will
undergo public comment and will identify ways that the communities will
be represented throughout this process.
As to drinking water standards, EPA can act on contaminants that do
not exceed drinking water standards. In developing the comprehensive
cleanup plan for the Basin, EPA can and will consider a number of ways
that people and other environmental receptors may be exposed to mining
contamination. Ingestion through drinking water is one of these
pathways. As such, drinking water standards represent just one set of
potentially Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements that
any final cleanup action must often meet, according to CERCLA. Human or
other environmental receptors may also be exposed to contaminants
through other pathways including inhalation (e.g. breathing in
contaminated dust) and dermal exposure (e.g. playing on contaminated
soils). In some cases where health standards are not already set, or
are otherwise inappropriate, EPA may set standards based on the risk
calculated for a particular area. This process is being followed to
determine cleanup levels for lead in residential soils in the Basin.
coeur d'alene: expansion of activities in region
Question. Is EPA expanding its activities in the region because of
a lawsuit?
Answer. EPA is not undertaking its activities in the Coeur d'Alene
Basin because of the Tribe's lawsuit. Under the lawsuit filed by the
U.S. Department of Justice in 1996 concerning the Basin, which includes
claims for EPA's past and future CERCLA response costs, EPA has an
obligation to determine its potential future response costs in the
Basin. EPA decided to satisfy this obligation through an RI/FS because
the RI/FS process by law requires scientific and public involvement,
and can help integrate other environmental programs including natural
resource restoration and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
implementation under the Clean Water Act. Through the RI/FS process,
EPA is now committed to developing a scientifically sound cleanup plan
for the Basin in a reasonable timeframe with the participation of all
interested parties. EPA believes that this cleanup plan may ultimately
serve as the basis for a fair, comprehensive settlement with all
parties involved.
coeur d'alene basin studies
Question. Am I correct in stating that studies costing millions of
dollars have been conducted in the Basin? If so, why can't EPA make a
decision based on the information collected and analyzed to date? What
is it that EPA is looking for? Is EPA simply searching for a problem in
the Basin?
Answer. You are correct that health and environmental studies
costing millions of dollars have been conducted in the Basin. These
studies have been conducted over the years by a range of private
parties, including Gulf Resources, and government agencies, including
EPA, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and the Federal
natural resource trustees. These studies collectively provide a wealth
of data that EPA will use as it assesses the need for further cleanup
actions in the Basin. However, as we indicated to you in our letter
dated March 27, 1998, additional sampling has been and will be
necessary to fully evaluate cleanup needs and alternatives. Beyond this
additional sampling, as we previously indicated, substantial analytical
work must be completed in order to identify the risks implied by these
data and the cleanup actions necessary to address these risks.
Through its RI/FS for the Coeur d'Alene Basin, EPA is looking to
identify those areas of the Basin where mining contamination poses an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. EPA's
responsibilities are not limited to protecting human health. EPA also
has an affirmative responsibility to protect the environment in the
Basin, including the health of fish and wildlife. See 42 U.S.C. 9604(a)
(The President, through EPA, authorized to take any response measure
necessary to protect ``public health or welfare or the environment'').
As just one example, the continuing injuries to waterfowl such as the
tundra swans in wetlands of the lower Basin provide strong indication
that there is an environmental problem demanding EPA's attention. In
conjunction with identifying the extent of the problems in the Basin,
EPA, with public involvement, will be looking for ways to fix these
continuing problems.
coeur d'alene cooperative approach
Question. Will EPA, as lead agency under the CERCLA, require a more
cooperative approach on the part of the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe and
the U.S. Department of Justice?
Answer. As you know, the Department of Justice filed the pending
suit under CERCLA, not only on behalf of EPA, but also on behalf of the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture. By law, the conduct of
litigation is generally reserved to the Department of Justice. 28
U.S.C. Sec. 516. The Tribe has authority as a sovereign to assert
claims for damages to natural resources under CERCLA, and the Tribe
filed a separate lawsuit under this legal authority. Notwithstanding
the independent authorities under which these entities function, EPA
will work to foster cooperation among all interested parties, in order
to produce a comprehensive cleanup plan for the Basin. In order to
facilitate this cooperation, EPA has supported the hiring of a third-
party neutral to assess the relevant issues and make recommendations on
whether and how alternative dispute resolution may be productive.
global climate change: co2 regulations
Question. Has EPA in the past considered, or is it currently
contemplating, regulations that would control emissions of carbon
dioxide? Are you aware of any internal memoranda that discusses or
addresses this issue? Are you aware of any policy or legal memoranda
prepared by EPA, any Department or agency of the Executive Branch, or
any other person or entity within the Administration that either
discusses or addresses this issue?
Answer. The EPA has no current or planned activities to use the
Clean Air Act or any other existing law to propose or promulgate
regulations that place limits on carbon dioxide emissions. The April
10, 1998, EPA legal opinion submitted in response to Congressman
DeLay's request addresses EPA's authority to regulate emissions of
carbon dioxide from electric power generation sources under the Clean
Air Act (see attachment). As the opinion states, the Administrator has
made no determination to exercise that authority. The opinion also
notes that the existing Clean Air Act authorities potentially
applicable to carbon dioxide do not easily lend themselves to
establishing market-based cap-and-trade programs, which the
Administration favors for addressing this kind of pollution problem.
jurisdiction under clean air act
Question. Please provide ALL legal memoranda prepared at any time
by the EPA's Office of the General Counsel that discusses or addresses
the issue whether EPA has jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, or any
other Federal law, to place limits on the emissions of carbon dioxide.
Include any legal memoranda obtained from any Department or agency of
the Executive Branch, or any other person or entity within the
Administration that either discusses or addresses this issue.
Answer. Attached is a legal opinion entitled ``EPA's Authority to
Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources,''
Memorandum from Jonathan Z. Cannon, General Counsel, to Carol M.
Browner, Administrator, April 10, 1998. This is the only legal
memorandum prepared by EPA on this subject.
memorandum
SUBJECT: EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric
Power Generation Sources
FROM: Jonathan Z. Cannon, General Counsel
TO: Carol M. Browner Administrator
i. introduction and background
This opinion was prepared in response to a request from Congressman
DeLay to you on March 11, 1998, made in the course of a fiscal year
1999 House Appropriations Committee Hearing. In the Hearing,
Congressman DeLay referred to an EPA document entitled ``Electricity
Restructuring and the Environment: What Authority Does EPA Have and
What Does It Need.'' Congressman DeLay read several sentences-from the
document stating that EPA currently has authority under the Clean Air
Act (Act) to establish pollution control requirements for four
pollutants of concern from electric power generation: nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide
(CO2), and mercury. He also asked whether you agreed with
the statement, and in particular, whether you thought that the Clean
Air Act allows EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. You agreed
with the statement that the Clean Air Act grants EPA broad authority to
address certain pollutants, including those listed, and agreed to
Congressman DeLay's request for a legal opinion on this point. This
opinion discusses EPA's authority to address all four of the pollutants
at issue in the colloquy, and in particular, CO2, which was
the subject of Congressman DeLay's specific question.
The question of EPA's legal authority arose initially in the
context of potential legislation addressing the restructuring of the
utility industry Electric power generation is a significant source of
air pollution, including the four pollutants addressed here. On March
25, 1998, the Administration announced a Comprehensive Electricity
Competition Plan (Plan) to produce lower prices, a cleaner environment,
increased innovation and government savings. This Plan includes a
proposal to clarify EPA's authority regarding the establishment of a
cost-effective interstate cap and trading system for NOX
reductions addressing the regional transport contributions needed to
attain and maintain the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. The Plan does not ask Congress for authority to
establish a cap and trading system for emissions of carbon dioxide from
utilities as part of the Administration's electricity restructuring
proposal. The President has called for cap-and-trade authority for
greenhouse gases to be in place by 2008, and the Plan states that the
Administration will consider in consultation with Congress the
legislative vehicle most appropriate for that purpose.
As this opinion discusses, the Clean Air Act provides EPA authority
to address air pollution, and a number of specific provisions of the
Act are potentially applicable to control these pollutants from
electric power generation. However, as was made clear in the document
from which Congressman DeLay quoted, these potentially applicable
provisions do not easily lend themselves to establishing market-based
national or regional cap-and-trade programs, which the Administration
favors for addressing these kinds of pollution problems.
ii. clean air act authority
The Clean Air Act provides that EPA may regulate a substance if it
is (a) an ``air pollutant,'' and (b) the Administrator makes certain
findings regarding such pollutant (usually related to danger to public
health, welfare, or the environment) under one or more of the Act's
regulatory provisions.
A. Definition of Air Pollutant
Each of the four substances of concern as emitted from electric
power generating units falls within the definition of ``air pollutant''
under section 302(g). Section 302(g) defines ``air pollutant'' as:
any air pollution agent or combination of such agents,
including any physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive
* * * substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise
enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to
the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent that the
Admmistrator has identified such precursor or precursors for
the particular purpose for which the term ``air pollutant'' is
used.
This broad definition states that ``air pollutant'' includes any
physical chemical, biological, or radioactive substance or matter that
is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. SO2,
NOX, CO2 and mercury from electric power
generation are each a ``physical [and] chemical * * * substance which
is emitted into * * * the ambient air,'' and hence, each is an air
pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also section 103(g) of the Act (authorizes EPA to conduct a
basic research and technology program to develop and demonstrate
nonregulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention,
which shall include among the program elements ``[i]mprovements in
nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing
multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide, and carbon
dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power
plants.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A substance can be an air pollutant even though it is naturally
present in air in some quantities. Indeed, many of the pollutants that
EPA currently regulates are naturally present in the air in some
quantity and are emitted from natural as well as anthropogenic sources.
For example, SO2 is emitted from geothermal sources;
volatile organic compounds (precursors to ozone) are emitted by
vegetation; and particulate matter and NOX are formed from
natural sources through natural processes, such as naturally occurring
forest fires. Some substances regulated under the Act as hazardous air
pollutants are actually necessary in trace quantities for human life,
but are toxic at higher levels or through other routes of exposure.
Manganese and selenium are two examples of such pollutants. EPA
regulates a number of naturally occurring substances as air pollutants,
however, because human activities have increased the quantities present
in the air to levels that are harmful to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
B. EPA Authority to Regulate Air Pollutants
EPA's regulatory authority extends to air pollutants, which, as
discussed above, are defined broadly under the Act and include
SO2, NOX, CO2, and mercury emitted
into the ambient air. Such a general statement of authority is distinct
from an EPA determination that a particular air pollutant meets the
specific criteria for EPA action under a particular provision of the
Act. A number of specific provisions of the Act are potentially
applicable to these pollutants emitted from electric power
generation.\2\ Many of these specific provisions for EPA action share a
common feature in that the exercise of EPA's authority to regulate air
pollutants is linked to a determination by the Administrator regarding
the air pollutants' actual or potential harmful effects on public
health, welfare or the environment. See, e.g., sections 108, 109,
111(b), 112, and 115. See also sections 202(a), 211(c), 231, 612, and
615. The legislative history of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
provides extensive discussion of Congress' purposes in adopting the
language used throughout the Act referencing a reasonable anticipation
that a substance endangers public health or welfare. One of these
purposes was ``[t]o emphasize the preventative or precautionary nature
of the act, i.e. to assure that regulatory action can effectively
prevent harm before it occurs; to emphasize the predominant value of
protection of public health.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st
Sess, at 49 (Report of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce). Another purpose was ``[t]o assure that the health of
susceptible individuals, as well as healthy adults, will be encompassed
in the term `public health,' * * * '' Id. at 50. ``Welfare'' is defined
in section 302(h) of the Act, which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See e.g., section 108 (directs Administrator to list and issue
air quality criteria for each air pollutant that causes or contributes
to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare and that is present in the ambient air due to
emissions from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources);
section 109 (directs Administrator to promulgate national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards for each air pollutant for
which there are air quality criteria, to be set at levels requisite to
protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary
standards) and to protect welfare (secondary standards)); section 110
(requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIP's) to meet
standards); section 111(b) (requires Administrator to list, and set
Federal performance standards for new sources in, categories of
stationary sources that cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare); section 111(d) (states must establish performance
standards for existing sources for any air pollutant (except criteria
pollutants or hazardous air pollutants) that would be subject to a
performance standard if the source were a new source); section 112(b)
(lists 188 hazardous air pollutants and authorizes Administrator to add
pollutants to the list that may present a threat of adverse human
health effects or adverse environmental effects); section 112(d)
(requires Administrator to set emissions standards for each category or
subcategory of major and area sources that the Administrator has listed
pursuant to section 112(c)); section 112(n)(l)(A) (requires
Administrator to study and report to Congress on the public health
hazards reasonably anticipated from emissions of listed hazardous air
pollutants from electric utility steam generating units, and requires
regulation if appropriate and necessary); section 115 (Administrator
may require state action to control certain air pollution if, on the
basis of certain reports, she has reason to believe that any air
pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air
pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare in a foreign country that has given the United States
reciprocal rights regarding air pollution control); Title IV
(establishes cap-and-trade system for control of SO2 from
electric power generation facilities and provides for certain controls
on NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a]ll language referring to effects on welfare includes, but
is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation,
man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and
climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards
to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on
personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by
transformation, conversion, or combination with other air
pollutants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The language in section 302(h) listing specific potential
effects on welfare, including the references to weather and climate,
dates back to the 1970 version of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already regulated SO2, NOX and
mercury based on determinations by EPA or Congress that these
substances have negative effects on public health, welfare, or the
environment. While CO2, as an air pollutant, is within EPA's
scope of authority to regulate, the Administrator has not yet
determined that CO2 meets the criteria for regulation under
one or more provisions of the Act. Specific regulatory criteria under
various provisions of the Act could be met if the Administrator
determined under one or more of those provisions that CO2
emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse
effects on public health, welfare, or the environment.
C. EPA Authority to Implement an Emissions Cap-and-Trade Approach
The specific provisions of the Clean Air Act that are potentially
applicable to control emissions of the pollutants discussed here can
largely be categorized as provisions relating to either state programs
for pollution control under Title I (e.g., sections 107, 108, 109, 110,
115, 126, and Part D of Title I), or national regulation of stationary
sources through technology-based standards (e.g., sections 111 and
112). None of these provisions easily lends itself to establishing
market-based national or regional emissions cap-and-trade programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Title IV of the Act provides explicit authority for a cap and
trade program for SO2 emissions from electric power
generating sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Air Act provisions relating to state programs do not
authorize EPA to require states to control air pollution through
economically efficient cap-and-trade programs and do not provide full
authority for EPA itself to impose such programs. Under certain
provisions in Title I, such as section 110, EPA may facilitate regional
approaches to pollution control and encourage states to cooperate in a
regional, cost-effective emissions cap-and-trade approach (see Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking: Finding of Significant Contribution and
Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone, 62 F.R.
60318 (Nov. 7, 1997)). EPA does not have authority under Title I to
require states to use such measures, however, because the courts have
held that EPA cannot mandate specific emission control measures for
states to use in meeting the general provisions for attaining ambient
air quality standards. See Commonwealth of Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d
1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Under certain limited circumstances where states
fail to carry out their responsibilities under Title I of the Clean Air
Act, EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might include
establishing a cap-and-trade program.\5\ Yet EPA's ability to invoke
these provisions for Federal action depends on the actions or inactions
of the states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, section 110(c) requires EPA to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan where EPA finds that a state has failed to
make a required submission of a SIP or that the SIP or SIP revision
does not satisfy certain minimum criteria, or EPA disapproves the SIP
submission in whole or in part. In addition, section 126 provides that
a State or political subdivision may petition the Administrator for
certain findings regarding emissions from certain stationary sources in
another state. If the Administrator grants the petition, she may
establish control requirements applicable to sources that were the
subject of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology-based standards under the Act directed to stationary
sources have been interpreted by EPA not to allow compliance through
intersource cap-and-trade approaches. The Clean Air Act provisions for
national technology-based standards under sections 111 and 112 require
EPA to promulgate regulations to control emissions of air pollutants
from stationary sources. To maximize the opportunity for trading of
emissions within a source, EPA has defined the term ``stationary
source'' expansively, such that a large facility can be considered a
``source.'' Yet EPA has never gone so far as to define as a source a
group of facilities that are not geographically connected, and EPA has
long held the view that trading across plant boundaries is
impermissible under sections 111 and 112. See, e.g., National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry, 59 Fed. Reg. 19402 at 19425-26 (April 22, 1994)
iii. conclusion
EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act extends to air
pollutants, which, as discussed above, are defined broadly under the
Act and include SO2, NOX, CO2, and
mercury emitted into the ambient air. EPA has in fact already regulated
each of these substances under the Act, with the exception of
CO2. While CO2 emissions are within the scope of
EPA's authority to regulate, the Administrator has made no
determination to date to exercise that authority under the specific
criteria provided under any provision of the Act.
With the exception of the SO2 provisions focused on acid
rain, the authorities potentially available for controlling these
pollutants from electric power generating sources do not easily lend
themselves to establishing market-based national or regional cap-and-
trade programs, which the Administration favors for addressing these
kinds of pollution problems. Under certain limited circumstances, where
states fail to carry out their responsibilities under Title I of the
Act, EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might include
establishing a cap-and-trade program. However, such authority depends
on the actions or inactions of the states
authority to cap co2 emissions
Question. Will you pledge to the Committee that EPA will not seek
any Administration approval to use any existing authority it thinks it
might have to cap carbon dioxide emissions? If not, please explain, in
full and complete technical and legal detail, why you cannot make this
pledge.
Answer. The EPA has no plans to regulate emissions of carbon
dioxide under existing legal authority. EPA's General Counsel noted in
an April 10, 1998, legal opinion that the agency's current legal
authority does not easily lend itself to establishing a broad cap-and-
trade program of this kind.
co2 emissions state regulations
Question. Are you aware of any EPA efforts to discuss with state
governments or urge state governments to regulate, or in some way
control, CO2 emissions? If so, what is being discussed, or
proposed, and what kind of responses are you getting from the states?
What line item in Congressional appropriations to EPA is enabling EPA
to fund this activity?
Answer. EPA does not have any efforts to urge state governments to
regulate CO2 emissions. EPA does, however, have several
ongoing activities with state governments to assist them in voluntarily
reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the 1992 Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Historically, funds have been
appropriated to EPA for Climate Change Action Plan activities through
the Abatement, Control and Compliance and the Environmental Programs
and Management Appropriations.
--EPA has supported voluntary development of climate change action
plans for states through the State and Local Outreach Program,
one of the President's Climate Change Action Plan voluntary
initiatives since 1993. EPA supports these efforts as a means
to increase awareness of climate change and build capacity at
the state level. To date, nine states, out of twenty-four
participating, have completed climate change action plans.
These efforts are consistent with our general international
obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC), which the Senate ratified, to work
toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
--In July 1997, the U.S. EPA began an effort that may provide states
with increased flexibility for meeting the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards at reduced compliance costs, while reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases. EPA has organized a workgroup to
identify and evaluate ways in which accelerated adoption of
energy efficiency and renewable energy in the residential,
commercial and industrial sectors can reduce emissions of
criteria pollutants such as NOX and particulates
while reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released due to
production and use of energy. The workgroup comprises air and
energy program representatives from each of six states
(California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York and
Wisconsin) as well as the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO) and the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators (STAPPA).
--Many of the climate partnership programs, even those that don't
focus on states, work with state governments to help them
voluntarily control their own energy usage and greenhouse gas
emissions through specific projects. These programs work with
the states to achieve the same objectives as with other
partners--profitable investments in technologies that also
reduce emissions. The states' responses to these programs have
been positive. For example, the Energy Star Buildings and Green
Lights program has partnerships with more than 20 states. These
states have already saved over $50 million on their energy
bills while eliminating more than 800 tons of nitrogen oxides
and more than 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
kyoto protocol
Question. Are you aware of any EPA sponsored or co-sponsored public
events, conferences, seminars, workshops, or town hall type meetings
that include agendas or agenda items that encourage discussion of
global climate change issues? If so, under what legal authority are
these events being held, and what line item in the Congressional
appropriations to EPA is enabling EPA to participate in, or conduct
this activity? Please submit a list of all of these types of public
events, and include copies of the agendas, the type of notice used to
inform the public or portions of the public, and any list of speakers
with their titles and credentials. Also include in that response an
explanation of efforts made to make those events open and the speaker
list balanced in point of view?
Answer. EPA is conducting climate change outreach activities in
fulfillment of its commitment under the 1992 Framework Convention on
Climate Change (Rio Treaty), as well as our broader obligation to
educate the public about the environment. These activities are
authorized under section 103 (a), (b) and (g) of the Clean Air Act,
section 102(2)(F) of the National Environmental Policy Act, and section
1103 of the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987. These efforts are
designed to educate the American public about the science, economics,
diplomacy, and technology regarding global warming. These efforts have
been under way since fiscal year 1996 and are consistent with U.S.
obligations under the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, as
ratified by the Senate.
Article 6 of the Convention specifically states the following:
In carrying out their commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(i),
the Parties shall:
(a) Promote and facilitate at the national and, as appropriate,
subregional and regional levels, and in accordance with national laws
and regulations, and within their respective capacities:
--(i) the development and implementation of educational and public
awareness programs on climate change and its effects;
--(ii) public access to information on climate change and its
effects;
--(iii) public participation in addressing climate change and its
effects and developing adequate responses.
These activities are focused on providing information on the
science of global climate change and engaging in a public dialogue on
climate change issues. The specific objectives of our conferences are:
(1) to inform the public and policy makers on the science of global
warming and policy issues affecting global climate change; (2) to
provide an opportunity for stakeholders, including state and local
governments, business, industry, public health agencies, community
organizations, academic and scientific institutions, and other
concerned constituents to learn about the state of global climate
change science; (3) to provide a balanced perspective on the potential
risks of climate change--both economic and environmental; (4) to
identify strategies to reduce the risks associated with climate change;
and (5) to identify innovative opportunities for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
EPA regional conferences are open to the public (see attached
announcements) and our speakers represent both sides of the climate
change debate. Attached, for your review, are the conference agendas
which include a list of speakers and their credentials.
kyoto protocol: john heinz foundation
Question. Are you aware of any efforts on the part of the John
Heinz Foundation (or Center) to design one or more legislative or
regulatory programs that would enable or assist the United States to
achieve compliance with the Kyoto Protocol? Is EPA involved in any way
with this project--either by detailing staff to assist the Foundation
(or Center) with this task, or by providing funds either directly or
indirectly through grants or other methods of financial support, or by
providing guidance through technical or legal advice?
Answer: The Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
is conducting an effort to examine the design issues associated with
alternative emission trading programs. The President has proposed a
domestic emissions trading system to begin by 2068, after a decade of
experience in reducing emissions. Efforts such as the Heinz Center's
contribute to an informed public debate. The project is receiving
funding from EPA, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Vira I.
Heinz Endowment. The EPA funding is in the form of a cooperative
agreement. No EPA staff have been detailed to the Heinz Center to
support this effort. However, two EPA staff serve on a 15 member panel
that meets periodically to provide technical input on the Heinz Center
Effort. Other panel members are from academic institutions, private
industry, environmental groups, and the Department of Energy. No legal
advice is provided by EPA.
kyoto protocol: proposal for legislation
Question. Has EPA been asked by any Department, agency of the
Executive Branch, interagency body, or any other person or entity
within the Administration to develop potential proposals for
legislation or regulations that would be intended to facilitate
compliance by the United States with the Kyoto Protocol if the Protocol
ever were to become binding on this nation? If so, please tell me which
of the entities mentioned above made such a request and when the
request was made.
Answer. No, EPA has not been asked to develop any such proposals.
regional haze: visibility monitoring network
Question. How adequate is the existing monitoring network for
measuring visibility in all class I areas?
Answer. There are currently 58 class I areas that have monitoring
to measure PM-2.5 concentrations for visual air quality and other
related data. Of the 156 class I areas, 98 do not currently have any
monitoring. When the planned expansion is complete, EPA expects
coverage to be generally representative of all mandatory class I
Federal areas. It is expected that in several locations, one monitoring
site can represent regional conditions in more than one class I area
due to the close proximity of some of the class I areas. EPA is working
with the States and Federal land managers to better define these
``representative site'' relationships.
Question. How much is EPA requesting for visibility monitoring in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. EPA has identified the need for $3.14 million as part of
section 103 State grant dollars. This is in addition to $1.25 million
from section 105 State grants. The total is $4.39 million.
Question. How much total Federal funding will be required to ensure
that the States are not left to pick up the tab for visibility
monitoring?
Answer. Seventy-eight new visibility sites in or near Federal class
I areas are planned for deployment in 1998 and 1999. The estimated
costs are $2.47 million for 1998 ($1.22 million to be funded with State
section 103 dollars), and $4.39 million for 1999 (103 and 105 dollars).
Starting in the year 2000, approximately $3.6 million per year will
be needed for the expanded network of 108 visibility sites. The States
would not be expected to provide any funding for visibility monitoring
in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Isn't there some way that EPA can coordinate these
regulations and their time lines so as to integrate the monitoring
programs?
Answer. Section 169B of the Clean Air Act calls for State to submit
an Implementation Plan (SIP) on year from the promulgation of the
regional haze regulation. Recent legislation has changed that one-year
SIP submittal requirement to a varying schedule which is tied to
designations of areas as attainment or unclassifiable for PM-2.5 or to
plan revisions needed to address nonattainment areas. In the proposal
EPA had established a schedule of commitments under the one-year SIP
requirement which envisioned States developing control strategies in
coordination with plan requirements for PM-2.5. The recent legislation
is intended to authorize EPA to directly coordinate these SIP
requirements. As with the original proposal, EPA's intent continues to
be one of coordinating regional haze rule SIP control strategies dates
with those for PM-2.5 implementation.
regional haze: visibility research
Question. In 1990, Congress required EPA to undertake research
before it conducted a rulemaking to impose regional haze requirements
on the country. Congress authorized $40 million for EPA's visibility
research, but EPA's budget for visibility research was negligible. The
Clean Air Act required the Administrator to report on its research
findings and assessment results. After a court ordered EPA to produce
its report, didn't EPA prepare a paper on visibility research?
Answer. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the
``Interim Findings on the Status of Visibility Research'' report (EPA/
600/R-95/021) in February 1995.
Question. How much money has EPA spent on visibility research since
1990, and what has EPA learned from that research?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has spent
approximately $18.5 million on collection of visibility data, analysis
of that data, and other related visibility research. This amount does
not include the significant resources spent development new regional
modeling platforms capability of integrating ozone, fine particulate
matter and visibility strategy assessment. The major of the
approximately $18.5 million directly spent on visibility has been for
monitoring in mandatory Class I Federal areas, and in some eastern
areas to provide a network of visibility data. Other monies were
expended to assist the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
directly analyze visibility protection strategies. In addition, the EPA
has spent approximately $6.1 million on development of regional
particulate models.
The basic results of what EPA has learned is presented in the table
below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.020
regional haze: visibility monitoring tools
Question. Has EPA published the visibility monitoring, modeling,
and assessment tools as required by section 169A(a)(3) for the regional
haze rule?
Answer. Section 169A(3) called for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to complete within 18 months of enactment of section 169A
a study and report to Congress describing available methods for
visibility monitoring, modeling, and assessment of strategies to make
progress toward the national goal of remedying existing and preventing
future visibility impairment. Section 169A was enacted as part of the
1977 Amendments. This report was issued by EPA in October 1979 and is
entitled ``Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress'' (EPA-450/
5-79-008).
The availability of technical methods for visibility monitoring,
modeling, and strategy assessment is also discussed in the National
Academy of Sciences 1993 report entitled ``Protecting Visibility in
National Parks and Wilderness Areas.'' One of the important findings in
this report is that: ``Current scientific knowledge is adequate and
control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to
improve and protect visibility.'' Another important conclusion is the
following:
Visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources
on a regional scale through the use of several kinds of models.
In general, the best approach for evaluating emission sources
is a nested progression from simpler and more direct models to
more complex and detailed methods. The simpler models are
available today and could be used as the basis for designing
regional visibility programs; the more complex models could be
used to refine those programs over time.
visibility rule: technology requirements
Question. The proposed visibility rule contains ``presumptive''
targets and technology requirements that the States have the burden of
overcoming. Doesn't this rule Federalize a program that Congress asked
the States to implement?
Answer. The proposed rule would not dictate to States either a
Federal standard or a set of control requirements for any particular
set of sources. Rather, it proposed a presumptive target which States
were called on to evaluate in light of their particular visibility
circumstances, to establish alternative targets if appropriate, and to
decide on the appropriate mix of measures which would be needed to meet
those targets. As such, the program sought to preserve State autonomy
while addressing the specific mandates established by sections 169A and
169B. The Environmental Protection Agency received comments during the
public comment period concerning the appropriate degree of flexibility
that should be accorded under the rule and is currently considering and
preparing its responses to those comments.
regional haze: unfunded mandate on states
Question. Now that EPA has asked the States to rebut the Federal
presumptions, without providing the tools to generate the data needed
to rebut those presumptions, States will have to incur a significant
expense if they want to adopt alternative approaches that better suit
their needs. Don't the presumptions in the regional haze rule amount to
a new and unnecessary unfunded mandate on States?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not believe
the presumptions in the proposed rule amount to an unfunded mandate for
a number of reasons. First, EPA will continue to provide Federal funds
to States under authority of the Clean Air Act to be used for
implementation of air quality programs, including the regional haze
program. In addition, EPA expects that funding for the PM and regional
haze programs can be efficiently used since certain planning activities
for implementation of the PM-2.5 and regional haze programs can be
integrated, as recommended by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and
its Subcommittee on Ozone, PM, and Regional Haze. Second, EPA is
funding the development of important technical information, tools, and
guidance, such as monitoring network expansions and the ability to
model particulate matter and regional haze, needed by States to analyze
alternate targets. Third, the proposed rule would provide flexibility
to the States in adopting presumptive versus alternate targets, and it
allows the states to take into account several criteria, including
costs, in setting any alternate target. EPA intends to provide further
guidance to the States in conducting such analyses.
visibility: revision of 1993 assessment
Question. In 1992 the EPA was supposed to project the visibility
improvements in Class I areas that would result from the implementation
of the 1990 amendments. Every five years thereafter, the Act required
EPA to assess the actual progress made on the visual air quality of the
Class I areas. Has EPA revised its 1993 assessment of visibility
improvement resulting from other sections of the Clean Air Act?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency fulfilled its initial
obligations under section 169B(b) in October 1993 by publishing a
report entitled ``Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on
Visibility in class I Areas: An EPA Report to Congress.'' The
subsequent reports required by section 169B do not call for a revision
to this broader assessment, but rather a review of actual progress and
improvements in visibility.
Question. Did EPA's 1993 assessment take the recent NAAQS revisions
into account?
Answer. No; at the time the 1993 report was prepared, the
Environmental Protection Agency did not have information about the
recent revisions to the NAAQS. However, the effects of implementing the
standards were taken into account in the draft regulatory impact
analysis prepared for the proposed regional haze rule.
Question. Shouldn't we have the latest data on the progress being
made by the rest of the Act before we create a new visibility
regulatory program?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that
there is ample scientific evidence at this time to justify fulfilling
its commitment made in 1980 to develop a regional haze program. The EPA
will be encouraging the development of regional planning organizations
that will take an integrated approach to ozone, PM-fine, and regional
haze planning. Accordingly, no regional haze planning effort should
take place that does not fully consider the impacts of all other Clean
Air Act programs before making a ``reasonable progress'' decision for
regional haze.
Question. How long would it take and how much would it cost to
update this research?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency has not prepared an
estimate of the cost or time required to prepare such an update.
However, because States would be permitted and encouraged under the
proposed rule to coordinate their planning and control strategies with
the requirements of other programs, such as the PM2.5 standards and
acid rain control programs, EPA does not believe that such an update
would serve any useful purpose.
regional haze: transport commission
Question. Should EPA establish Transport Commissions in other
regions of the country before those regions have to implement any
regional haze rules?
Answer. No. As set forth in section 169B(d) of the CAA, the duties
of a visibility transport commission are to assess available
information regarding visibility and to issue a report to EPA
containing recommendations addressing: (1) the establishment of clean
air corridors, (2) the imposition of New Source Review requirements for
new and modified major sources in such corridors, and (3) the
promulgation of regulations to address long-term strategies for
addressing regional haze. If a Commission is established, there is no
requirement that the result be a long-term regional haze strategy for
the region. The EPA believes that integrated efforts by regional
planning bodies are needed to develop the long-range strategies.
However, because there is a critical need for States to coordinate
efforts to address long-range transport of PM 2.5 and ozone precursors,
as well as visibility impairment, EPA does not believe that visibility
transport commissions are the best approach to achieving this regional
coordination.
Question. Otherwise, aren't we putting the cart before the horse?
Answer. No; as explained above, the required statutory duties of a
visibility transport commission under section 169B(d) are limited and
do not include a requirement to develop a long-term strategy to address
regional haze. EPA does not believe regional transport commissions are
either a necessary or appropriate means to address the need for
integrated regional planning to meet visibility, PM 2.5 and ozone
planning and implementation goals. Nonetheless, EPA continues to
encourage and support the concept of multi-state planning organizations
to carry out needed strategy planning and assessments.
regional haze: inadequate record
Question. Without the statutorily mandated research, models, and
studies, and without the reports from other visibility transport
commissions, doesn't EPA have an inadequate record on which to build
its proposed regional haze rules? If you disagree with that assessment,
please provide a detailed explanation.
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes it has
an adequate record on which to base the proposed regional haze rule.
The EPA has issued the reports required in section 169B on interim
research findings and the estimated effects of the 1990 Amendments on
Class I areas. The EPA also established the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission and considered their recommendations in the
development of the proposed rule. The EPA has worked cooperatively with
the States and Federal land managers since 1988 to conduct monitoring
in class I areas to characterize current visibility conditions, trends,
and the principal PM-2.5 components leading to haze formation in all
regions of the country. Scientific studies and modeling have shown that
fine particulate matter, the principal cause of visibility impairment,
can be transported for several days over hundreds of kilometers. In
addition, the National Academy of Sciences 1993 report entitled
``Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas''
concluded that ``Current scientific knowledge is adequate and control
technologies are available for taking regulatory action to improve and
protect visibility.'' Thus, EPA believes there is sufficient evidence
supporting the Agency's decision to move forward with the regional haze
program at this time.
bart: unfunded mandate on states
Question. If States have to undertake their own research in order
to apply for alternative targets or alternatives to BART (Best
Available Retrofit Technology) controls, doesn't this rule and the lack
of available data impose a huge unfunded mandate on States? If you
disagree, please provide a detailed explanation.
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not believe
the proposed rule imposes an unfunded mandate for a number of reasons.
First, EPA will continue to provide Federal funds to States under
authority of the Clean Air Act to be used for implementation of air
quality programs, including the regional haze program. In addition, EPA
expects that funding for the PM and regional haze programs can be
efficiently used since certain planning activities for implementation
of the PM-2.5 and regional haze programs can be integrated, as
recommended by the FACA Subcommittee on Ozone, PM, and Regional Haze.
Second, EPA is funding the development of important technical
information, tools, and guidance, such as monitoring network expansions
and the ability to model particulate matter and regional haze, needed
by States to analyze alternate targets. Third, the proposed rule
provides flexibility to the States in adopting presumptive versus
alternate targets, and it allows the states to take into account
several criteria, including costs, in setting any alternate target or
alternate levels of BART controls. The EPA intends to provide guidance
to the States in conducting such analyses.
alternative targets: costs for states
Question. How much money will states need to complete an adequate
record to establish alternative targets or controls?
Answer. The cost of analyses to establish reasonable progress goals
will depend on a number of factors, including the outcome of the final
rulemaking for regional haze, the degree of impairment of visibility in
each area, and the extent to which other programs are expected to
provide significant visibility benefits. Thus it is not possible to
provide an estimate of such costs at this time.
regional haze: emissions from federal facilities
Question. Under the proposed Regional Haze rule, would emissions
from Federal facilities--such as a utility power plant or a boiler at a
military base--be subject to State regulation to the same extent as
emissions from private sector facilities?
Answer. As required by section 118 of the Act, if a State air
quality regulation affects a given type of source within its
jurisdiction, Federal facilities having that type of source must comply
with the State regulations to the same extent as any nongovernmental
entity. Emissions from Federal facilities such as utility power plants
fall within the scope of this requirement.
Question. If not, please provide a detailed explanation why not. If
so, does the same hold true for Federal land managers?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency believes that Federal
Land Managers having emission sources of the type that are covered by
State air quality regulations must comply to the same extent as private
sector entities.
regional haze: regulators for park and forest services
Question. Will the Park Service and the Forest Service be subject
to regulation to the same extent as States and the private sector for
activities like road construction and proscribed burning?
Answer. If the State develops regulations that impose requirements
for road construction and prescribed burning that all sources in a
given area of the State must comply with, the Environmental Protection
Agency believes that the Park Service and the Forest Service would be
required by section 118 to comply with those regulations to the same
extent as nongovernmental entities.
visibility: natural vs man-made sources
Question. How does EPA propose to distinguish ``natural'' sources
of visibility impairment from ``man-made'' sources?
Answer. Some effort has already distinguished between natural and
man-made sources, e.g., the modeling inventories created for the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group considered biogenic emissions of ozone
precursors. Since the Clean Air Act does not require that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations be designed to
eliminate all visibility impairment, but only that which is ``man-
made,'' the impacts of such emissions on visibility will be used to
adjust the extent of improvement in visibility that would be needed to
meet reasonable progress goals and, ultimately, to meet the CAA goal of
no man-made impairment. The EPA recognizes that there are technical
issues concerning some types of sources, e.g., naturally-occurring
wildfires and prescribed fires to reduce their frequency and severity,
which will require further efforts. The EPA is working with other
Federal agencies to develop methods and policies for distinguishing
between these types of sources in the calculation of the needed degree
of improvement.
visibility: regulation of private sector
Question. In late April 1998, Boise, Idaho was blanketed by smoke
from a Forest Service prescribed burn. The proposed rule suggests that
EPA will assess the average visibility of the 20 percent most impaired
days, regardless of the source of the impairment. How does the proposed
rule ensure that States will not have to over-regulate private sector
sources to make up for an unusually bad fire season?
Answer. It is important to note that the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule calls for the establishment of
reasonable progress targets which call for improvement over a period of
10-15 years. Thus, while air quality impacts during one or more years
during that period may impact the calculations of progress, the
determination is to be based on what is achieved over the long-term
period, not annually. The EPA believes that this significantly reduces
the likelihood that a bad fire season could result in failure to
achieve reasonable progress goals. Additionally, the proposed rule
calls for States to evaluate the nature of visibility impairment and to
develop reasonable progress targets and control strategies which are
responsive to the nature and extent of the problem. These targets and
strategies must address the natural role of fire for the region. Thus
private sector stationary sources will not be asked to compensate for
fire emissions from a bad fire season. If impairment is principally
caused by a particular type of source or sources, it is reasonable to
expect States to focus their attention on actions to reduce the impacts
of those sources.
regional haze: moa for idaho
Question. If Idaho had a memorandum of agreement with the Federal
land managers, what recourse would Idaho have against the Federal
Government for fires that impair visibility?
Answer. First, Federal Land Managers have entered into memoranda of
understanding with a number of State air quality planning agencies to
demonstrate and carry out their commitment to working with States to
improve air quality. These agreements are intended to minimize the
instances in which States would need to seek such recourse. Whether or
not the State of Idaho had a memorandum of agreement with Federal land
managers, however, section 118(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act) generally
requires Federal agencies to comply with Idaho air quality control laws
in the same manner as those laws apply to nongovernmental entities.
Moreover, sections 118(a) and 304 of the Act permit suit against a
Federal Agency for injunctive relief to remedy violations of air
quality control laws.
Question. Can the Federal Government waive any immunity (if any
exists) from state enforcement measures on visibility impairment in a
memorandum of agreement with the states?
Answer. The Supreme Court has held that any waiver of sovereign
immunity by the Federal Government must be unequivocally expressed in
statutory text. Therefore, a Federal Land Manager cannot waive any
sovereign immunity defenses that are not expressly waived by statute.
regional haze: state road projects
Question. If the regional haze rule becomes final, will States have
to submit their road projects to an additional level of bureaucratic
review by the Park Service or Forest Service to assess regional haze
impacts, and could the Park Service or Forest Service stop highway
construction?
Answer. The proposed rule does not impose control requirements for
any particular set of emission sources, including highways, but leaves
decisions concerning the appropriate degree of control for each
category to the States to address in their implementation planning
processes. Moreover, while the rule requires coordination and
consultation with the appropriate Federal land managers, it does not
establish a new concurrence function by which Federal Land Managers
would review and approve or disapprove State highway projects. Rather,
States are called on by the rule to evaluate all sources whose
emissions could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in the mandatory Federal Class I areas, including
projections of emissions growth, and select an appropriate mix of
measures to provide for reasonable progress in improving visibility.
Thus, while they will need to consider the impact of mobile source
emissions on visual air quality, the proposed rule does not impose any
specific requirements for mobile source or transportation emissions
control, nor does it provide new provisions for Federal Land Manager
review of transportation projects.
Question. Will road building projects by the Park Service and
Forest Service be subject to similar review by the States?
Answer. In compiling inventories of current and projected
emissions, States will need to consult with Federal land managers to
ensure that emissions from activities on Federal lands, including new
roads, are accounted for. The consultation called for under the
proposed rule is expected to include consideration of the need for
actions on Federal lands to contribute to visibility improvement.
visibility transport: proposed rule
Question. Doesn't the proposed rule look a lot more like the
Federalized program that Congress rejected than the State-lead program
that Congress adopted?
Answer. The proposed rule does not dictate to States either a
Federal standard or a set of control requirements for any particular
set of sources. Rather, it proposed a presumptive target which States
were called on to evaluate in light of their particular visibility
circumstances, to establish alternative targets if appropriate, and to
decide on the appropriate mix of measures which would be needed to meet
those targets. As such, the program sought to preserve State autonomy
while addressing the specific mandates established by sections 169A and
169B. The Environmental Protection Agency received comments during the
public comment period concerning the appropriate degree of flexibility
that should be accorded under the rule and is currently considering and
preparing its responses to those comments.
bart: provide tools for states
Question. Isn't it true that in order for States to use alternative
approaches to the presumptive visibility target and BART (Best
Available Retrofit Technology) they bear the burden of proof, yet EPA
has not fulfilled its statutory job to provide the analytical tools
necessary for States to do so? A clarifying example is that EPA failed
to produce the 5 year update to the study on the visibility
improvements from other CAA provisions as required by section
169(B)(b). Please provide a detailed explanation if you disagree with
my assessment.
Answer. In establishing their reasonable progress targets and any
specific controls for sources affected by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for BART, States will need to provide justifications for
their decisions which address the analytical factors set out in CAA
sections 169A(g) (1) and (2). The availability of technical methods for
visibility monitoring, modeling, and strategy assessment is discussed
in the National Academy of Sciences 1993 report entitled ``Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.'' One of the
important findings in this report is that: ``Current scientific
knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking
regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.'' Another
important conclusion is the following:
Visibility impairment can be attributed to emission sources
on a regional scale through the use of several kinds of models.
In general, the best approach for evaluating emission sources
is a nested progression from simpler and more direct models to
more complex and detailed methods. The simpler models are
available today and could be used as the basis for designing
regional visibility programs; the more complex models could be
used to refine those programs over time.
The EPA intends to provide the necessary additional technical tools
and further guidance to assist States in fulfilling their obligations
under the rule. As proposed, the rule would not require States to
establish reasonable progress targets or specific BART requirements in
the plans which the CAA requires to be submitted 12 months after the
rule is promulgated. Rather, those elements would be due to EPA in
future SIP revisions. The EPA intends to work directly with the States
as it develops needed additional guidance. As EPA has noted previously,
section 169B(b) requires EPA to assess and report on actual progress
and improvement in visibility, and does not require EPA to conduct
further studies of visibility improvements from other Clean Air Act
provisions.
waste isolation pilot plant (wipp)
Question. I have had the opportunity to speak before with EPA about
the importance of opening the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico, for the disposal of this nation's transuranic waste. I was
pleased when the EPA released its proposed certification for WIPP last
October--a determination that WIPP will meet environmental standards
and that WIPP will operate safely as a disposal site.
I am concerned, however, that in its rulemaking, EPA proposed a new
role for itself--requiring that EPA perform individual certifications
of each waste generator site, such as the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory. You also propose to have a public comment
period on each site certification, which will last at least 30 days.
I, along with Senator Dirk Kempthorne and Congressman Mike Crapo,
have corresponded with you on this issue, but I would like to hear from
the Administrator now, on why EPA believes an additional hurdle is
appropriate and what statute grants EPA the authority to regulate DOE
waste site in this manner.
Please provide a complete and detailed explanation that supports
EPA's position on this matter.
Answer. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) requires EPA to, inter
alia, develop, through informal rulemaking pursuant to Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), criteria by which to certify
whether the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal
regulations at 40 CFR Part 191 [Section 8(c)], and utilize such
criteria to certify, through APA Section 4 informal rulemaking, whether
the WIPP will comply with such regulations. [Section 8(d)(2)]. Thus,
EPA has a legal obligation to utilize the compliance criteria in its
determination of whether the WIPP will comply with the 40 CFR Part 191
disposal regulations. The quality assurance (QA) and waste
characterization conditions imposed upon EPA's certification that the
WIPP will comply with the Part 191 regulations reflect the fact that
DOE did not fully demonstrate compliance with Sections 194.22(a)(2)(I),
194.24(c)(3), 194.24(c)(4), and 194.24(c)(5) of the compliance
criteria.
EPA is legally required to determine whether DOE has met the
requirements of the compliance criteria. Under 40 CFR 194.22(a)(2)(I),
DOE is required to demonstrate that a quality assurance program in
accordance with Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) standards, has been
``established and executed'' for waste characterization activities and
assumptions. Also, under Section 194.24(c)(3-5), DOE is required to
provide information that demonstrate the following: (1) that use of
process knowledge to quantify waste components meets the requirements
of Section 194.22(a)(2)(I); (2) that a system of controls has been and
will continue to be implemented to confirm that the total amounts of
waste components to be emplaced at WIPP will not exceed the established
limits under Section 194.24(c); and (3) that such system of controls
meets the quality assurance requirements of Section 194.22(a)(2)(I). As
set forth in the certification, EPA has determined that the only site
at which DOE has met these specific quality assurance and waste
characterization requirements is for the process used to characterize
legacy debris waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Thus, EPA finds that it is both necessary and within the Agency's
authority to evaluate and approve site-specific QA and waste
characterization programs. The compliance criteria expressly provide
that any certification of compliance ``may include such conditions as
[EPA] finds necessary to support such certification.'' [Section
194.4(a)]. Before waste is shipped for disposal at the WIPP, EPA must
be confident that the waste will conform to the waste limits and other
waste-related assumptions incorporated in the performance assessment--
that is, that the information and assumptions on which a certification
of compliance is based will be adhered to in practice. Such confidence
can be assured only by confirmation that the required QA and waste
characterization programs are in place (i.e., established and
implemented/executed) at waste generator sites. EPA believes that an
approval process separate from DOE's internal procedures is critical
because DOE's process is not geared solely at confirming that programs
adhere to EPA's compliance criteria, and because DOE's process does not
provide for public participation.
EPA believes that its site approval process is not redundant and
has different regulatory objectives from DOE's certification process.
EPA's main objective is to assess compliance with the applicable
certification criteria. Waste generator sites produce relevant
information on waste components that is critical to the performance of
the WIPP disposal facility. The predictions made by the performance
assessments, which are the basis for compliance with the radioactive
disposal standards, set up limits on waste components that are fixed
throughout the duration of this certification. Waste characterization
activities will generate critical information on the amount of waste
components comprising the various waste streams to be emplaced at WIPP.
Evaluation of waste characterization and quality assurance activities,
waste analysis procedures, waste characterization instrumentation and
techniques, etc., are of paramount importance in determining whether
DOE has the ability to adhere to the identified waste component limits.
Consequently, prior to approving shipment of transuranic wastes from a
waste generator site for emplacement at WIPP, EPA will assess whether
DOE has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Sections
194.22(a)(2)(I) and 194.24(c) (3)-(5). DOE's certification process, on
the other hand, is part of DOE's internal activities, offers no access
to the public in regard to information gathered during such activities,
and includes a number of evaluations which are not relevant to EPA
regulatory objectives (e.g., transportation requirements, etc). The
focus of DOE's certification process do not meet EPA's regulatory
objectives, nor do they provide the external oversight of DOE that is
the purpose of the LWA.
EPA believes that it has developed a process for approving QA and
waste characterization processes at waste generator sites which will
fulfill the Agency's requirement to determine DOE's compliance with
Section 194.22(a)(2)(I) and 194(c) (3)-(5) while providing the public
an opportunity to comment on these activities. For most generator
sites, this process involves a thirty day public comment period and an
inspection of a DOE audit. EPA is committed to completing these
activities in an expeditious manner.
fqpa: guarantee sound science
Question. In your April 10th memorandum to the Vice President, you
pledge to apply sound science to all FQPA related decisions. What steps
have you taken, or plan to take, to guarantee this to be the case?
Answer. EPA is confident that its policies and procedures since the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), have been based in sound science.
To ensure that these policies and procedures are independently
reviewed, the Agency has called on the expertise of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP), the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), the Endocrine
Disruptors Screening and Testing Advisory Committee, the Food Safety
Advisory Committee, and the recently formed Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee. Since FQPA was signed into law, EPA has made FQPA-
related presentations at six SAP meetings, on topics such as the FQPA
safety factor, common mechanism of toxicity and cumulative effects, and
drinking water exposure methods. ILSI has also assisted the Agency on
common mechanism and drinking water exposure. EPA's Administrator also
formed an internal review group to look at the scientific soundness of
some aspects of FQPA implementation. Attached is a chart outlining some
of our activities in this area.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.022
Question. What type of scientific review will be performed to judge
the ``soundness'' of EPA's science?
Answer. Many of EPA's science decisions go through the SAP and
specific policies are often shared with independent groups such as the
International Life Sciences Institute. In the specific case of
designing screening and testing procedures for endocrine disruptors,
the Agency has used the Endocrine Disruptors Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (formed of independent scientists from various
disciplines) and has also consulted both the SAP and the
Administrator's Science Advisory Board and will publicly propose the
final procedures.
fqpa: advisory groups criteria
Question. I am interested in EPA's plan to establish an advisory
group on FQPA issues and was pleased to learn that a number of
commodity organizations will be represented on it. However, EPA plans
call for the group to number somewhere between 45 and 50 people. When
will you be prepared to announce the members of the advisory group, and
what criteria are you using to determine membership?
Answer. Attached is a list of the membership of the newly formed
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee. Members were selected under
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and approved by Fred
Hansen, Deputy Administrator of EPA and Richard Rominger, Deputy
Secretary of USDA. Members were chosen based on their relevant
experience and diversity of perspectives. Membership was balanced
between: environmental and public interest groups; pesticide industry
and trade associations; user, grower and commodity organizations;
pediatric and public health organizations; Federal agencies, tribal,
state, and local governments; academia; and consumer groups.
Question. How will such a large group ever come to any concrete
conclusion?
Answer. The Advisory Committee provides a forum for discussing many
of the issues involved in FQPA implementation. Given the variety of
viewpoints represented, it may not be possible to reach consensus on
all of the issues. The discussion itself, however, will assist the
Agency in its deliberations and will allow for greater consultation
with the regulated community and interested parties.
Question. How will issues be decided if not everyone agrees with a
decision?
Answer. The Advisory Committee process is an important part of
EPA's effort to consult stakeholders. The results of the meetings will
be considered in connection with the other information available to the
Agency when developing policies and procedures. EPA is the final
arbiter of what policies it adopts.
Question. What stock will be given to the advisory group's
recommendations by EPA, and how will EPA be accountable to follow them?
Answer. Again, recommendations will be considered in connection
with other information available to the Agency. Any recommendations the
committee may have will be seriously considered and will play an
important role in shaping EPA's approach to reassessing tolerances.
Question. Will the advisory group's recommendations be published,
will there be a final report?
Answer. There will be a final report following the last Advisory
Committee meeting. In addition, after each Committee meeting, a summary
of the discussion will be prepared. The report and summary documents
will be posted on EPA's Web Page and placed in a publicly available
pesticide docket. Broader distribution will be considered and may be
discussed by the Committee.
Question. What issues do you expect the advisory group to take up,
what of the issues not addressed during the groups 4 meetings?
Answer. The Advisory Committee will focus on the pending tolerance
reassessment of organophosphates but its input will be used to shape
the broader tolerance reassessment process. Some of the specific issues
that will be addressed by the Committee include: advice on developing
an appropriate process for making tolerance reassessment decisions
under FQPA; recommending the proper policy framework for deciding when
there is adequate scientific information, when new information is
needed, and when it is scientifically appropriate to use estimates in
the absence of actual measurements; recommend ways to increase the pace
of decision-making to make available to growers newer and safer
pesticides and new uses of registered pesticides that meet the FQPA
standard; developing strategies for reducing risk to acceptable levels
while retaining those pesticides of the highest public value, and
identifying opportunities for reasonable transition mechanisms;
assuring that appropriate priority is given to assessing pesticides
that are most likely to lead to exposure in children's foods; fostering
improved communication and understanding among stakeholders; and
assuring appropriate public participation in Agency decision making.
This group will largely be providing advice on broad policy issues;
it is not a technical, scientific advisory group. As a result, we do
not anticipate that it will consider, or make recommendations on,
scientific and technical issues. EPA will continue to use independent
scientific panels such as the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)/
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to solicit this type of detailed
technical review.
______
Consultation Opportunities Attachment to ``At a Glance'' Table
federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act
scientific advisory panel (fifra sap)
background documents concerning fqpa
October 29-30, 1996 FIFRA SAP meeting
Metabolism Guidelines
Requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act: Additional
Uncertainty Factor for Developmental/Reproductive Endpoints
Developmental and Reproductive Guidelines
In Utero Exposure for Carcinogenicity Studies
March 19-20, 1997 FIFRA SAP meeting
Aggregate Exposure Methodology Issues
Common Mechanism of Action
Visual System Toxicity Testing of Organophosphates
June 3-4, 1997 FIFRA SAP meeting
Anticipated Residues Methodology
Import Tolerance Guidelines
Antimicrobial Issues
Cholinesterase Policy Issues
September 9-10, 1997 FIFRA SAP meeting
Criteria for Requiring In-Utero Cancer Studies
Efficacy Testing Issues Concerning Public Health Antimicrobial
Pesticides
The Office of Pesticide Programs' Update on the FQPA Activities to
Date
December 10-11, 1997 FIFRA SAP meeting
Estimating Drinking Water Exposure As A Component of the Dietary
Risk Assessment
March 24-25, 1998 FIFRA SAP meeting
Common Mechanism of Action of Organophosphates
Policy for Review of Monte Carlo Analyses for Dietary and
Residential Exposure Scenarios
Suggested Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methodology for Evaluating
Pesticides That Exhibit a Common Mechanism of Action
Use of 10x Safety Factor to Address Special Sensitivity of Infants
and Children to Pesticides
Post Application Exposure Guidelines
international life sciences institute
background documents concerning drinking water
risk assessment methods under fqpa
October 1, 1997 ILSI Workshop
The Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW)
Surface-Water-Source Drinking Water Exposure Assessment in the
Office of Pesticide Programs: Current Modeling Methods and Needs SCI-
GROW: A Proposed Method to Determine Screening Concentration Estimates
for Drinking Water Derived from Ground Water Sources Development of
GENEEC for Screening Level Estimation of Pesticide Exposure in the
Aquatic Environment
pesticide program dialogue committee (ppdc)
background documents concerning fqpa
November 12-13, 1996 PPDC meeting
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Fact Sheet
Major Issues in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Fact Sheet
March 18-19, 1997 PPDC meeting
1996 Food Quality Protection Act Implementation Plan
FQPA Fact Sheet on Implementation Activities
Process for Developing FQPA Consumer Right-to-Know Brochure
Briefing Paper
June 24-25, 1997 PPDC meeting
FQPA New Health Standards Draft Issue Paper
Summary of Activities Related to Aggregate/Cumulative Exposure
Assessment in the Office of Pesticide Programs
Proposed Reduced-Risk Initiative Guidelines
Draft Guidelines for Expedited Review of Conventional Pesticides
under the Reduced-Risk Initiative and for Biological Pesticides
EPA's Minor Use Program Issue Paper
Tolerance Reassessment under the Food Quality Protection Act
October 22-23, 1997 PPDC meeting
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996--Status of Implementation
at the end of Fiscal Year 1997 (10/1/97)
Consumer Right-to-Know Efforts under FQPA White Paper
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) for Residential Exposure
Assessments
April 16-17, 1998 PPDC meeting
Registration Activities in the Office of Pesticide Programs
Implementation of Registration Review
Memorandum to Secretary Glickman and Administrator Browner from
Vice President Gore (4/8/98)
Memorandum to Vice President Gore from Secretary Glickman and
Administrator Browner (4/10/98)
______
Letter From the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington, DC, April 30, 1998.
Mr. John Adams,
Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council,
New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Adams: It is our pleasure to invite you to serve as a
member of the EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC)
for a term beginning immediately and ending September 1998. Vice
President Gore recently requested the Administrator of EPA and the
Secretary of Agriculture to work together to ensure smooth
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Passed in
1996, this new law strengthens the nation's system for regulating
pesticides on food. The EPA and the USDA are very committed to both the
public health requirements of FQPA and to preserving the strength of
our Nation's agriculture and its farm communities.
We value your knowledge and perspective on FQPA implementation
issues, as a member of this new Committee, you will make it possible
for us to take advantage of your experience and expertise to help
establish overall priorities and a strategic direction for making
tolerance decisions. We will be asking the Committee to provide policy
guidance on sound science; ways to increase transparency in our
decision making; strategies for a reasonable transition for
agriculture, and ways to enhance consultations with our stakeholders,
as we reassess pesticide tolerances including those for
organophosphates. We will Co-Chair this Committee and plan to hold four
public meetings over the next three months.
The TRAC is being established as a subcommittee under the auspices
of the FQPA National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT). Enclosed is a copy of the NACEPT Charter and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, which regulates and governs the
operation of advisory committees, including public participation and
access to committee documents. Since Committee members are invited to
serve as representatives of non-Federal interests (i.e., are not
appointed as special Government employees and do not receive a stipend
for their participation), you are not subject to the conflict of
interest restrictions. However, you should take note of the enclosed
memorandum of March 24, 1998, entitled ``Legal Requirements for
Representative Members of EPA Advisory Committees.'' As a
representative of TRAC, you are entitled to receive travel and per diem
allowances, if needed.
We hope that you will find it possible to accept this invitation
and give EPA and USDA the benefit of your expertise. If so, please sign
the enclosed invitation response form to indicate your decision and
either fax or use the pre-addressed envelope to send your response to
Margie Fehrenbach, Designated Federal Officer for TRAC. If you have
general questions about the meeting or concerns about possible
conflicts of interest, she can be reached by phone at (703) 309-4775 or
305-7090; by fax at (703) 308-4776, or by Internet at the following
address: [email protected]
Our first public meeting is scheduled for May 29-29, 1998, at the
Washington National Airport Hilton located in Crystal City at 2399
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia. We will also meet on June
22-23, July 13-14, and July 27-28, 1998.
We have enclosed a copy of our Mission Statement, a list of the
invited Committee members, and some additional background materials. If
you accept, we will be calling you soon to discuss the scope and
objectives of the Committee. If you have questions in the interim,
please contact Stephen Johnson, Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide
Programs, EPA, at (703) 305-7090 or Keith Pitts, special assistant to
the Deputy Secretary, USDA, at (202) 690-2525.
Upon learning of your acceptance we will provide you with more
information relating to Committee activities.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Rominger,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture.
Fred Hansen,
Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
______
EPA Note to Correspondents
for release: thursday, april 30, 1998
epa broadens public involvement in implementation of food, quality
protection act
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture is establishing a new advisory group to
ensure the broadest possible public involvement as it moves forward to
implement the Food Quality Protection Act. This new committee responds
to Vice President Gore's request that implementation of the new law is
informed by appropriate input from affected members of the public.
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said,
The new committee to advise EPA on pesticide-safety issues is
part of the Clinton Administration's common-sense approach to
protect public health while ensuring the abundance of America's
food supply. One of the most important parts of that approach
is consulting openly and often with a broad variety of groups
representing the views of the American public. We look forward
to hearing from this committee on issues ranging from
protecting children's health to using the best scientific data
in our decision making,
USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger said,
USDA looks forward to working closely with EPA and this
advisory group to develop a scientifically sound and balanced
implementation strategy for FQPA. Using this process to craft
an effective transition strategy for at-risk commodities is
critically important to USDA and American Agriculture,
The new committee will be co-chaired by EPA Deputy Administrator
Fred Hansen and USDA's Richard Rominger. Its members will be made up of
experts that include farmers, environmentalists, public health
officials, pediatric experts, Pesticide companies, food processors and
distributors, public interest groups, academicians, and state, local
and tribal governments.
The new committee will advise EPA and USDA on a host of issues
pertaining to the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Examples of those issues include helping EPA use the best science in
making decisions about pesticide safety; helping EPA set priorities in
considering broad categories of pesticides, such as organophosphates;
helping EPA speed the pace of decisions on pesticide safety to make
sure that farmers can have products they need in a timely way, advising
USDA on prioritizing research programs to address FQPA-driven needs,
and making sure Pesticide safety rule are protective of children. A
list of nominees is attached.
John Kasper,
Director, Press Services Division.
[May 13, 1998]
epa-usda tolerance reassessment advisory committee (trac)
subcommittee to national advisory council for environmental policy &
technology
Fred Hansen, Deputy Administrator, EPA, Co-Chair
Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, USDA,Co-Chair
Designated Federal Officer
Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA
Environmental/consumer Organizations/Farmworker Representatives
Carolyn Brickey, National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform
Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive Director, C.A.T.A. (Farmworker
Support Committee)
Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group
Shelley Davis, Farmworker Justice Fund
Jeannine Kenney, Consumers Union
Sarah Lynch, World Wildlife Fund
Maion Moses, Pesticide Education Center
Erik Olson/David Wallinga, Natural Resources Defense Council
Agriculture/Farmer Representatives
Dan Botts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Jim Czub, National Corn Growers Association
Larry Elworth, Program for Strategic Pest Management
Hugh Ewart, Northwest Horticultural Council
William T. Lovetady, Chairman, National Cotton Council
Brad Luckey, Luckey Farms, Imperial County, California
Charles Mellinger, National Association of Independent Crop
Consultants
Steven Pavich, Organic Grape Producer, Terra Bella, CA
Bill Spencer, Farmer, American Farm Bureau Federation
Robin Spitko, Plant Pathologist, Massachusetts
Pesticide Companies
Emilio Bontempo, Novartis
Linda Fisher, Monsanto
Jon Jessen, Gowan
Elin Miller, DowElanco
Nancy Rachman, American Cyanamid
Jay Vroom, American Crop Protection Association
Other Federal Agencies
Dick Jackson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Robert Lake, Food and Drug Administration
NACEPT/SAP Representatives
Mark Greenwood, Ropes & Gray
Ernest McConnell, Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
Academia
Dr. Jose Arnador, Director, Agriculture Research & Extension
Center, Texas A&M
Dr. Mike Linker, North Carolina State University (State Extension
Service)
Dr. J. Routt Reigart, Pediatrician, Medical University of South
Carolina
Dr. Michael Shannon, Pediatrician, Children's Hospital/Harvard
Medical School
Michael Taylor, Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future
Dr. John Wargo, Yale University
Mark Whalon, Michigan State University
Tribal, State, & Local Representatives
Henry (Andy) Anderson, Association of State & Territorial Health
Officials, Wisconsin
Bill Cottkamp, Supervisor of Vector Control, St. Louis County Dept
of Health, MO
Alice Devine, Commissioner, Kansas Department of Agriculture
Jean-Mari Peltier, California Department of Pesticide Regulation
Greg Phillips, Omaha Tribal Council
Lora Lee Schroeder, Chair, AAPCO FQPA Minor Use Committee, GA Dept.
of Agriculture
Food Processors/Distributors
John Cady, National Food Processors Association
Kay Holcombe, Policy Directions, Inc.
Alfred Pieroallini, Gerber Products Company
William Spain, Del Monte Foods
Margaret Wittenberg, Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Structural Pest Control User
Robert Rosenberg, National Pest Control Association
Observers
EPA Regional Office
EPA Office of Children's Health Protection
Ramona Trovato
USDA
Allen Jennings, Office of Pest Management
Congressional Participants
Howard Cohen, House Commerce Committee
John Ford, House Commerce Committee
Eric Burger, House Commerce Committee
Greg Dotson, Congressman Waxman's Office
Bill O'Connor, House Agriculture Committee
Dannell Farmer, House Agriculture Committee
Terri Nintemann, Senate Agriculture Committee
Phil Schwab, Senate Agriculture Committee
Jean Fruci, House Committee on Science
Paul Charton, Office of Congressman Berry Jay Hawkins, Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
fqpa: ten fold safety presumption progress
Question. Your April 10th memorandum to the Vice President also
mentioned EPA's plan to review the application, and the possible
elimination, of the ten-fold safety presumption. What progress, if any,
has been made on the review?
Answer: In February 1998, EPA Administrator Browner asked
representatives of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances, the Office of Research and Development, and the Office of
Children's Health Protection to determine what data is appropriate to
rebut the presumption that the ten-fold factor should be retained and
to discuss whether the factor was being appropriately applied and
adequately communicated to the regulated community. This group's final
report should be available soon. In addition, at the request of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP), EPA has revised its guidance document on the ten-fold
factor. A new version was presented to the SAP in March and we are
currently reviewing the SAP's comments on that revised draft.
Question. When do you expect the review to be completed, how will
the results be published?
Answer: Once the intra-agency workgroup has reported, and the SAP's
comments have been reviewed, the Agency will revise its paper
accordingly. When a final version of the paper has been prepared, EPA
will investigate appropriate methods of distribution, including
publication in the Federal Register or distribution as a Pesticide
Registration Notice.
fqpa: minor crop protection
Question. As you know, my state is dependent on the production of
``minor crops.'' Officials from both EPA and USDA have stated their
support for continued emphasis on minor crop pesticide registrations.
What specific efforts has EPA taken to assure the protection of minor
crop registration?
Answer: EPA's pesticide registration program establishes priorities
for applications based upon certain environmental and societal goals.
Under this system, registrations for minor use pesticides receive
expedited review. In addition, EPA has created a minor use team with an
ombudsman within the pesticide program and has broadened communication
efforts with growers and trade associations concerned about minor use
issues. The Agency also published guidance on the minor use
prioritization criteria and held a workshop on minor use registration.
In addition, EPA works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) on a regular basis to ensure that the impact of its regulations
and decisions on farmers is considered. USDA has committed to enhance
research and development of alternative pest control methods and EPA
has committed to expediting review of any products that result from
this research and development. EPA and USDA also have a Memorandum of
Understanding to foster cooperative efforts to provide replacements for
pesticides that are likely to be subject to cancellation or suspension
by EPA, or are subject to voluntary cancellation based on risk or
economic concerns. This program is particularly important for minor use
crops which may face a lack of safe and effective pest management
alternatives. We have also added staff in each division to specifically
facilitate registration of minor crop products.
Question. Does EPA give higher priority to minor crop registrations
and will this practice continue?
Answer: Minor use applications, including all petitions from the
U.S.D.A. Inter-Regional Research Project # 4 (which supports
registration applications for minor uses) receive priority review. EPA
recognizes the unique situation these uses face and will continue this
practice.
dr. goldman participation in idaho meeting
Question. I have invited Dr. Goldman and other EPA officials to
participate in a public meeting in Idaho to address FQPA implementation
and its impact on our state. Is Dr. Goldman prepared to accept this
invitation?
Answer: EPA would welcome the opportunity to attend a public
meeting on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) implementation and
its impacts on Idaho. We will continue to work with your staff to
determine the appropriate EPA participants.
clean water act: state primacy keepers
Question. Isn't it true that pursuant to the Clean Water Act,
Congress delegated to the States exclusive authority to protect the
quality of water within the boundaries of each State, and therefore,
the States are the ``primary keepers'' of clean water in the United
States?
Answer: The Clean Water Act assigned specific roles and
responsibilities to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and to State governments. In some cases, EPA is directed to
stand ready to act to implement clean water programs where a State is
not able to do so. Over the past 25 years, States and EPA have worked
cooperatively to carry out clean water programs and other related
activities. Many other levels of government and the private sector have
contributed to this effort. As a result of this work, the quality of
the nation's waters has improved dramatically. EPA and the States need
to continue to maintain their close partnership in order to continue
good progress in pollution reduction in the years to come.
clean water act: federal role
Question. Does EPA believe that the States have not adequately
protected the quality of water in the United States and that EPA, or
another Federal agency should have authority to ensure that water
quality meet a higher Federal standard?
Answer: EPA recognizes that water quality has improved dramatically
in the past several decades. This dramatic improvement is the result of
hard work by States, Federal agencies, and local governments to
cooperatively implement programs authorized under the Clean Water Act.
Many States and local laws, as well as other Federal laws, have also
contributed to this important progress. States establish water quality
standards and monitor the condition of waters. In recent reports,
States have indicated that between 30-40 percent of assessed waters do
not meet clean water goals. EPA will continue to work with States and
others to continue progress toward clean water.
clean water act: federal standard for water quality
Question. Is EPA contemplating the promulgation of any rule that
would establish a Federal standard for water quality in the United
States?
Answer: The Clean Water Act provides that States establish water
quality standards for waters, and that EPA review and approve these
standards. EPA and States have a good partnership for the development
of standards and EPA acts to promulgate a change to a State standard
only in very rare cases. EPA is presently in various stages of
promulgating some aspect of a water quality standard in the States of
California, Alabama, Kansas, and Kentucky.
clean water act: expanded federal jurisdiction
Question. Is EPA contemplating amending any existing rules that
would expand EPA's jurisdiction over water quality that currently is
monitored by the State?
Answer: Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act provides that States
have the lead in designing and implementing programs for monitoring of
water quality. EPA believes that States do a good job of monitoring
water quality and does not see a need to change this arrangement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
napa: implementation of napa recommendations
Question. How does your fiscal year 1999 request address the
implementation of NAPA's recent report regarding the earlier 1995
report? Who at EPA is responsible for implementing the NAPA
recommendations? What steps will you take next?
Answer. The National Academy of Public Administration conducted an
extensive study of the Environmental Protection Agency, including its
legislative history, organization, management processes and current
operating environment. In its 1995 report, NAPA recommended:
--Giving EPA a statutory mission with a clearer sense of direction
than can now be inferred from the agency's fragmented statutes;
--Designing national environmental programs to encourage states,
cities, and firms to find innovative and locally appropriate
ways to meet national standards;
--Managing EPA to focus on environmental results, rather than on
bureaucratic processes and building the environmental database
to do so;
--Strengthening EPA's management systems and the agency's ability to
integrate its management approaches across environmental media
and statutes; and
--Working with Congress to set strategic priorities for environmental
risk reduction.
EPA actively responded to these recommendations from the outset. A
task force comprised of senior managers conducted a comprehensive
review of Agency operations to ascertain the best strategy for
achieving what was envisioned by the recommendations. In March 1996,
the Administrator announced an ambitious plan to reorganize the Agency
in order to strengthen key management functions and provide greater
opportunities for scientific information to impact decision making.
These new directions were also consistent with the Agency's approach to
implementing management reform legislation such as the Government
Performance and Results Act.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer was established to
consolidate planning, budgeting, financial management, analysis and
accountability under one program official. By integrating these
functions, the Agency is positioning itself to manage for results. It
will impact how EPA sets priorities, directs funding and ensures
results from our investments.
Significant progress already has been made. In September of last
year, we delivered to Congress our Strategic Plan, based upon an
intensive evaluation, aided by the views of its partners and
stakeholders, of what we would like our work to have achieved five
years from now. We have also made significant strides in the process of
aligning our budget structure with the Strategic Plan elements, thus
establishing clear linkages between environmental results and budget
decisions. With the assistance of State and Tribal representatives, we
have begun to address the internal challenge of developing an
accountability process that moves us away from counting ``program
outputs'' and toward the measurement of environmental outcomes.
Finally, an Agency-wide evaluation of the availability and quality of
data needed to measure progress toward achieving the commitments in the
Strategic Plan is underway. This evaluation will help inform the
Agency's multi-year planning process, identify opportunities for
strategic investment in better data and methods, and provide useful
information for improving the Agency's accountability system.
Through coordinated planning and the use of targeted staff offices
under the Administrator, such as the Office of Children's Health
Protection and the Office of Reinvention, EPA has also made significant
headway in supporting cross-media approaches and promoting innovative
solutions to environmental protection. This work is still in its
initial stages and will require continued support from top management
and Congress.
superfund/brownfields: coordination with other agencies
Question. What coordination efforts are underway with other
agencies to ensure the Brownfields initiative is a success?
Answer: The Brownfields Initiative is about partnerships--with
other Federal, State, and local agencies, and diverse stakeholders. In
response to community requests for better governmental coordination,
EPA established an Interagency Working Group which included more than
20 Federal departments and agencies. This Working Group led to the
establishment of the ``Brownfields National Partnership Agenda.'' The
National Partnership was announced in 1997 and was established as a
forum for Federal agencies to exchange information on brownfields-
related activities and to develop a coordinated national agenda for
addressing Brownfields. The National Partnership Agenda included
Federal commitments of $300 million intended to leverage billions in
private investment. Collectively, 25 public and private entities
contribute The National Partnership. The centerpiece of the Partnership
is the Brownfields Showcase Communities Project. Announced by Vice
President Gore in March 1998, the Showcase Communities Project brings
together the technical, financial and staff resources of EPA and its
Federal partners in support of 16 communities chosen from among more
than 200 applicants. The goal of the Brownfields Showcase Communities
Project includes promoting environmental protection and restoration,
economic redevelopment, job creation, community revitalization, and
public health protection through the assessment, cleanup, and
sustainable reuse of brownfields. The project will also demonstrate the
benefits of public and private collaboration in dealing with
brownfields challenges.
Federal support and coordination have also been demonstrated
through the establishment of Memoranda of Understanding. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently has Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU's) with: the Department of Interior's Rivers,
Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA); the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the Department of Labor's
Employment Training Administration (ETA); the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration (EDA); the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the Department of Agriculture; and
the General Services Administration. These agencies and EPA have
collaboratively established policies and procedures to support the
Brownfields Initiative.
sf: action plans for end of fiscal year 2001
Question. What action plans do you have in place to reach your
proposed goal of cleaning up 900 sites by end of 2001?
Answer. The goal of cleaning up 900 sites by end of 2001 is based
on site management plans which are in place and provided by the
regional site managers in CERCLIS. The site plans outline activity
starts, completions, and resource needs.
superfund/brownfields: empowerment zones
Question. How will the Brownfields initiative help empowerment
zones like the one in Baltimore create jobs in our inner cities?
Answer: EPA believes that workforce development and job training
are essential to the economic and environmental redevelopment of inner
city communities, like the Empowerment Zone in Baltimore. Indeed, many
of EPA's Brownfield assessment pilots are located in Federal Enterprise
Communities/Federal Empowerment Zones communities (EC/EZ). Of EPA's 157
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots, over 40 percent are
located in EC/EZ's. A range of tools to maximize investment and job
creation are available within EC/EZ's. In addition, EPA and HUD are
working together to understand the factors that impact urban investment
and redevelopment decisions, and to collaborate in cities designated as
EC/EZ's, where appropriate.
Under the Brownfields Initiative, EPA, in partnership with local
job training organizations and community colleges, continues to develop
long-term plans for fostering workforce development. The focus is on
the creation of jobs related to cleanup and redevelopment for residents
within affected communities. As a whole, these efforts are designed to
guarantee that brownfields cleanup and redevelopment have the trained
workforce needed to revitalize contaminated properties, and that local
residents have an opportunity to compete in the economic mainstream.
The EPA, in partnership with local job training organizations and
community colleges, continues to develop long-term plans for fostering
workforce development in brownfields communities. Recently, the Agency
accepted applications for Brownfields Job Training and Development
Demonstration Pilots. The application period ended May 29, 1998 and the
Agency intends to competitively select ten Pilots by July 8, 1998. The
Brownfields Job Training and Development Demonstration Pilots will each
be funded up to $200,000 over two-years. These funds are to be used to
bring together community groups, job training organizations, employers,
investors, lenders, developers, and other affected parties to address
the issue of providing training for residents in communities impacted
by brownfields. Pilot applicants must be located within or near one of
the 121 pre-1998 brownfields assessment pilot communities. Colleges,
universities, non-profit training centers, community-based job training
organizations, states, cities, towns, counties, U.S. Territories, and
Federally recognized Indian Tribes are eligible to apply for funds.
To date, 1,854 redevelopment jobs and 337 cleanup jobs have been
created through Brownfields Assessment Pilots.
environmental technology verification success
Question. Why hasn't the Environmental Technology Verification
program been as successful as we had expected?
Answer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) began in 1996 in
response to the President's Environmental Technology Strategy, Bridge
to a Sustainable Future. The President's Strategy called for the Agency
to create a market based verification program covering all technology
categories within three years. EPA met this goal in July 1998. After
two and a half years of operation, the program has established twelve
pilot programs to verify the environmental performance characteristics
of technologies in all environmental media (e.g., industrial pollution
prevention, recycling and waste treatment, advanced and field
monitoring technologies, air pollution control technologies, drinking
and waste water systems), with four programs brought on line each year
since the program began in 1996. Verification partners include two
Department of Energy National Laboratories, a state government program
(California), an industry association (the Civil Engineering Research
Foundation), and five nationally known testing and standards
development organizations (Research Triangle Institute, Battelle, NSF
International, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, and Southern
Research Institute).
EPA sent an ETV Strategy to Congress in early 1997 for implementing
the program within the required time period. The ETV Strategy lays out
operating principals (e.g., use of public/private partnerships; active
participation of stakeholders; voluntary participation of technology
vendors; quality assured test protocols, test plans, data acquisition,
and reports), budget projections, and verification goals. One of the
program's major goals is to verify 300 technologies by 2005.
To date, eleven monitoring devices and one low NOX fuel
have completed testing, reporting and peer review, and have been issued
verification statements. Fifty-four additional and quite varied
technologies have been accepted into the program and are currently
under evaluation (twenty-eight monitoring, eleven water, eight
pollution prevention, and seven air technologies). Two pilots which
began operation in October 1997 (air pollution and advanced monitoring)
have received over seventy-five applications in the last two months. If
this rate of technology participation continues, ETV will easily
achieve the 300 verification target.
ETV recently published a program-wide Quality Management Plan,
written under the ANSI E4 Environmental Technology Testing Standard.
This document lays out the quality management criteria for and
responsibilities of all of the governmental and private sector
participants in the ETV program. It also stipulates procedures, format,
data collection quality and output standards for the five year pilot
period. All ten of the ETV partner organizations are required to
produce Quality Management Plans consistent with this Plan within six
months of being selected as partners to assure comparable quality
across the program.
Moreover, an ETV Website has been in place since January 1997. It
receives over seven thousand hits per month, with approximately 20
percent of the hits from foreign countries. Information ranging from
meeting announcements to full scale testing protocols for all twelve
pilots are on the single Website.
In April 1998, the program received Vice President Al Gore's
National Performance Review Hammer Award.
We believe this young program has made significant progress toward
meeting its goals. ETV is making a difference in the environmental
technology marketplace and has the enthusiastic backing of numerous
state regulatory organizations, industry associations, and private
companies. Over the next two years, we expect to see an acceleration in
the output of all of the ETV pilots now that the basic infrastructure
of the program is fully in place. As the program continues, it will
become largely self sufficient by 2005, with the Federal Government
providing 10 percent to 20 percent of the peak annual EPA investment.
environmental technology--working with other agencies
Question. How is EPA working with other agencies to develop
environmental technology?
Answer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works with
other Federal agencies in environmental technology development across
EPA in numerous program offices as well as the Office of Research and
Development.
For instance, EPA has worked with DOE in a number of areas to
improve the use of today's energy-efficient technologies, which
simultaneously prevent pollution and lower energy bills. For example,
EPA and DOE are working together, and in partnership with
manufacturers, to identify energy efficient products through EPA and
DOE's ENERGY STAR label. Together, EPA and DOE have formed partnerships
that make hundreds of ENERGY STAR products, covering a large share of
household energy consumption, and have a Memorandum of Understanding
that outlines the responsibilities of each agency for the ENERGY STAR
programs.
Another example of EPA's collaborations with other agencies occurs
under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. Under STAR, EPA
has engaged in partnerships with other agencies to issue solicitations
and jointly award research grants in two areas related to environmental
technology. EPA and NSF have issued a joint solicitation for the past
four years under the title ``Technology for a Sustainable
Environment'', that focuses on cutting edge research in green chemistry
and engineering. In the first three years, EPA and NSF together funded
62 projects totaling approximately $18 million. Similarly, EPA has
joined with NSF, DOE, and the Office of Naval Research to issue a joint
solicitation titled ``Bioremediation'', that addresses furthering the
fundamental understanding of the chemical, physical, and biological
processes influencing the bioavailability and release of chemicals in
soil, sediments, and groundwater. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 the agencies awarded jointly 22 research projects totaling
approximately $10 million.
Under EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV),
the Agency works with other agencies through a variety of mechanisms.
As one of the charter members of the White House supported
Environmental Technology Working Group, the ETV coordinator meets twice
a month with twelve other agencies to review program progress and get
input. The Department of Energy supports the two ETV partner
organizations that are national laboratories, Sandia and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories. Recently, the Department of Defense (DOD) and
EPA have begun evaluating the possibility of reciprocal verification
activities for technologies verified under the DOD Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program.
Internationally, the Agency is supporting a number of cross-cutting
initiatives on pollution prevention that directly or indirectly support
the development, evaluation, and international dissemination of cleaner
production practices and technologies applied in the United States.
environmental technology--``one stop shop''
Question. With the verification program, will EPA become the ``one
stop shop'' for environmental technology?
Answer. The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program
verifies the performance characteristics of commercial ready
environmental technologies using objective and quality assured data.
The program, which began in 1995, is designed to expedite the
deployment of improved environmental protection technologies in the
United States and abroad, with the intent of acting as a catalyst for
commercial acceptance into the marketplace. The program is limited
solely to technology performance verification. As stated in the ETV
Verification Strategy sent to Congress in February 1997, EPA intends to
sponsor the evaluation of environmental technologies through adequate
testing and verify \1\ that they perform at the levels reported. EPA
does not intend to certify \2\ that a technology will always, or under
circumstances other than those used in testing, operate at the levels
verified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Verify/Verification in this context means to establish or prove
the truth of the performance of a technology under specific,
predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate data quality assurance
procedures.
\2\ Certify/Certification in this context is to guarantee a
technology as meeting a standard or performance criteria into the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ETV program does not cover all aspects of innovative technology
commercialization. In particular, the program does not assist
technology vendors with activities associated with the ``one stop
shop'' concept, such as financing, business planning, export
assistance, and marketing.
As discussed on pages 15-16 of the ETV Verification Strategy, the
program begins a planned gradual decline of Federal funding in fiscal
year 1999 with no plans to address all aspects of innovative technology
commercialization.
international cooperation environmental status
Question. What is the status of your efforts to expand
international cooperative efforts concerning the environment?
Answer. International cooperation will be critical to the
achievement of EPA's strategic objectives. The Agency's international
programs help reduce environmental threats along our borders; lower
global and regional environmental risk; and elevate the quality and
reduce the cost of environmental protection in the United States. They
also serve broader U.S. economic, political, humanitarian and national
security interests.
We are focusing our efforts on Agency goals related to protection
of North American ecosystems, climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, persistent toxic pollutants, and achievement of cleaner and
more cost-effective practices.
Question. What is the level of cooperation with agencies in other
countries concerning this new effort?
Answer. Working closely with the State Department, EPA has strong
bilateral and multilateral ties with key environmental counterparts in
Asia, Latin America, Europe and elsewhere around the world. In the past
two years, for example, the Agency has strengthened cooperation with
other G-8 countries on children's health protection, climate change,
environmental crime and environmental foresight. We have also worked
with the Governments of Mexico and Canada and with many other countries
in reducing transboundary and global environmental risks.
In addition to joint pollution abatement efforts, scientific,
technical and policy exchanges enable us to share the results of over
30 years of experience in the United States and to benefit from
scientific, technological and other breakthroughs achieved in other
countries, thereby lowering the cost of environmental protection in the
United States.
interagency coordination of health and environmental activities
Question. Given the large number of other Federal agencies with
responsibilities that crosscut EPA's, how can we and the taxpayer be
assured that EPA is not requesting funds for activities that duplicate
those of other agencies or that could best be undertaken by those
agencies?
Answer. EPA is currently involved in a number of programs that
cross-cut agencies. To avoid duplication of effort, EPA works through a
number of processes and approaches such as Memorandum of Understandings
(MOU's), workgroups, clearance of position papers and extensive
interactive communications with these other agencies. We are constantly
involved with other Federal agencies as we develop our budget request
for these cross-cutting programs. This approach ensures that
responsibilities are assigned to the correct agency and that funding
requests to Congress are not duplicated. This, in turn, ensures savings
to the taxpayers.
There are numerous examples of this cooperation between the EPA and
other Federal agencies. For instance, EPA's Brownfield Initiative has
MOU's with the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Labor,
Interior, Commerce and the General Services Administration. In
addition, the Vice President's Clean Water Action Plan documents the
roles and responsibilities of each participating agency's efforts
towards ensuring clean water. The report contains ``key actions'' which
clearly outline Federal commitments performed by these agencies, such
as EPA, USDA, DOI, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Brownfield
Initiative and the Action Plan are prime examples of interagency
coordination without duplication of effort.
EPA's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) partners with
many different agencies to prevent duplicating work. A great example of
this is the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)
program. PNGV draws on the resources of seven Federal agencies which
are actively contributing to the development of new technologies. For
instance, EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory is
specifically equipped to focus on high-payoff, high-risk automotive
technologies to reduce pollutants, especially carbon dioxide emissions,
therefore, its focus will be to determine whether specific designs that
could achieve the PNGV target fuel efficiency could also provide a
commensurate reduction in greenhouse gases and criteria pollutant
emissions. The Department of Commerce has several major programs
specifically designed to spur industrial innovation, accelerate the use
of new technologies, and encourage industry to improve quality. The
Department of Defense is engaged in the development of military
vehicles with major improvements in performance and efficiency.
EPA routinely collaborates with a number of other Agencies in order
to effectively implement the Pesticides and the Toxics programs.
Regular and ad hoc meetings and information-sharing occur at every
level of the organization to ensure careful planning and avoid
duplication of effort. USDA in particular is a key component of the
Federal strategy to ensure safe use of pesticides and food safety for
the public. The Toxics program works closely with HUD and OSHA to
implement the Lead abatement, asbestos protection, and other programs
designed to protect human health and the environment. Joint planning
and collaboration include Memoranda of Agreement and Inter-Agency
Grants as well as participation in longer-term, comprehensive planning
discussions across multiple agencies.
Furthermore, the Office of General Counsel has relationships with
agencies to avoid duplicating cross-cutting functions and costs. The
LEXIS computer system is accessed through an inter-agency agreement
with the Library of Congress. Contract appeals are handled through an
interagency agreement with the Department of Labor, and general legal
coordination is provided through the Department of Justice.
health and environmental activities:interagency process
Question. Your strategic plan indicates that you have already
initiated a process with other agencies to review crosscutting areas.
Could you explain that process and when will we see the results? Have
you been getting good cooperation from other agencies?
Answer. EPA has been engaged in a number of activities to ensure
that our activities, as outlined in the Agency's Strategic Plan and
Annual Performance Plan, are well coordinated with other Federal
agencies. Last summer, the Agency reviewed the draft or final strategic
plans of 28 agencies or major bureaus. These reviews underscored that
much work needs to be done to better coordinate programs across
government.
EPA has a history of working cooperatively with other agencies. We
have always acknowledged the need to engage these agencies on specific
cross-cutting issues. For example, the issue of wetlands has brought
many agencies together to focus on the best ways that we can leverage
Federal activities.
EPA has taken a number of steps in the last year to lay the
groundwork for improving our communication with those agencies with
whom we share cross-cutting issues. First, EPA supports the National
Academy of Public Administration's Consortium on Improving Government
Performance. One of the issues being addressed by the consortium is how
to effectively conduct crosscutting coordination.
Second, the Agency is working with a number of interagency groups
to increase efforts to reconcile planned activities and develop
consistent performance measures. One of these groups is the Natural
Resources Performance Measures Forum. The Forum consists of Federal
agencies and their bureaus with a focus on natural resources. The Forum
includes EPA, the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Forum is currently working with
the Interagency Clean Water Action Plan Steering Committee to pilot an
approach on interagency coordination using water programs as the focus.
The Agency recognizes that effective coordination among Federal
agencies is an incremental process and will require a concerted effort
by program offices throughout government.
environmental data: comprehensive and reliable data
Question. Comprehensive and reliable data on the environment has
been a long-term need. Where do we actually stand and what are you
doing to fill the gaps that NAPA and GAO have pointed out in the EPA's
environmental data systems?
Answer. EPA is undertaking a number of activities to improve the
quality and reliability of its data systems, considering input from
NAPA, GAO, and statutory laws. The Center for Environmental Information
and Statistics and the Office of Information Resource Management are
currently accessing data to gaps and identifying the priority data
needed to implement the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
In addition, the Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) program
provides a framework for many of these efforts. Under REI, EPA is
developing both data standards and electronic reporting standards. Over
the next five years, all of the Agency's major systems will be revised
to incorporate these data and electronic reporting standards. The data
standards will allow cross-media integration of data and improve
reliability of the data by eliminating errors associated with
transferring information from paper to electronic form, and will reduce
duplication of data collected. In implementing standards and electronic
reporting, many of the Agency systems will be re-engineered using
state-of-the art technology that will also improve reliability.
Through the Environmental Council of the States, EPA is working
closely with the states on REI and other data quality issues. The One-
Stop program provides a framework for EPA and states to coordinate
their information needs and system development activities to reduce
duplication and increase reliability.
environmental data: data priorities
Question. Could you briefly describe your data priorities, how
these were arrived at, and how they are reflected in the performance
plan and budget?
Answer. The Agency's Reinventing Environmental Information
initiative has a plan for improving the standards for EPA's data so
that the data can provide decision makers with necessary information on
how to protect human health and the environment. Additionally, the
Agency's data priorities are determined by the individual data
requirements of each program office. A high priority is the expansion
of our efforts for Americans' right-to-know about their environment
that cross programs. We are providing spatial data as well as other
data in an effort to support performance outcome measurement and
community-based environmental protection. We continue to seek
stakeholder input to help us set our data priorities in a manner
informed by their needs. We have found that our flexibility to obtain
new data is limited by the requirements to meet statutory mandates
within budget constraints.
peer review: status to address concerns
Question. Could you please inform this subcommittee about the
current status of actions to address concerns that EPA's peer review
policy is being implemented unevenly across the agency?
Answer. The Agency has taken a number of steps to ensure that the
Peer Review Policy is being implemented consistently across the Agency.
In January 1998, a report on the 1997 evaluation of peer review
implementation across the agency was submitted to the Deputy
Administrator by the Office of Research and Development. This report
contained a number of suggestions for improving the clarity and
documentation of peer review policies and procedures across the Agency.
On February 25, 1998, the Administrator and Deputy Administrator
cosigned a memorandum that released the Peer Review Handbook for use
across the Agency. The Handbook was prepared in response to the
findings of the 1997 evaluation and provides a common base of
information for use by Agency staff in identifying products for peer
review and planning, conducting, and documenting peer reviews of
scientific and technical products used in Agency decision making. The
Peer Review Handbook was developed by the Peer Review Advisory Group of
the Science Policy Council; this Group represents both Headquarters and
Regional organizations and has extensive experience in both conducting
and overseeing peer review. The Handbook was reviewed by the Science
Policy Council, its Steering Committee, and the Peer Review
Coordinators from each major Agency organization before it was approved
for use. Since the issuance of the Handbook, training material has been
developed and presented to the Peer Review Coordinators from each
Assistant Administrator and Regional Administrator's office. The
material for use in training managers and peer review leaders is being
revised based on feedback from its initial presentation and will be
made available across the Agency by mid July.
peer review: establishment of specific criteria by congress
Question. Given GAO's March 1997 testimony and your acknowledgment
at the same hearing of inconsistent peer review implementation, would
it be helpful now for the Congress to establish some specific criteria
for peer review of the scientific and technical work products that
underlie EPA's major actions?
Answer. At this time, we feel that the Agency's criteria for
selecting products for peer review are sufficiently detailed to ensure
their consistent application. EPA is committed to using the best
possible science and peer review for rule making. Therefore, we feel
that it is not necessary for Congress to establish peer review criteria
for our scientific and technical work products.
The recently issued Peer Review Handbook provides expanded guidance
on the selection of products for peer review and requires increased
management involvement in the development of lists of products for peer
review and in the decision to review specific products from the lists.
The Handbook is located at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/spc/sopmenu.htm on
the Internet.
peer review: clean air science advisory committee
Question. Isn't it true that one of the major successes that EPA
now points to is the Congress' establishment of the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee, or CASAC, review process?
Answer. It is true that the CASAC mechanism for peer reviewing
science that underlies Agency decisions on air pollution standards is
an effective mechanism for ensuring quality of the science. In fact the
CASAC is only one of a many peer reviews that are managed by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The same standards for selection
of experts, appropriate balance and independence that guide the CASAC
process also guide the operation of the other review panels convened by
the SAB. The Agency's recently released Peer Review Handbook outlines
the same objectives and similar procedures for all peer review panels
utilized by the Agency to peer review major scientific and technical
documents.
peer review: number of staff trained
Question. In 1996, the GAO recommended that the EPA educate staff
and managers on the need for and benefits of peer reviews. How many
staff have been trained in the proper techniques for carrying out peer
review activities?
Answer. As the Peer Review Handbook was being developed, the Office
of Research and Development (ORD) developed a strategy for distributing
the information in the Handbook across the Agency. The strategy called
for development of training materials to be used by organizations' Peer
Review Coordinators in training managers and peer review leaders about
their responsibilities in the peer review process. The Peer Review
Coordinators received the training in May 1998. The training materials
used in May have been revised based on comments received after the
session. The Peer Review Coordinators are responsible for providing
training to managers and others within their organizations. We expect
to complete training of Decision Makers, line managers, and Peer Review
Leaders during fiscal year 1998.
peer review: peer review and peer involvement
Question. GAO also found a few years ago that some EPA offices
routinely used employees from the same office to comment on their own
work products and called this peer review. EPA's own Science Advisor at
the time said that this was peer involvement--a valuable tool--but that
it fails to the independency requirement for peer review. Has the
difference between peer review and peer involvement been clarified for
EPA staff?
Answer. The Peer Review Handbook clearly defines peer review and
peer involvement as separate, and distinctly different forms of review.
Sections 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.2.5 of the Handbook discuss the
definitions of and differences between these terms, including the term
peer input. In general, peer involvement involves the active outreach
to and participation by the broad scientific, engineering, and
economics communities. Peer involvement can take the form of peer
review or peer input. Peer Review is a documented critical review of a
specific Agency work product. The peer review is conducted by qualified
individuals who are independent of the work to be reviewed and are
collectively equivalent in technical expertise to those who performed
the original work. The peer review is conducted to ensure that
activities are technically adequate, competently performed, properly
documented, and satisfy established quality requirements. Peer input
generally involves an interaction during the development of an evolving
product, providing an open exchange of data, insights, and ideas.
Whereas peer review tends to be a one-time interaction or a limited
number of interactions by independent peer reviewers, typically upon
culmination of the work product, peer input tends to be continuing and
iterative as a product is being developed, such as that provided by a
workgroup with continuous involvement in the development of a product.
Peer input can play an important role during the development of
most products, as it provides additional information and points of view
to the process. However, it does not substitute for peer review, which
is the review of a product by independent reviewers who have not had
prior involvement with the product. Even though a product has
benefitted from substantial peer input, peer review would still be
necessary if the product was being used to support an Agency decision.
peer review: expansion of current list recommendation
Question. GAO was also concerned that various scientific and
technical work products could fall through the cracks without EPA
senior managers' awareness and approval that such products not be peer
reviewed. GAO recommended that you expand the current list of products
nominated for peer review to include all major products, along with
explanations of why individual products are not nominated for peer
review. Has this GAO recommendation been implemented? If not, why not?
Also, do you intend to have the MOBILE5a and other key models peer
reviewed?
Answer. Yes, the GAO recommendation regarding expansion of the
listing process to include all scientific and technical work products
was included in the 1997 reporting on peer review implementation and
has been included in the Peer Review Handbook.
The Peer Review Handbook clearly includes models within the
definition of scientific and technical work products. If the model is
new or has major impact across a large area or to a large segment of
the regulated community, then the model is a candidate for peer review.
Also, if a previously peer reviewed model is being used in a
circumstance that was not covered by the earlier review or has been
substantially modified, then it would be a candidate for additional
review. The MOBILE5a model will be peer reviewed. In fact, we intend to
have all newly developed models undergo peer review.
reinvention: gao recommendation
Question. GAO's July 1997 report on EPA's Reinvention program cited
widespread concerns over the large number of complex and demanding
initiatives now being undertaken, as well as confusion over the
underlying purpose of some of the agency's many reinvention
initiatives. The GAO also made several recommendations to correct this
problem. Has EPA done anything in response to these concerns and the
GAO recommendations?
Answer. EPA has taken a number of steps to address GAO's concerns
and is continuing to make progress on all four of GAO's
recommendations.
EPA recently issued a short document, ``Reinventing Environmental
Protection--EPA's Approach,'' (attached) that explains the need for
reinvention, the agency's objectives for reinvention, and a framework
that illustrates how EPA's reinvention activities fit together into a
cohesive approach for improving environmental protection. Additionally,
the Office of Reinvention developed an initial inventory of reinvention
initiatives and programs last fall, and this inventory was used to
identify key cross-cutting areas where greater focus and coordination
is needed, for example:
Permitting.--Drawing on the many recommendations and experiments to
reinvent permitting, the Agency has developed and is now implementing a
``Permit Action Plan'' that identifies a key set of activities,
responsible offices, and time frames, for permit reform at EPA.
Sector-based approaches.--In February, the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator directed that the Agency's senior management work with
the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council to develop an action plan
that will integrate sector-based approaches into the fabric of Agency
programs. The action plan, to be completed this fall, will define
actions based on CSI ``lessons learned'' and will address issues such
as stakeholder involvement in sector-based approaches.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS's).--The Deputy Administrator
directed the Office of Reinvention to bring together the various
efforts relating to EMS's and ensure that EPA speaks with a consistent
voice in this area. As part of that effort, EPA published a position
statement in the Federal Register in March, publicly expressing support
for the use of EMS's in the regulated community, and also announcing an
effort to evaluate the effects of EMS's on environmental performance,
compliance, cost, and other important dimensions.
The second GAO recommendation suggested that EPA needed to clarify
the circumstances under which unanimous agreement in a stakeholder
process is required. This recommendation was primarily intended for
CSI--where some have felt that progress has been hindered by the
difficulty in reaching full consensus. Last November, the CSI Council
approved a guidance document on the principles and applications of
consensus, and this document is proving to be a useful tool for the
Council and sector subcommittees.
The third GAO recommendation emphasized the need for improved
internal management processes for problem-solving and decision-making.
In 1997, the Office of Reinvention was created to improve management
and coordination of reinvention activities across the Agency.
Additionally, the senior career managers in the Agency (i.e., the
Deputy Assistant Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators)
have been designated by the Deputy Administrator to facilitate quick
resolution of issues arising in the implementation of reinvention
projects within their offices. And, the Office of Reinvention convenes
meetings of these senior managers quarterly, to provide guidance and
make decisions on the Agency's reinvention activities. As EPA embarks
on new reinvention efforts, the Agency is defining explicitly the
management authority and accountability structures that foster timely
and efficient decision-making. For example, under the new agreement
with the states on innovation, the Regional Administrators are
identified as the responsible decision-makers on state proposals for
innovation, and we have defined appropriate time frames for decision-
making.
Finally, the fourth GAO recommendation stated that each of the
agency's reinvention initiatives should include an evaluation
component. EPA has contracted with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA), as directed by the Appropriations Committee, to
conduct external evaluations of key reinvention activities. An
important part of NAPA's work will include helping to build evaluation
capacity within EPA, such as providing training and guidance materials.
The Office of Reinvention has established a senior evaluation position
to work with EPA reinvention project leaders on evaluation. Evaluation
components are underway or are being developed for key reinvention
initiatives such as Project XL, the Common Sense Initiative,
Brownfields, the compliance assistance centers, and the National
Environmental Partnership Program with the states. Finally, EPA is
increasing its use of customer satisfaction surveys in many areas, to
ensure that our activities are responsive to customer needs.
reinvention: statutory change not warranted
Question. EPA's past position has been that statutory change is not
warranted to facilitate reinvention of environmental regulation. Has
that position changed in recent months?
Answer. In general, EPA does not think that new legislation is
necessary to carry out the work of reinvention. Indeed, we are making
significant progress in finding cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
environmental solutions under the existing legal structure. We do think
that in some discrete areas legislation could be helpful, as long as it
has a broad base of support. For example, we are supporting the
``Innovative Environmental Strategies'' bill introduced by Sen.
Lieberman because creating a clear legal framework for experimentation
may encourage more companies to participate in reinvention programs and
give stakeholders more confidence in those programs. However, we do not
believe such legislation is needed in order to proceed with Project XL,
CSI and similar efforts.
right-to-know: plan to access impact
Question. In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results
Act, how do you plan to assess the impact of the Right to Know or
public outreach efforts in achieving the agency's goals for a clean
environment?
Answer. The success of the Agency's Right-to-Know or public
outreach efforts is ultimately determined by increased understanding
and actions by the public about their environment. We believe that with
increased knowledge, the public will be able to make decisions to help
solve the nation's environmental problems, particularly at the
community level. EPA is helping the public develop these capabilities
by providing the information, data, tools, and skills to take effective
action. Measures to assess our progress will focus in three areas--
information access, stakeholder awareness, and improved environmental
conditions in targeted areas.
Various means will be employed to assess the impact of these
efforts. One way will be by assessing the number of people who access
our information. Technological advances in disseminating information,
such as through the Internet, will help us assess this impact easily.
With regard to providing information to low-income and rural
communities that lack access to computers, and the Internet, EPA has
made efforts to determine the best way to provide these communities
with right-to-know and assess the impact of these efforts. Over the
past year, in more than 30 meetings that we have convened with
environmental information user groups (including representatives of
low-income, low environmental literacy and rural groups) our
``environmental information'' customers have indicated that they often
depend on intermediary organizations who have more immediate contact
with them, a track record of communicating technical and scientific
information in layperson's terms, and who are often focused on
addressing a particular health or environmental issue. Rural
information users for example, said that they depend on accessing EPA
data and information from local USDA extension agents and NIOSH staff
who are involved in worker safety issues, most frequently via
newsletters and workshops (during non-growing seasons).
In a meeting with the Afro-American community in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, our customers said that they depend on community
newspapers and telephone services to access EPA information. To be
successful, EPA will need to establish partnerships with these
intermediary organizations and develop the means to provide access that
are preferred by the end users. For example, EPA's new Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics, last week, launched a new web
site in partnership with the Federal depository library system and the
American Library Association, in order to provide more than 170-million
Americans in urban and rural areas, access to the Internet and EPA
information resources via 16,000 public branch libraries nationwide. In
the Brooklyn neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland, EPA and several other
community-based groups are cooperatively monitoring, analyzing and
reporting air emissions and water pollution levels in a partnership
that provides all community residents access to environmental data and
information.
We will also determine whether the public find the information they
receive useful. A classic example of this involves our Toxic Release
Inventory data which is collected and provided to the public to inform
and assist them in protecting their families and their communities. EPA
conducts periodic focus groups and feedback sessions to ascertain how
well the public understands and uses these TRI data. The TRI program is
proposing to conduct follow-up monitoring in areas of the country where
there have been reports of high volumes of toxic releases, to ascertain
whether or not the provision of TRI data and information has led to
actual decreases in emissions.
right-to-know: accuracy of information
Question. In the push to carry out Right-to-Know activities at the
program level, what controls do you have in place to ensure that the
information provided the public is accurate, complete, and put in the
proper context to avoid raising undue concern or inappropriate use of
the data?
Answer. EPA is committed to improving the accuracy and completeness
of the information it provides to the public. At the same time, the
Agency also is committed to making its information publicly available
unless there is a specific statutory basis for withholding the
information. Our focus has been on making data more readily available,
without interpreting the data for the public. To put information into
proper context and to enhance understanding, EPA is expanding access to
and availability of metadata on Agency information, that is descriptive
information such as definitions, origin, source, and any data
describing how, why, or when the data was collected including
indications on the accuracy of the data or its precision. Metadata
provides a high-level of information about the characteristics of the
data contained in the database. It answers the important questions
which inquire into the background and history of the data set. EPA's
new CEIS website will include very thorough discussions of the
strengths, weaknesses and appropriate uses for EPA environmental data
available on the website. We seek to help people understand the data
they are reading, as well as its potential uses and limitations, by
providing metadata along with the actual data. The Agency is also
striving for continuous improvement in quality of information,
recognizing that no set of information will be completely free of
errors and inadequacies. Feedback from the public and from regulated
entities is an important part of the information quality improvement
process, as stakeholders often are best able to recognize and comment
on errors. When information is not publicly available, EPA loses the
benefits of such feedback.
As part of our commitment to the public Right-to-Know initiative,
the Agency is developing a Data Quality Strategic Action Plan, due for
completion by September 30, 1998. The plan will address issues and
concerns related to data quality, accuracy, completeness, and
reliability, and will define a process for addressing these problems.
The Agency's Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) initiative
was established in an effort to improve our ability to collect and
report accurate data to the public, with less burden to industry. Under
REI, EPA is developing data and electronic reporting standards. Among
other things, these standards will improve the quality and reliability
of our data by allowing cross-media integration of data, and
eliminating errors associated with transferring information from paper
to electronic form.
right-to-know: establishing standards of accuracy
Question. Have you established any standards as to the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or proper context that data must meet before
it is made available to the public?
Answer. EPA is committed to accurate, complete, and reliable data
collection and provision, consistent with our statutory mandates,
mission, available resources, and burden reduction goals. Similarly, we
seek to provide good metadata to help furnish a context for
interpretation of our data. Metadata provides a high-level of
information about the characteristics of the data contained in the
database. It answers the important questions which inquire into the
background and history of the data set.
The EPA is undertaking a number of activities to improve the
accuracy and reliability of its data. In response to Congressional and
public interest in EPA's data, and awareness about data errors in EPA's
national systems, the Administrator has tasked the Chief Information
Officer with developing a Data Quality Strategic Action Plan. This plan
is due for completion by September 30, 1998. It will define the
problems, present strategies and costs for addressing them, and lay out
a process, responsibilities, time-lines, and costs. The plan is a
management approach to changing behaviors and processes both internally
and externally that will allow the Agency's program and Regional
managers to correct data quality problems now, and avoid them in the
future.
In an effort to improve our ability to collect and report accurate
data to the public, we have launched the Reinventing Environmental
Information (REI) initiative. Under REI, EPA is developing data
standards and electronic reporting standards. Over the next five years,
all of the Agency's major systems will be revised to incorporate these
data and electronic standards. The data standards will allow cross-
media integration of data and improve reliability of the data.
Electronic reporting will improve the quality and reliability of the
data by eliminating errors associated with transferring information
from paper to electronic form and will reduce duplication of data
collected. In implementing standards and electronic reporting, many of
the Agency systems will be re-engineered using state-of-the-art
technology that will also improve reliability.
right-to-know: security of data
Question. Considering your efforts to make more data available to
the public on the Internet, what controls do you have to protect the
security of the data from intruders or hackers? (In September 1997, the
EPA Inspector General reported that it had found several cases of
hacker intrusion.)
Answer. EPA employs multiple security mechanisms to protect data
from intruders or hackers.
For the Network.--Physical access to EPA's internal network is
controlled by requiring that data reside in EPA (leased or owned)
facilities and we allow only one connection between the Agency's
internal network and the Internet, and protect this connection with a
``firewall''.
Access to privileged commands on the network infrastructure is
restricted to a small number of key individuals. EPA's network router
audits trails daily for activities that could indicate the presence of
an intruder or a hacker on the Agency network. Suspected problems are
quickly followed up with the appropriate internal and external security
groups, the Inspector General, and law enforcement groups, if
necessary. EPA monitors and implements the appropriate security alerts
and controls recommended by government and industry security groups. As
such, EPA has installed direct controls on the Agency firewall router
which is the single point of connection between EPA and the Internet.
These targeted controls ward against anti-spoofing, discovery of the
topology and structure of our network, blocking NetBt and SNMP, and
other items recommended by national security organizations.
Finally, the EPA contractor and Federal Network Information
Technology staff maintain a constant state of training and alert status
relative to the technical aspects of state-of-the-art networking,
network security, and damage/waste prevention.
For the Public Access Server.--EPA controls physical access to the
computer systems on which the public access data resides. For purposes
of data update, the Agency also limits network access to the system to
registered users, coming from registered Internet addresses.
Access to privileged commands is restricted to system
administrators on a need-to-use basis. EPA employs Class C2 security on
all our central systems, in accordance with the Department of Defense
Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, DOD 5200.28-STD (commonly
called ``The Orange Book''). All central systems separate user data
areas from those of the operating system, and maintain separate access
controls for each user's data. The data for each user and project is
only modifiable by users and groups authorized by the user owning the
data.
The Agency maintains audit trails of significant system events (log
in successes and failures, failed access attempts against system level
files, and privileged command use), and reviews system audit trails
routinely to detect potential threats to system, application, or data
integrity. Further, the Agency records checksums on important system
files and use automated monitoring for any change to alert us to
possible tampering.
Operations staff monitor the public access systems twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, to assure their availability and
integrity. Security alerts are monitored from government and industry
security groups. As a result, EPA regularly installs software patches
and initiate procedures necessary for system and data security.
Persistent intrusion attempts are detected occasionally, as we did
in both the incidents reported by the Inspector General and in other
situations where no actual intrusion occurred. If any intrusion does
occur as a result of previously unidentified security vulnerabilities
(e.g., in system software), situation-specific steps are taken to
contain and then eliminate the intrusion. Its impact is then assessed
and its effects reversed, restoring data and service as expeditiously
as due diligence allows. The Agency also maintains backup copies of all
data, including off-site copies, to prevent data loss for any reason.
right-to-know: sector facility indexing project
Question. A serious concern recently reported in the trade press is
the issue of data reliability as it involves EPA's Sector Facility
Indexing Project (SFIP), initially scheduled for January 1998
implementation. What is EPA doing to resolve these concerns--especially
as they relate to the SFIP's use of chemical release toxicity weights?
Answer. EPA worked for three years to identify the facilities to be
included in the SFIP, and to collect and verify the data. Each facility
received a copy of its compliance and enforcement data for review, to
identify any problems before the information was distributed through
the SFIP.
Prior to the industry data review, EPA specifically asked the
states to review the data and make changes, as appropriate. Based upon
these data reviews, EPA believes that the information in the underlying
databases is generally of high quality. EPA will continue to work with
stakeholders to ensure the greatest possible quality of data in the
SFIP.
In total, facilities commented on 4 percent of the 38,000 major
data elements they received for review. About half (53 percent) of
their comments were accepted. The remaining 47 percent were either
inaccurate (the review determined that the data was correct and no
change was necessary) or the facility comment was not accompanied by
the necessary documentation to explain the facility's position in order
for a determination on the accuracy of the comment to be made.
The accuracy of the data depends upon reliable reporting by states,
local agencies, and industry. Accuracy also depends upon correct
recording of information by regulatory agencies at local, state, and
Federal levels. EPA, in conjunction with the affected stakeholders,
will continue to work on improving the quality and consistency of the
underlying data. EPA has set up an SFIP Hotline (617-520-3015) for
users to ask questions about the data and has also established a
``comment page'' on the SFIP website for users to submit their comments
instantly.
Toxicity Weights
Based upon stakeholder comments that known chemical toxicity data
should be used to distinguish chemicals of high hazard from chemicals
of lower hazard, a toxicity-weighting system for facility-specific TRI
data was developed for the SFIP. This system was considered to be an
interim step towards incorporating relative risk-based information,
which is a long-term goal of the SFIP. The EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB), which reviewed EPA's toxicity weighting methodology, confirmed
that a toxicity-weighted approach is ``a step in the right direction''
and that the scientific underpinnings of the toxicity weightings are
sound. However, EPA also received comments from many stakeholders that
toxicity data do not go far enough in examining potential risks and
that risk components should be factored into the SFIP along with
toxicity weights. Toxicity weighting allows users to examine where
potential hazards may be without respect to whether population may be
affected, whereas relative risk-based analysis examines potential
interactions between chemical releases, toxicity, weather patterns,
chemical dispersion properties, and surrounding populations.
Although EPA concurs with the SAB that toxicity weighting is a step
in the right direction and is useful on its own, the Agency also agrees
with stakeholder comments that relative risk-based analysis is of
equal, if not greater, importance. Therefore, facility-specific,
toxicity-weighted TRI data have not been included in the initial
release of the SFIP. EPA plans to incorporate both toxicity weights and
risk-based analysis into future SFIP iterations.
right-to-know: sfip's implementation status
Question. What is the SFIP's implementation status?
Answer. The SFIP became available on the Internet for use by the
general public on May 1, 1998. The SFIP Internet address is as follows:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi.
A system has been established for making changes to the SFIP data.
To report a possible inaccuracy, users can call the SFIP Hotline at
617-520-3015 and explain their concern. They will then be directed to
the proper individual within EPA. In addition, a ``comment page'' is
located on the SFIP website for users to instantly submit comments on
any aspect of the project, including concerns with regard to the data.
EPA also plans to release summary SFIP information in a hard copy
format in the near future.
right-to-know: adequacy of data disseminated through ``envirofacts''
Question. Another area of concern is the adequacy of environmental
data from seven EPA program systems that are integrated and
disseminated through the EPA's ``Envirofacts'' database on the
Internet. Critics, including a former EPA official, say that
Envirofacts does not provide enough context for the public and other
users of the database and that this could lead to misuse. What, if
anything, is EPA doing to address these concerns and to help
Envirofacts users understand the data?
Answer. Envirofacts provides public access to a wide range of non-
sensitive EPA information, such as environmental, facility, and spatial
data, to Federal agencies, states, environmental interest groups, the
regulated community, and the general public. It eliminates the need to
obtain information from multiple systems individually. The purpose is
to provide reader access to the public data and, therefore, EPA makes
no value judgments. EPA seeks to support sound science and the public's
right-to-know initiative by presenting factual data through
Envirofacts. Other interested parties are then allowed to interpret the
data as they see fit. Several tools are readily available within
envirofacts to assist the interpreter in understanding the data.
More specifically, such tools include an ability to overview the
information, the metadata warehouse, and a data dictionary. Envirofacts
provides an overview to introduce the user to the information. Metadata
provides a high-level of information about the characteristics of the
data contained in the database. It answers the important questions
which inquire into the background and history of the data set. Users
are encouraged to consult the metadata to understand and make better
use of the Envirofacts database. Finally, a complete data dictionary is
available to assist users with the technical and scientific jargon.
There are no explicit constraints on the use of the data because of its
public nature.
EPA has supplied these tools to aid in the understanding of the raw
facts. It is up to the viewer to interpret the data as they see fit
and, as a result, the interpretation depends on the viewpoint and the
motives of the interested party. We are exploring through our Center
for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS) ways to support the
interpretation of our data and expect to make progress in this area as
CEIS becomes fully operational.
right-to-know: legal authority to gather tri information
Question. Does EPA have sufficient legal authority to gather and
disseminate the TRI information it needs to meet its right-to-know
responsibilities under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act and the Pollution Prevention Act? If not, what changes are
needed?
Answer. Since the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) was enacted in 1986, EPA has successfully exercised its
authority to gather and disseminate chemical release information on
over 600 chemicals from 27 industries. The Agency has exercised
authority under EPCRA to add and delete chemicals, add new industry
sectors, modify reporting thresholds, and modify the reporting form. In
addition, EPA has exercised its authority under the Pollution
Prevention Act to collect and disseminate expanded TRI information
related to managing waste and source reduction. The Agency is reviewing
all relevant statutes and is considering a variety of strategies that
could be used, individually or in combination, to expand the reporting
and public availability of information.
performance partnership: process vs results
Question. Initial feedback from states suggests that they like the
focus of the NEPPS system on results, and that they believe the system
has potential for providing them with greater flexibility. However,
some have indicated that certain EPA Headquarters offices resist
providing the added flexibility. EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance is often mentioned by state officials, who say
that office is too focused on ``process'' rather than ``results''. EPA
has expressed a desire to become more outcome-oriented and the states
have encouraged the agency to move in that direction as well. However,
the performance plan, in areas such as enforcement, establishes
predominantly output performance goals and measures. Why do we have
this disconnect between EPA's rhetoric and its 1999 performance plan
and what is EPA doing to address this discrepancy?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 is the first year for implementing GPRA
and transitioning to a new budget and planning framework. EPA is
committed to implementing an outcome-oriented management approach, and
has worked actively with states over the past several years to develop
outcome measures that clearly link activities to the achievement of
environmental goals and objectives.
These new measures will allow flexibility while complementing
existing output measures, such as the number of inspections or
enforcement cases. As EPA and state leaders agreed when they signed the
original agreement launching the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) in 1995, a mix of both output measures and
environmental indicators will always be needed for program management
purposes.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is
gradually combining outcome measures with output measures to provide a
more complete assessment of performance. OECA has made progress in
moving beyond tracking solely outputs and anticipates additional
improvements in measures in future years. OECA currently collects
outcome data, such as environmental results from enforcement actions,
and reports this data in the annual Enforcement Accomplishment report.
In January 1997, OECA initiated the National Performance Measures
Strategy ``to develop and implement an enhanced set of performance
measures for EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program.'' We
have spent over a year working with states, the regulated community and
public interest groups to develop a workable set of measures.
Developing this strategy clearly pointed out the difficulty in
developing new outcome-oriented measures that fairly and adequately
portray results. Despite these difficulties, the final report, issued
in January 1998, describes the enhanced set of measures and a plan to
implement these measures is underway.
performance partnership: criticism on process vs. results
Question. How do you respond to the criticism that some of EPA's
offices, such as the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
resist providing states with the flexibility to focus their
environmental programs on results, and instead compel them to focus on
process-oriented activities?
Answer. All of the EPA National Program Managers (NPM), including
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), work closely
with the states through the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS),
to develop core performance measures (CPM) to measure state
environmental performance. Core performance measures for the
enforcement and compliance assurance program are referred to as
``accountability measures.'' The accountability measures are in sync
with OECA program measures, which relate directly to the Agency's goals
and assist OECA in meeting its obligations under GPRA.
Core performance measures (including accountability measures) were
issued under the ``Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System'' signed by EPA
and State officials in August 1997, which reaffirms our joint
commitment to use core performance measures as tools to track progress
in achieving results.
Current accountability measures are a mixture of outcome and output
measures. Traditionally, EPA relied on output measures, such as the
number of enforcement actions taken and inspections conducted. These
will remain important measures of program performance and
accountability for both EPA and the states because they assure the
public of the government's presence, they provide accountability for
Federal and state actions, and they give EPA and the states important
information about how our strategies are working.
However, the core performance measures for states also reflect the
progress EPA has made in developing outcome measures. Outcome measures
included in the core performance measures are:
--rates of significant non-compliance by industry sector and by
media;
--percent of significant violators in each media that have new or
recurrent significant violations within two years of receiving
a formal enforcement action;
--environmental and/or public health benefits achieved through
inspection and enforcement activities (e.g., case settlements,
compliance agreements, injunctive relief, Supplemental
Environmental Projects); and,
--results or impact of using: state audit privilege or immunity law;
state audit policies; state small business compliance
assistance policies; and compliance assistance initiatives
developed for specific industry sectors.
performance partnership agreements and grants
Question. Will Performance Partnership Grants allow states to focus
on the highest environmental priorities and effect real changes in the
services delivered by states?
Answer. Under Performance Partnership Grants (PPG's), states can
negotiate work plans with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) that direct Federal funds where the state needs them most to
address environmental and public health problems. States can choose to
combine funds from up to 16 different EPA grant programs into a PPG.
EPA's goal in the PPG program is to provide as much flexibility to
states as possible while assuring fiscal accountability and
implementation of core environmental programs.
In the National Environmental Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS), states and EPA jointly develop priorities and strategies based
on an assessment of environmental conditions and program needs in the
state. The Performance Partnership Agreements (PPA's) that result from
these negotiations typically set out jointly developed goals,
objectives, and priorities; the strategies to be used in meeting them;
the roles and responsibilities of the state and EPA; and the measures
to be used in assessing progress. A PPA is generally based on
information about the environmental and program conditions of the
state, as well as national and Regional priorities and concerns. A
state may apply for and receive any grant, as well as a PPG, without
negotiating a PPA. However, a PPA can provide the strategic
underpinning for the work a state plans to carry out with EPA financial
assistance, and in some cases, the PPA actually serves as the grant
work plan.
In proposing to direct resources in a PPG away from lower priority
areas to areas of greater need, states need only assure that base
environmental programs will be carried out and explain why the proposed
use of resources would be beneficial. Some states are using PPG's to
try new approaches, such as multi-media inspections, compliance
assistance programs, and ecosystem management, that were difficult to
fund under traditional categorical grant programs. By allowing states
to combine two or more categorical grants, PPG's offer states an
opportunity for administrative cost savings by not having to negotiate
and track separate grants. Although states choosing to receive their
Federal funds in PPG's may be realizing cost savings through the
streamlined administrative requirements, any actual savings achieved by
the states have not yet been quantified. A recent Management Assistance
Review (12/97) by the EPA Inspector General of the PPA and PPG in Texas
indicates that the state is seeing some administrative savings, but has
not yet quantified them. Savings that are realized by the states will
free up resources to do more environmental protection generally--
providing benefits in all PPG states, including those not shifting
resources among programs or to multi-media approaches.
Question. What changes are needed in EPA's oversight of the states
in light of the state/Federal partnership implied by these grants?
Answer. Under NEPPS and PPG's, EPA still has responsibility and
authority to conduct oversight of state programs under the various
Federal environmental statutes. As one of its fundamental goals, NEPPS
seeks to achieve more efficient and judicious use of this authority.
The NEPPS process provides an opportunity for EPA and the state to
discuss strengths and weaknesses in a state's environmental programs,
and to design solutions to problems or rewards for good performance to
suit the specific situation. Agreements reached about oversight are
often articulated in the PPA itself.
Under NEPPS, EPA and individual states have negotiated such changes
in oversight as reductions in the frequency of reports and on-site
reviews, elimination of unnecessary reports, and direct information-
sharing. In some states, EPA and the state are jointly carrying out
tasks ``side by side;'' this approach allows EPA to oversee a state
process while assisting the state in getting real work accomplished. In
another example of how EPA is providing technical assistance, EPA staff
were assigned to work part time in a state to help the state clear its
significant permit backlog.
All Federal grants, including PPG's, are subject to government-wide
performance and fiscal accountability requirements. EPA is responsible
for ensuring that the state carries out the work the state agreed to
perform and has properly used Federal funds. To build partnership into
the grant process to the extent possible, EPA is working with the
states to draft a revised rule governing EPA grants to states, which
significantly streamlines administrative requirements. The new rule, as
currently drafted, emphasizes joint planning and priority setting,
promotes the use of a results- oriented management framework, and
requires joint development and implementation of grant evaluation
plans. EPA expects to propose this rule in fiscal year 1999.
Question. What progress have EPA and the states made in developing
alternative measures of state performance?
Answer. EPA and the states have been working jointly in several
different groups over the last few years to develop better performance
measures. The principal focus of these groups has been to develop more
results-oriented (outcome) measures which can be used in combination
with the more traditional activity (or output) measures. In August of
1997, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), an
organization comprised of senior state environmental officials, agreed
to a set of fiscal year 1998 Core Performance Measures, as well as to
the overall architecture, terms, and definitions for those measures.
While many of the measures in that set are still considered ``works in
progress,'' this agreement was a major milestone in developing better
measures of state and EPA environmental performance. These measures are
being tested and refined by joint EPA/state workgroups. These groups
plan to recommend refinements to the measures in time for use in fiscal
year 2000.
In addition to the work of these joint groups, notable examples of
progress in developing new measures can be found in New Jersey's
emphasis on new environmental measures; Florida's efforts to measure
environmental compliance as contained in the ``Secretary's Quarterly
Performance Report'' from the Department of Environmental Protection;
and the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA)
``Final Report of the National Performance Measures Strategy,'' issued
in January 1998. OECA received extensive involvement and input from
stakeholder groups representing a wide range of interests in developing
the report. These different projects are producing alternative measures
and approaches which are being piloted in several places across the
nation for possible future use on a national level.
drinking water regulations
Question. How does EPA respond to concerns expressed by the water
industry that (1) epidemiological studies and other scientific research
will not be completed in time to base potentially expensive standards
on good science and (2) the agency will proceed to issue the
regulations and meet the statutory deadlines despite the lack of
sufficient data?
Answer: The Agency is aware and has discussed with its stakeholders
that as provisions with longer-term deadlines in the 1996 amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act get underway, there may be a strain on the
research and risk analysis capacities to address the science and data
needed for the potential regulation of newly identified drinking water
contaminants. The EPA research, risk and regulatory communities and
their principal stakeholders are in agreement that current level of
effort is satisfactory to meet the SDWA requirements for the
contaminants identified in the 1996 amendments, e.g., microbial/
disinfection byproducts rule cluster, arsenic, radon, radonnuclides.
After conducting a strategic program assessment on long-term drinking
water activities and needs, however, work on any of the contaminants
listed on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), issued as mandated on
February 6, 1998; activities to revisit and revise all existing
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations by 2002; and, new rule
implementation present a challenge.
In addition to identifying the next round of contaminants for
potential regulation, the CCL also identified priorities for research
and occurrence data collection. This screening process allows EPA and
stakeholder to focus research activities on a manageable group of
priority contaminants for which there is currently inadequate
information upon which to base sound risk management decisions.
Research on these contaminants will allow them to be the principal
focus of the ``regulation determination'' portion of the next CCL
required by 2003. The research needed includes health effects (i.e.,
sensitive population considerations), exposure, analytical methods and
treatment.
EPA is examining a variety of options to ensure that drinking water
regulations will continue to be developed upon a base of good science
and data. Internal discussions between the Office of Water and the
Office of Research and Development are held regularly to develop a
research plan that maximizes Agency resources (staff and dollars) on
drinking water issues. Moreover, the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council has been briefed on this concern and will provide advice to the
Agency on the most effective way to address this problem.
cwap: reliability of data
Question. EPA's Clean Water Action Plan proposes additional
spending in fiscal year 1999 of $568 million, Federal Government-wide,
to augment water quality programs. About $145 million of that amount
would be targeted for EPA programs.
In justifying the additional expenditure, EPA officials often cite
its data showing that almost 40 percent of our nation's waters are
still impaired. Yet many have criticized the reliability of these data.
Do you feel they adequately characterize the problem and therefore help
to justify the additional expenditure?
Answer: To draw conclusions about the Nation's water quality, EPA
uses ``The National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress''
(Report) required under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. This
Report is based on data collected and evaluated by states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions during 1994 and 1995, then submitted to EPA.
Uncertainties in the data arise primarily because jurisdictions use
different water quality criteria and survey methods to rate their water
quality. The jurisdictions also take different approaches to
designating how their waterbodies are most appropriately to be used--
such as for swimming, drinking, or fishing. Finally, the reporting
jurisdictions have not evaluated all of their waterbodies, but only a
sampling of their rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Based on the data in the Report, EPA has made its best judgment
that about 40 percent of the surveyed rivers, lakes and estuaries are
too polluted for basic uses such as swimming, drinking, or fishing.
EPA believes that the data does adequately characterize the
Nation's water quality, but also that additional and more consistent
information is needed. This type of information and evaluation would be
made possible under the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) and is highly
justified given the broad scope of the effort and the number of
jurisdictions involved. Under CWAP, EPA, USDA, USGS, NOAA, and other
partner agencies will collaborate with states, tribes, and local
governments to more uniformly assess water quality and other natural
resource goals, develop watershed restoration action strategies,
prevent watershed pollution, and provide grants to local organizations
to promote leadership in restoring and protecting watersheds.
A key component of the CWAP is to ensure that Federal monitoring
resources are used to support areas of greatest concern, including
watershed characterization. The Plan calls for Federal agencies, led by
USGS, to work with states and tribes to improve monitoring and
assessment of water quality, focusing on nutrients and related
pollutants.
The additional funding provided under CWAP will significantly
improve our assessment of the Nation's water quality, and will
facilitate a combined Federal, state, and local effort to improve water
quality and our watersheds on a national level.
cwap: major programs already in place
Question. Before deciding on such a substantial increase in our
commitment to dealing with the problem, doesn't it make sense to take
stock of major programs already in place, such as USDA's Conservation
Reserve Program, to address water quality programs?
Answer. It makes very good sense to take stock of programs already
in place, along with the extent and severity of remaining water quality
problems, in identifying the level of Federal funding needed. This was
an important part of the process that led to the Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP). In recognition of the significant contribution that farm
programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program make to water
quality, USDA Secretary Glickman co-led the effort to develop the Plan
with EPA Administrator Browner. In addition, eight other agencies with
programs that affect water quality participated in developing the Plan,
ensuring that the full extent of existing water quality efforts were
considered.
Despite the significant contributions to water quality that Federal
programs and others have made, the waters in many communities in the
U.S. do not meet clean water or other natural resource goals. Unless
additional efforts are made, including additional funding, many of
these waters will continue to be impaired for the foreseeable future.
There are two challenges before us, and each requires a significant
investment of resources. The first is addressing the continuing effects
of past practices. Excessive sedimentation has resulted from
inappropriate land management. Over half of the wetlands originally
found in the continental U.S. have been destroyed. Runoff from
abandoned mines pollutes our waters. Our second challenge is to address
emerging problems in our waters. Increasing development along our
coasts is adding more stresses to our estuaries and the rivers that
feed them. Changes in the nature of the livestock industry in recent
decades require additional steps to manage wastes from animal feeding
operations. Many kinds of hydrologic modifications are altering aquatic
habitat. One consequence of the emerging stressors is increased risks
from waterborne organisms such as cryptosporidium and pfiesteria. Other
effects are algal blooms, fish kills, dead zones and a troubling number
of freshwater fish species listed as threatened or endangered.
The Conservation Reserve Program, like the Wetlands Reserve
Program, has a maximum number of acres that can be enrolled. The
President's budget request is designed to provide funds for those
programs that are best suited to address the most significant problems
in priority watersheds. By directing most funds to States, Tribes and
landowners, changes that improve water quality and aquatic habitat will
be accomplished on-the-ground in ways that are tailored to solve
specific problems and achieve the most environmental benefits for the
funds invested.
Question. Do you have a handle on how much of a resource commitment
the Federal Government is already making to address these issues?
Answer: In the programs for which increases are requested, the base
funding in fiscal year 1998 is $1.6 billion, and the request would
raise that to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 1999 (includes discretionary
and mandatory funds). While the total fiscal year 1998 investment to
address these kinds of issues is unavailable, other significant
programs include the Conservation Reserve Program, funded at $1.8
billion, the Wetlands Reserve Program at $236 million, and the Land and
Water Conservation Fund at $270 million in fiscal year 1998. In
addition, some States are using some of the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, funded at a level of $1.35 billion in fiscal year 1998, to
address polluted runoff and degraded aquatic habitat.
cwap: non-point source controls
Question. We understand that water quality benefits from nonpoint
source controls can take several years or more, and be difficult to
definitively measure--a difficult situation in a world where most want
to see immediate results for their invested dollar. How do you plan to
measure the effectiveness of these activities so you can reassure the
public that results will be achieved, even if not immediately?
Answer: The environmental benefits from implementation of nonpoint
source control measures and practices can be measured in many ways at
different points in the pollutant delivery process, as well as at
different geographic scales. EPA has taken several steps within this
broad range of options to demonstrate that measurable water quality
benefits will accrue from improved nonpoint source controls and other
methods of water quality and watershed improvement.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA has
set a national objective to reduce, by 2005, the pollutant discharges
from key point sources and nonpoint source runoff by at least 20
percent from 1992 levels. EPA is entering into an interagency agreement
with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to measure progress in achieving
these objectives with stream data and a method that USGS has developed
to relate measured loads of total phosphorus and total nitrogen in
streams to point and nonpoint sources. In addition, EPA will use the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Resources Inventory data to
track progress in achieving the GPRA sub-objective of reducing erosion
from cropland, used as an indicator of success in controlling sediment
delivery to surface waters, by 20 percent from 1992 levels.
At the State and watershed levels, all nonpoint source projects
funded with Clean Water Act section 319 funds are required to include a
monitoring plan that will demonstrate the effectiveness of the
projects. These monitoring plans encompass a range of environmental
indicators including water chemistry, fish, macroinvertebrates,
physical conditions, and aquatic habitat. In addition, the twenty-two
watershed projects that participate in EPA's section 319 National
Monitoring Program will provide detailed information regarding the link
between nonpoint source controls and water quality. A few of these
projects are beginning to show measured water quality improvements.
Source-based estimates of runoff reductions are also used by States and
watershed managers to indicate pollutant load reductions.
Other elements in EPA's strategy to achieve and document water
quality improvement include completion of a modernized water quality
data storage and retrieval system (STORET), revised regulations on the
issuance of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's), receipt of revised
lists of impaired waters from states, and improved and more consistent
water quality monitoring and assessment across state, tribal, and local
boundaries. The information we receive from this work should enable EPA
to present an accurate picture of water quality and tie some of that
improvement to reduced pollution form nonpoint sources.
cwap: role of epa and other agencies
Question. Could you briefly describe the roles of EPA and other
agencies in carrying out the Clean Water Action Plan and how these
activities will be coordinated?
Answer: On February 19, 1998, the President released the Clean
Water Action Plan (CWAP) that had been developed by a group of ten
Federal agencies at the direction of the Vice President. This group
consisted of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Interior, Energy, Justice, Transportation, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency. An Assistant Secretary/Administrator level group
from these agencies continues to meet regularly to guide
implementation, and members of that group have traveled to seven cities
around the U.S. to discuss implementation with Federal, State, tribal
and local officials, and with stakeholders. In addition, an interagency
steering committee, consisting of representatives from USDA, DOI, DOC/
NOAA, the Army, and EPA, has been established to coordinate the
activities of the Federal agencies to carry-out the 111 key actions
outlined in the Plan. Nine interagency action teams have been organized
to assist the steering committee by tracking groups of key actions.
Action teams are charged with developing more detailed
implementation plans, milestones, and time frames and for coordinating
with the agency personnel who will be engaged in completing the tasks.
The plan outlines in detail which agencies are to participate in
accomplishing specific key actions. The action teams, where necessary,
will facilitate clarifying those roles and reporting on progress as key
milestones are met. This structure is intended to facilitate
coordination among the various Federal agencies and is not intended to
replace or duplicate existing organizational structures or chains of
command.
At the regional level, Federal agencies are creating new
interagency coordinating mechanisms, or adapting existing ones, to
ensure that interagency cooperation occurs in the field as well as in
Headquarters. Discussions are also underway with State, Tribal and
local officials to determine how best to ensure that we work
effectively across levels of government as well as across Federal
agencies in putting the Clean Water Action Plan into effect.
Successful implementation of the Plan will require the involvement
of many people--and communication will be critical to ensure that we
coordinate effectively. A multi-agency Federal communications plan has
been drafted to ensure this occurs, using a variety of approaches
including web sites, satellite video-conferencing, public events,
written materials, and a speakers' bureau.
rcra: corrective action program
Question. What is EPA's strategy for correcting this significant
lack of progress in the RCRA Corrective Action program?
Answer: EPA is implementing a number of ambitious activities aimed
at reforming the RCRA Corrective Action Program. The Agency's
objectives are to:
1. Promote faster cleanups by focusing the program on environmental
results, not process, with emphasis on prompt controls at high priority
facilities;
2. Enhance the role of state partners;
3. Promote innovative yet practical approaches to improve the pace
and efficiency of investigation and cleanup actions; and
4. Enhance public involvement and boost community participation in
the process.
Some of the key activities underway to achieve these objectives
are:
1. The development of new national corrective action performance
standards under the Subpart S initiative which emphasize results, not
process;
2. Finalization of the HWIR-Media rule, which creates a new type of
permit that will be faster and easier to obtain than traditional RCRA
permits, and will not require facility-wide corrective action, and also
provides for a new kind of unit called a staging pile that allows more
flexibility for the storage of remediation waste;
3. Finalization of the post-closure rule, which provides for
flexibility by removing the requirement to obtain a permit for the
post-closure period, and allowing the use of other available
authorities such as corrective action to address post-closure needs;
and
4. The development and delivery to the EPA regional offices and
states of a major new corrective action training course, which focuses
on key principles and approaches to cleanup that have accelerated
schedules, improved efficiency and focused implementation more on
achieving protective results rather than following a prescriptive
process.
5. Heightened emphasis through the Annual RCRA National Meeting and
through frequent visits with the regional and state programs as
vehicles for stressing the importance of using the flexibility in the
corrective action program. Flexibility among implementation options was
outlined in the May 1996 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Subpart S, and reinforced in a memorandum from Elliott Laws and Steven
Herman to the regional offices in January 1997.
rcra: deferral of superfund sites to rcra
Question. Given the lack of progress in the RCRA Corrective Action
program, why has the agency taken the position to defer some Superfund
sites to this program, especially given the larger amount of resources
available to the Superfund program?
Answer. The 1984 amendments to RCRA established corrective action
requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSD's).
Consequently, EPA has overlapping statutory authorities under RCRA and
CERCLA for those facilities. EPA decided to use the regulatory program
under RCRA as the program of first resort for that particular subset of
the facilities regulated under RCRA. This reduces the duplication of
resources that would inevitably occur if the Agency were to act
concurrently under both RCRA and Superfund programs. The Agency does,
however, reserve the authority to use CERCLA to address RCRA facilities
where the owners/operators are unwilling to undertake corrective action
or unable to pay for corrective action.
RCRA is an ongoing regulatory program designed for facilities
actively managing hazardous wastes, and the Agency concluded that this
regulatory structure was more appropriate than Superfund for operating
TSD's with cleanup obligations. RCRA provides administrative efficiency
by allowing cleanup requirements to be merged into the facility's
permit. By using RCRA first, EPA can leverage State resources in States
that have authorized RCRA corrective action programs. Moreover, there
is a backlog of Superfund sites awaiting funding for remedial actions,
underscoring the need to look first to the RCRA program at sites where
corrective action authorities are applicable.
The two programs will continue to work together to ensure that all
available resources are brought to bear in cleaning up sites. EPA is
currently reviewing the sites deferred from Superfund to RCRA to ensure
that the policy has been correctly applied and that high priority sites
are being appropriately addressed under RCRA.
rcra: status of efforts for a new subpart s regulation
Question. What is the status of EPA's efforts to issue a new
Subpart S regulation that provides for more flexible approaches to
Corrective Action cleanups?
If you are not moving forward with the regulation, how are you
ensuring that individual cleanup managers in regions and authorized
states (1) consistently understand any options they have to get
cleanups done faster and cheaper and streamline the cumbersome and
lengthy corrective Action process, and (2) are appropriately using
these options so that industry does not experience regional differences
in the extent and level of cleanups they have to achieve at their
facilities?
Answer. EPA is currently moving towards finalization of corrective
action regulations and/or guidance that would form a performance-based
framework for cleanups under RCRA corrective action. Performance
standards would de-emphasize process and form a national framework for
corrective action that would accommodate varied approaches towards
attaining national goals. The standards would be useful when states use
non-RCRA programs to implement corrective action. Performance-based
regulations were widely supported by commentors on the 1996 Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which EPA sought comment on this
approach.
To issue regulations expeditiously, the performance standard
framework would be finalized directly from the 1996 ANPR and the 1990
Subpart S proposal, rather than going through reproposal. EPA is
committed to active outreach in the development of final regulations,
and is planning to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) this fall
which would include, in addition to data related to its economic
analysis, EPA's view of what performance based regulations would
entail. Prior to issuing this NODA, EPA is seeking additional input
from state regulators.
rcra: allocation of resources
Question. To what extent has EPA assessed how it has allocated
resources across hazardous waste cleanup programs, especially among
regions, and whether there is an opportunity to better reallocate the
resources to achieve more progress in the Corrective Action program?
Answer. The Agency recognizes the high level of risk reduction
associated with the Corrective Action program and has responded by
devoting nearly 41 percent of all regional FTE and 42 percent of all
regional RCRA program dollars to the Corrective Action program. The
Agency created a workload model to distribute Corrective Action
resources among the regions based on the number of Corrective Action
sites within each region. Corrective Action, for the purposes of the
workload model, is defined as all activities associated with detecting
and taking appropriate follow-up actions for hazardous waste releases
from RCRA Facilities. Sixty percent of Corrective Action resources were
allocated to ``pipeline'' activities that were defined as RCRA Facility
Investigations that have been formally imposed. The balance of
Corrective Action resources for ``new activities'' (40 percent) were
distributed over Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities that either
had not had a RCRA Facility Assessment or had been assessed but were in
need of a RCRA Facility Investigation. Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities that had been assessed but were determined not to need an
investigation were not counted in the workload model for funding
distribution.
The percentage distributions are as follows:
Percentage
Share
Region 1.......................................................... 6.4
Region 2.......................................................... 11
Region 3.......................................................... 9
Region 4.......................................................... 14.1
Region 5.......................................................... 17.7
Region 6.......................................................... 14.3
Region 7.......................................................... 7.2
Region 8.......................................................... 4.3
Region 9.......................................................... 10.9
Region 10......................................................... 5.1
Regions are currently assessing the above funding distribution to
bring resources more closely in line with the recently established GPRA
performance goals. This is to be done so as to facilitate achieving the
goal that 95 percent of high priority RCRA facilities will have human
exposure to toxins controlled and 70 percent of high priority RCRA
facilities will have toxic releases to groundwater releases controlled
by 2005. This goal focuses resources on the use of interim measures,
rather than full clean-up, to accelerate progress in achieving risk
reduction by protecting people and the environment from exposure to the
dangerous contaminants at these sites.
rcra: increase enforcement actions
Question. Given industry's reluctance to initiate cleanups, what
plans does EPA have to increase enforcement actions at the high
priority facilities to achieve more progress or to work through state
voluntary cleanup programs to provide industry more incentives to
initiate cleanups?
Answer. EPA and the states are using a variety of approaches,
including orders and permits, to ensure appropriate corrective action
at RCRA facilities. Through GPRA, EPA has set two performance targets
for high priority RCRA corrective action facilities by 2005. These two
targets are to control human exposure at 95 percent of these facilities
and to control releases of contaminated ground water at 70 percent. EPA
promotes expedited cleanup that is consistent with the RCRA corrective
action performance goals. Industry owner/operators may address cleanup
independently or through voluntary cleanup programs ahead of schedule
of permit or order requirements.
ccti: greenhouse gas releases
Question. What analysis did the administration perform to determine
that $6.3 billion is needed to implement climate change activities and
how to allocate these funds to ensure that they are used most
effectively to decrease greenhouse gas releases?
Answer. There was a coordinated effort within the Administration
among several agencies to determine the appropriate resources to invest
in activities to stimulate the development and deployment of energy
efficient and low carbon technologies. The starting point for these
efforts was a review of the costs and benefits of existing programs
which had been developed last year through an interagency effort
chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality. The results of this
analysis were published in the ``U.S. Climate Action Report--1997.''
This was followed with a sector-by-sector review of additional
opportunities for carbon reductions, selecting strategic opportunities
that cost-effectively can advance the development and deployment of
energy efficient and low-carbon technologies across the economy. A
recent study, by five Department of Energy laboratories of energy
technologies that reduce carbon emissions, supported the sector-by-
sector review. The Administration also considered the extensive
recommendations of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) for new investments in energy research and
development. These recommendations are contained in the November 1997
report ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of
the 21st Century.'' The Treasury Department and several other Federal
agencies worked together to evaluate the costs and benefits of
potential tax incentives.
ccti: effectiveness of programs
Question. How is the administration planning to monitor the
effectiveness of its programs to ensure they are functioning
effectively?
Answer. The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. The first such
interagency evaluation, chaired by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, examined the performance of programs included in
the Climate Change Action Plan. The results were published in the
``U.S. Climate Action Report--1997'' as part of the United States
Submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. There were
several opportunities for public comment. The Administration will
continue monitoring the effectiveness of its programs through the
programs' performance measures established under the Government
Performance and Results Act. Several performance measures for EPA's
climate change programs were included in our 1999 Annual Plan provided
to the committee.
climate change: adjustments to programs for greenhouse gas emissions
Question. What plans are there for making any necessary adjustments
to the programs to ensure that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decrease
to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocol?
Answer. The Agency will continue to adjust programs in order to
maximize the benefits that the programs achieve. The Agency has made
several adjustments to its climate partnerships since their inception
in 1993 in order to maximize their effectiveness. In addition, the
Administration conducts periodic interagency reviews of program
accomplishments and potential, with the last being completed in 1997
(see response to previous question). This process includes a review of
the overall success of the programs and an evaluation of opportunities
to achieve additional reductions as necessary.
It must be noted that the partnership programs are not themselves
designed to implement the Kyoto Protocol. EPA's objective is based on
voluntary, profitable opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
while strengthening the economy. This objective is consistent with
general international obligations under the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which the Senate
ratified, to work toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless
of whether or not the Kyoto Protocol is ratified, these programs are a
sensible, cost-effective step to begin to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and are common-sense measures to improve energy efficiency
in our homes, offices, and businesses.
climate change: cost/benefits of voluntary programs
Question. What are the estimated costs and benefits (emission
reductions) of the voluntary programs for which EPA is seeking funding
in fiscal year 1999? To what extent have the estimated emission
reductions been adjusted to take into account factors other than EPA's
programs that may have encouraged companies to reduce their emissions?
Answer. The following table provides the fiscal year 1999 funding
request for EPA's voluntary climate programs.
Fiscal Year 1999 President's Budget Request
EPM..................................................... $158,502.1
Industry Initiatives................................ 51,600.0
Buildings........................................... 78,100.0
Carbon Removal...................................... 3,400.0
Transportation...................................... 12,002.1
Engaging Developing Countries....................... 8,400.0
State and Local Outreach............................ 5,000.0
S&T..................................................... 46,905.5
Transportation...................................... 46,905.5
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Voluntary Programs.......................... 205,407.6
With this funding, EPA estimates that the following benefits will
accrue in 1999:
--Greenhouse gas reductions of 40 million tons of carbon (mmtce)
--90,000 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions, along
with reductions in other air pollutants (such as PM and
mercury) and water pollution
--Savings of over 45 billion kilowatt hours in U.S. energy
consumption, providing $3 billion in energy bill savings to
consumers and businesses;
These benefits will expand greatly beyond 1999. The 1999 funding
will be used to form new partnerships that will deliver increased
benefits for years to come. Funding will also be used to develop a new
generation of efficient cars and trucks that can make everyday
transportation less costly and less polluting.
EPA's benefits estimates are not overstated and are based on
careful and thorough tracking of partner progress in existing
activities and are generally conservative. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office
of the Inspector General concluded that the climate programs that were
examined ``used good management practices'' and ``effectively estimated
the impact their activities had on reducing risks to health and the
environment * * *.'' The report went on to explain the methodology of
these programs as an example to the rest of the Agency, stating
``future voluntary programs could benefit from using similar
measurement techniques.'' [``Risk Reduction Through Voluntary
Programs,'' March 19, 1997].
climate change: timetable to develop ``credits for early actions''
Question. What is the timetable for developing a plan to provide
``credits for early actions''? What types of credits are being
considered? How will ``early actions'' be defined?
Answer. The Administration has not established a timetable for
developing an early credit plan. The President's 3-stage plan,
announced on October 22, 1997, includes giving appropriate credit for
early action. A number of proposals are being circulated by industry
groups and other organizations with suggestions of how to provide this
credit. The Administration intends to review these and other proposals
as it consults with industry over the coming months on ways to
voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.
climate change: stage one action steps, costs, benefits and impediments
Question. Is EPA responsible for any of the Stage One action steps
in addition to those listed above? If so, please specify the action
steps, estimated costs and benefits, and impediments to implementation
(such as the need for legislation).
Answer. EPA's responsibilities under Stage One of the President's
Three-Stage plan include continuing implementation of its voluntary
programs, conducting research and development to support the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, and participating in
consultations and discussions with industry on issues such as the
design of an early credit program. These are all addressed in the
previous questions.
sf: site cleanup goal by fiscal year 2001
Question. How can EPA be assured of meeting its 900 site cleanup
goal by the end of 2001 when EPA must obtain PRP commitments for 70
percent of the work to be performed?
Answer. The Superfund program is committed to pursuing an
Enforcement First strategy to ensure that parties responsible for
contamination at Superfund sites conduct and pay for the cost of
cleanup. The 70 percent PRP work figure is based on historical trends.
With budget constraints and the project funding queue, this ratio may
vary over the next few years. Aside from these constraints, recent
trends indicate approximately 70 percent of new remedial work will
continue to be initiated by PRP's.
sf: site identification clean up during fiscal year 1999 and estimated
costs
Question. Has EPA specifically identified the sites that will be
cleaned up during fiscal year 1999 and the estimated costs of cleaning
up each site?
Answer. The Agency has a candidate list of sites that will be
cleaned up during fiscal year 1999 with cost estimate; however, site
schedules and circumstances change making it difficult to identify a
specific list of sites. Although, there are specific targets the Agency
plans to meet. The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request states a
target of 136 cleanups during that fiscal year. We will be tracking the
candidate list throughout fiscal year 1999.
mexico border: justifications for border water projects
Question. Does EPA's Office of Wastewater or the EPA Inspector
General plan to perform a comprehensive review of the project
justifications for border water projects to ensure that the
justifications are fully consistent with EPA Office of Water and Border
Environment Cooperation Commission project criteria?
Answer. There is a comprehensive review process in place. EPA
currently receives from the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) a copy of each project application and a detailed discussion of
whether and how it meets the BECC criteria. EPA also currently receives
from the North American Development Bank a discussion of whether and
how the project meets EPA funding criteria. Both are used by EPA to
determine whether to approve the use of EPA funding.
mexico border: integrated database for colonias program
Question. Does EPA's Office of Water plan to develop and use for
program evaluation purposes an integrated database for completed and
ongoing Colonias Program border water infrastructure projects run under
the Colonias and Border Facilities Construction Program?
Answer. Databases for tracking colonia projects already exist. An
extensive database has been established for projects funded under the
colonia program in the state of Texas. The database is maintained by
the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and is updated monthly. It
includes a project-by-project summary of planning/construction status,
population served, funding sources and commitment amounts, as well as
other information. Regular meetings between EPA and the TWDB are held
to review progress and discuss more detailed issues for individual
projects. The New Mexico colonia program currently consists of only 13
projects, for which a summary spreadsheet is maintained by the New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED), and quarterly progress reports
are prepared. EPA holds meetings with NMED and makes site visits to
track progress of individual projects. Colonia projects certified and
funded as part of the general border facilities construction program
will be tracked under a database which is currently under development
by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, in cooperation with
EPA.
mexico border: installation and hook-up of drinking water and
wastewater services
Question. There are a number of financial and regulatory problems
which complicate the installation and successful hookup of drinking
water and wastewater services to unserved households in the U.S.-Mexico
border region, including (1) household capital costs of improvements,
(2) jurisdiction conflicts between state and local governments and
water supply corporations, (3) inconsistent national, state, and local
building code requirements associated with home improvements required
for participation in the water projects, and (4) the lack of
coordination between EPA, HUD, and USDA water infrastructure projects.
How significant are these problems? What remedies have you used or
planned to use to address these problems?
Answer. The problems identified above do not prevent the
construction of the water and wastewater infrastructure in the
colonias. These problems have been known for some time and positive
efforts have been initiated and are being implemented to minimize their
effects.
1. Household Capital Costs
The EPA colonia grants can be used to assist the completion of
household connections. This type of assistance has been made a priority
in colonia projects where the initial funding has successfully created
the needed treatment and collection system. In addition, the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) can include household
connections in the project financing structure. The BEIF is an EPA
funded program administered by the North American Development Bank to
assist in the design and construction of water and wastewater
infrastructure in the U.S./Mexico border.
2. Jurisdiction Conflicts
State laws and requirements define the jurisdiction and authority
for providing water and wastewater service to communities. In cases
where there is overlap the state will mediate. While there have been
some conflicts this is not a major issue. The state has provided a
cooperative environment that has resulted in fair and equitable results
to all parties without major delays to providing needed services to the
colonias.
3. Inconsistent Housing Code Requirements
The requirement for a licensed plumber for indoor plumbing and
household connections is the only code-related issue associated with
EPA funds. This issue has been resolved on a case-by-case basis at the
local level. Code requirements are specified at the state and local
level, not by EPA.
4. EPA, HUD, USDA Coordination
It is recognized that there may have been issues regarding
coordination among Federal agencies during the early stages of the
colonias program. Over time, however, the involvement of several
Federal agencies has been an asset, since an ongoing dialogue has
resulted in a cooperative, shared approach to solving problems on a
project-by-project basis. This has been established for several years
through a Texas colonias group made up of Federal and state agencies
involved with colonias water and wastewater infrastructure. This effort
was initially begun by EPA, and has continued under the chairmanship of
the Texas Water Development Board.
food quality: revise draft food safety brochure
Question. Does EPA plan to revise its current draft food safety
brochure based on the extensive comments received? If yes, what
revisions are planned? If no, why not?
Answer. Yes. EPA is currently revising the March 1996 draft based
on all the comments received from our stakeholders. EPA conducted focus
groups to ensure the brochure will answer the questions consumers are
most interested in. EPA will also be consulting with the Food and Drug
Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure the
brochure is consistent with the Administration's focus to strengthen
food safety.
The brochure will likely explain the importance of eating the
recommended servings of fruits and vegetables, the possible risks from
pesticides, and how consumers can obtain more information on pesticides
and food safety. The brochure will be distributed to large retail
grocery stores by August 1998 (the statutory deadline). EPA is also
developing information consumers can access on the Agency's website
(www.epa.gov).
Question. Is the current budget adequate to revise, print and
distribute the brochure?
Answer. Yes.
food quality: appropriate approach for revising food safety
Question. Recognizing that EPA may not meet the August 1998
requirement, is this still an appropriate approach?
Answer. Yes, the Agency thinks the general framework is still
appropriate. At the same time, we are using information from
stakeholder meetings and comments received to see how to best finalize
and distribute the brochure.
annual performance plan: performance goals and measures in annual plan
Question. How do the performance goals and measures in your annual
performance plan reflect the need to ensure that we can assess EPA's
performance on one level--that is, what improvements are directly
attributable to EPA's actions--and, on another level, track the
progress that the nation, as a whole, is making in protecting the
environment?
Answer. The Agency has tried to accommodate the competing interests
of measuring Agency-specific and national environmental performance by
blending a mix of both kinds of performance goals and measures into the
fiscal year 1999 Plan. In general, EPA has tried to cast its longer-
term performance goals as a set of objectives that reflect
environmental outcomes in its Strategic Plan. In some cases this effort
has been constrained by the Agency's present ability to measure these
environmental parameters (and the ability to link the results of Agency
activities to discrete improvements in environmental quality). Taking
into account this constraint, the Agency's basic premise is to evaluate
its own performance in terms of the relative improvements in the
nation's environmental quality. So to the extent feasible, the Agency
wants to represent its performance by national trends in environmental
quality. However, such measures will never be able to represent the
totality of the Agency's obligations and performance characteristics.
For example, the Agency's activities serve other societal values such
as fiscal responsibility and efficient utilization of public monies.
For this reason, Agency-specific performance measures will presumably
always be included in its Annual Plans.
annual performance plan: activities and actions relevant to other
strategic goals
Question. Under specific strategic goals covered in the performance
plan, EPA lists as performance goals various activities and actions
that appear to be relevant to other strategic goals. Is there an
overlap that needs to be/has been recognized and, if so, how?
Please be as specific as possible in your response and also address
the budget implications, i.e., how any overlap has been addressed
concerning the budget amounts requested for the specific program
activities involved and the resources being applied to achieve the
respective goals.
Answer. Some degree of ``cross-cutting'' categorization is
inevitable in trying to present an annual plan that simultaneously
addresses the entirety of the Agency's activities and highlights the
most significant achievements in a systematic manner. You will note
that in Chapter 5 of the Strategic Plan (pp 80-88) the Agency
highlighted six specific themes that cannot be adequately captured by
the presented set of strategic goals and objectives. Likewise, as you
note, activities among the 10 goals and 45 objectives sometimes
overlap.
We have carefully aligned the Agency's resources in a strictly
``linear'' fashion according to the array of goals and objectives
presented; we have painstakingly avoided ``double counting.'' We do not
believe any overlap in resource allocation exists.
Since the array of goals and objectives are cross-cutting, programs
have to make decisions about how best to represent their activities.
For instance, water program activities that relate to improving the
public's understanding of local surface-water conditions or specific
public water supply conditions are accounted for under Goal 7, even
though the bulk of water program activities appear under Goal 2.
annual performance plan: epa partnerships with states, tribes, local
governments, and regulation parties
Question. The September 1997 strategic plan identifies ``key
external factors'' that influence EPA's ability to achieve its goals
and objectives and over which the Agency notes that it has only partial
control or little influence. Important among these are the partnerships
EPA says it relies heavily on with states, tribes, local governments,
and regulated parties. In many cases, it appears that the achievement
of a program's goals would be highly dependent on such relationships.
How does the performance plan recognize this condition in establishing
performance goals and measures?
Answer. Many of the Agency's core environmental protection
activities are delegated to the states and tribes, and entail risk
management measures performed by regulated entities. The Agency relies
on the performance of these key parties to produce the gains in cleaner
air, water and land that the Agency seeks for the nation. Consequently,
among the performance goals and measures the Agency reports in its
fiscal year 1999 Annual Plan are those activities which states and
tribes perform and report to the Agency as part of state grant
assistance (i.e., ``core measures'' and associated reporting
requirements provided in the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System). We intend to make clear (where possible) in our
Annual Performance Reports the relative contributions to goals and
objectives made by the Agency and other parties.
However, the preponderance of the goals and measures specified in
the Plan are associated directly with Agency activities. In part, the
selection of annual goals and measures is guided by the imperative to
represent as closely as practicable the actual activities performed by
EPA during the fiscal year. For practical purposes, this means the
preponderance of reported performance targets relate to those
activities for which the Agency is directly responsible. For example,
the goals and performance indicators specified under Goal 9 (``Credible
Deterrent and Greater Compliance'') exclusively represent the planned
activities, workload and accomplishments of EPA's compliance and
enforcement staffs, and not the totality of nationwide compliance and
enforcement activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Leahy
clean air act: voc study
Question. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act included a
requirement for studying the emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from consumer and commercial products and depending on the
results of the study, to regulate the VOC levels of these products but
only if warranted. Specifically, Clean Air Act Section 183(e) mandates
this study. What is the status of this mandated study as outlined in
Section 183(e) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments? I am interested in
knowing the specific findings of the reactivity study, if it has been
conducted. Please provide me with the detailed findings of the
reactivity study as soon as possible. Furthermore, have you updated
your reactivity findings as the science has developed?
Answer. EPA completed the study required by Section 183(e) of the
Clean Air Act in March 1995, and considered reactivity in carrying out
the study.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require EPA to regulate VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products, after conducting a
study to assist in prioritizing product categories for regulation. EPA
issued the study in six volumes and summarized the results in a Report
to Congress. Based on a broad survey of consumer and commercial product
emissions, and a large body of scientific knowledge on reactivity and
the role of VOC in ozone formation, EPA determined that consumer and
commercial products have the potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment. The study also established criteria for prioritizing
product categories for regulation.
In developing the criteria, EPA considered five different factors
listed in the statute: the uses, benefits and demand for the product;
the health or safety functions of the product; those products which
emit highly reactive VOC into the air; relative cost-effectiveness of
controls for products; and the availability of alternative products.
Reactivity was but one of the factors that the statute required EPA to
consider.
Also in March 1995, after ranking product categories based on the
criteria, EPA issued the list of product categories to be regulated, as
required by the Clean Air Act. EPA addressed reactivity both in
developing the study and the ranking of products for regulation. This
is discussed in more detail in two attachments: (1) testimony that Rob
Brenner, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
recently provided to a Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, and
(2) a document in question-and-answer format. Also attached is a one-
page description of EPA efforts to advance understanding of reactivity
issues.
It is important to note that States and the bulk of the affected
industries strongly support EPA's efforts to issue national rules to
reduce emissions of VOC from consumer products and architectural
coatings. States are counting on these reductions to meet their Clean
Air Act requirements. Without these emission reductions, states will
have to regulate emissions from other local businesses to meet the
Act's requirements. The majority in industry support these rules
because, without them, they have to incur the costs and burdens of
complying with an growing patchwork of differing state requirements.
analyzing electric power
Question. Analyzing Electric Power assumes that power plant units
have a lifetime of 65 years, after which they will be retired. Why was
age 65 chosen? When these plants were built, what lifetime was assumed
in submissions to respective utility regulatory agencies? Is there a
statutory or regulatory requirement that these facilities be retired at
age 65, or is there any statutory or other requirement that these
facilities reduce their environmental release? What is the share of
emissions (SO2, NOX, mercury, PM2.5 (particularly
sulfur-based fine particles), PM10 and CO2) contributed by
these powerplants to (a) the national inventory and (b) the burden on
the states east of the Mississippi River? Please prepare an analysis
indicating the emissions from these plants by state, and ambient levels
of these pollutants listed in the previous sentence in out years,
assuming a 30 year lifetime compared to the current 65 lifetime.
Answer. The 65-year life assumption applies only to medium and
large steam-electric power plants that use fossil fuels. The assumption
is based on engineering judgment on how much life extension actions can
extend the life of these units. This assumption was similar to what
other national energy models were using when the assumption was made by
EPA in 1996.
There is not a statutory, or regulatory requirement for retirement
at age 65. These units are subject to Clean Air Act regulations like
any other existing electric generation unit.
We do not have an analysis available on the emissions from these
facilities. The analysis you are requesting would require extensive
time and resources to conduct. It is also unclear, whether you want to
know today's emissions, expected future emissions, or both. Further, we
only have good data on current emissions to do an analysis for
SO2, NOX, and CO2. We recommend that
your staff contact Sam Napolitano of the Office of Atmospheric Programs
at (202) 564-9751 to arrange a meeting to discuss your needs.
electric power: exceeding 30 year lifetime
Question. Please provide the following information relative to
plants that have exceeded the 30 year lifetime expectation: (a) by
state, how many units would be affected; (b) by state, what is their
current electrical production (e.g., megawatt hours generated); (c) by
state, what are the most current estimates of total emissions from
facilities of particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, and other heavy metals; and (d) how
many of these units are located in non-attainment areas for any of
these pollutants.
Answer. We have not completed an analysis that answers this set of
questions.
For current electric generation statistics, we recommend that you
contact the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA has current
electric generation statistics data that is readily available.
We can use our Acid Rain data base to provide current emissions of
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, for units that
reported this data to us under Title IV of the Clean Act. EPA's Acid
Rain Division will provide you with this information by June 30, 1998.
We are unable to answer your question for carbon monoxide, mercury, or
other heavy metals.
Please note that EPA has not required plants to report the age of
their generation units, and we rely on information from EIA on unit
age.
technologies
Question. There are several commercially available technologies for
generating electricity from fossil fuels, but at substantially lower
emissions rates. I would appreciate a description of each of these
technologies based on data obtained from their manufacturers and
reflecting actual operating histories. These include combined cycle
systems, pressurized fluidized bed combustion, integrated gasification-
combined cycle and fuel cells. Based on data obtained from operating
experience, I would appreciate a projection of the aggregate emissions
reductions and rate impacts of replacing utility units with these new
technologies upon reaching the age of 30, with the new technologies
operating at optimum heat rates and continuing to utilize the same
fuels.
Answer. We assume that you are suggesting that new units produce
less pollution than units over 30 years old. This is true for all types
of fossil units because new units are more efficient in their fuel use
and generally have combustion and post-combustion controls on them when
they are installed. These points are made in Analyzing Electric Power
Generation under the CAAA, July 1996. Note that this report has been
updated and can be obtained from the Clean Air Power Initiative web
site. The address is: http://www.epa.gov/capi.
The analysis that you are requesting would require extensive time
and resources to conduct, and could be done a number of different ways.
We recommend that your staff contact Sam Napolitano of the Office of
Atmospheric Programs at 202-564-9751 to arrange a meeting to discuss
your needs.
standby or moth-balled facilities
Question. Some analysts have expressed concern regarding the
applicability of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to
facilities that were on standby or moth-balled status at the time of
the enactment of the 1990 amendments. Please review those amendments
and provide your view as to whether moth-balled or standby plants could
be returned to operation without being subject to the ``affected
units'' restraints contained in the 1990 amendments. Please also
provide a list of these facilities, by state, and their projected
emissions increases should they return to service, assuming a capacity
factor of 65 percent.
Answer. For sulfur oxide control under Title IV of the CAAA, moth-
balled and standby units would be ``affected units.'' For
NOX control, under Title IV of the CAAA, they would not. We
cannot provide you the emissions data that you want, because EPA only
has a list of the standby, or mothballed units, and no other data that
is needed for an assessment of their potential emissions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
conduct sampling along the new jersey coast of floatables
Question. I have been impressed by your commitment to improving the
public's understanding of potential threats from bacteria and other
water-borne pollutants in the ocean. A major part of this effort is the
ability of EPA Region 2 to conduct sampling along the New Jersey coast
of floatables and other hazards. However, your budget requests
($300,000) only enough funding for summer-time sampling. Can you
justify why EPA is not seeking funding for year-round sampling?
Answer. The 1999 request of $300,000 for helicopter monitoring
represents an increase of $60,000 over the amount provided for this
activity in the 1998 appropriation. This funding is likely to be used
during the summer months as a greater proportion of the population is
susceptible at that time. The summer months represent the height of
recreational activity on the coastal shores. Therefore, our requested
level for the helicopter will support our highest-priority monitoring
activities.
superfund orphan share request
Question. The President requested that $200 million be set aside
for mandatory funding of orphan shares in Superfund settlements. Does
EPA expect that the $200 million will be sufficient to meet all of the
demands for orphan share funds made in Senator Smith's bill reported
out of the Environment Committee a few weeks ago?
Answer. Preliminary estimates by EPA indicate that the $200 million
requested by the President for fiscal year 1999 would fall
significantly short of that needed to pay for ``orphan share'' as
defined by Senator Smith's bill (S.8). The definition of ``orphan
share'' proposed by the Administration differs from that in S.8 in
several important ways. EPA defines ``orphan share'' as the share
attributable to non-viable and defunct parties and its proportionate
share of wastes which cannot be attributed to a specific party. In
contrast, Senator Smith's definition of ``orphan share'' is much
broader and it includes the shares of parties whose liability is
otherwise limited or exempted by S.8. These include the shares
associated with certain recycling transactions, exempted small
businesses, and limitations to liability for municipalities and to
generators and transporters of municipal solid waste.
In addition, the scope of EPA's proposal to pay ``orphan share''
would be limited to response work performed under future settlements
and would not provide ``orphan share'' funding for existing settlements
or work performed under unilateral administrative order (UAO's). By
comparison, S.8 would expand ``orphan share'' funding to parties
performing response work under both consent decrees and UAO's.
Furthermore, S.8 would also reopen final consent decrees and UAO's to
provide ``orphan share'' funding where post enactment costs exceed $1
million and the ``orphan share'' (as defined by S.8's broader
definition) associated with those costs exceeds $500,000. Even where
EPA has completed construction at a site, there may be significant long
term operations and maintenance costs and groundwater cleanup costs
which could cause the S.8 threshold for reopening existing consent
decrees and UAO's to be met.
superfund: brownfields cleanup
Question. During the hearing, Senator Mikulski asked about progress
on brownfields cleanup in Baltimore. Please explain the anticipated
effects of the brownfields provisions in S.8, as it was reported out of
the Environmental and Public Works Committee in March, on the pace and
the quality of brownfields cleanup. In particular, please describe the
nature of the changes that the bill could make to EPA's existing
brownfields grants process.
Answer. Brownfields Provisions of S.8.
Title I: BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION as reported in S.8 requires the
Administrator to establish a brownfields grant program for a
brownfields site characterization and assessment and performance of
response actions at brownfields facilities. The Administrator also is
required to establish a State loan fund.
EPA's Current Program
Presently EPA operates a brownfields assessment demonstration grant
program which awards grants to States, cities, counties, towns, or
tribes to perform site assessments. To date, EPA has awarded 157 pilot
assessment grant awards. These awards may be made in amounts up to
$200,000. EPA also has awarded 24 grants in fiscal year 1997 to States,
cities, counties, towns, or tribes to capitalize revolving funds so
that these entities may in turn make loans (``RLF's'') to public or
private entities seeking to conduct cleanup. RLF capitalization grants
are in amounts up to $350,000.
To assist in determining who should receive grant awards, EPA
developed criteria based upon input from the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Committee, whose members include a broad spectrum of
stakeholders from industry, communities, environmental groups, and
environmental justice organizations. EPA updates these criteria
annually. Criteria for the award of site assessment grants include a
demonstration of need, the extent of the local commitment to the
proposed cleanup and redevelopment plans, implementation plans, and the
potential for long-term benefits and sustainability which includes
measures of success and national replicability. (See, ``The Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative--Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilot,'' EPA 500-F-97-156, October 1997).
Criteria for the award of grants to capitalize revolving loan funds
include an ability to manage a revolving loan fund; an applicant's
need; the applicant's commitment to creative leveraging of EPA funds
with public-private partnerships and in-kind services; a plan for
ensuring that the cleanup and redevelopment meet environmental
requirements; and a plan for recouping loaned dollars. ( ``The
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative--Proposal Guidelines for
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund,'' EPA500-F-97-147, April
1997).
Concerns with S.8
The brownfields program as reported by the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee in S.8 raises several concerns.
S.8 would significantly reduce the role of municipalities,
unnecessarily increase the complexity of funding mechanisms, fail to
ensure adequate resources for assessment of brownfields, allow for
grants to private developers to clean up contamination on their own
property.
1. S.8 would significantly limit the role of
municipalities.
Under EPA's pilot program, and under prior versions of S.8, both
local governments and States were eligible to receive capitalization
grants for RLF programs. EPA encourages State-wide applications to be
targeted toward specific communities. State-wide proposals that offer
tangible cleanup and redevelopment success stories within the two-year
time-frame of the awards will be considered; however, proposals that
specify the target location of these activities are stronger proposals
than those that do not. EPA is working to build strong partnerships
with States. Thus, even when the Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot recipient is a local government, EPA ensures that the STATE-EPA
partnership efforts are supported. Local governmental entities must
provide documented evidence of support from State and local
environmental, economic development, and health agencies. In addition,
the application must describe the legal authority--State or municipal
Superfund or voluntary action/cleanup programs or other local, State,
Territorial, or Tribal regulatory programs available for identifying,
assessing, and remediating brownfields. EPA strongly encourages States
and municipalities to work together to identify and improve brownfields
strategies. EPA also encourages municipalities to use existing tools
such as State voluntary cleanup programs to enhance their Brownfields
efforts.
S.8, as reported, provides that instead of municipalities receiving
grants to make loans for brownfields activities, States will receive
grants to make loans to municipalities. Municipalities may only receive
grants after a State has made a determination not to act and even then
only cities with populations over one million would be eligible
recipients. This has the added impact of introducing another layer of
authority and action that is unnecessary. EPA presently awards grants
directly to States, municipalities, or Tribes. Most applications and
most awards, however, have been made directly to municipalities, towns
and communities. Indeed, a recent report ``Recycling America's Land''
prepared by the United States Conference of Mayors indicates that
municipalities have aggressively seized brownfields assistance
opportunities, whereas some States have shown little interest. The
report gives states ``mixed reviews in their support for brownfield
activities,'' noting that ``only 30 percent of the cities gave their
states a `very active' rating; 47 percent said their state was
`somewhat active'; and 23 percent cities said their state was
`inactive.'''
Of the 157 assessment demonstration grants awarded to date, 5
tribes, 7 states and Puerto Rico have been awarded grants.
2. S.8's `State Loan Fund' provisions will supplant
brownfields characterization and assessment grants.
The State loan fund provisions have the very serious potential to
entirely supplant any brownfields characterization and assessment grant
program. This would dilute the assistance that municipalities currently
receive. Communities may well find themselves limited to a loan program
as the only means of funding support for brownfields. (See above.)
A loan program differs considerably from a grant program. Loans
must be repaid; grants are not repaid. For many communities this
difference will define whether assessment, cleanup, reuse and
redevelopment of brownfields sites take place, or whether abandoned,
idled properties remain. Many communities will not view loans, despite
the fact that grants are unavailable, as a viable tool for brownfields
redevelopment.
In addition, by collapsing the two grant programs into one, without
any assured set-aside for assessment grants, grants for cleanup could
consume too many of the limited Federal dollars, and leave too little
for site assessments, the critical first step in initiating brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment activities. For a relatively small
investment, an assessment grant potentially opens the door to
redevelopment; often assessments reveal relatively light or no
contamination, and redevelopment can proceed. On the other hand, if,
based on conditions discovered through an assessment, a developer
decides not to proceed, assessment costs may not be recouped. Providing
grants for assessments creates a heightened incentive to conduct
assessment, the necessary first step toward cleanup; and, since
assessments are less expensive than cleanup, Federal money will go
further if a minimum amount is reserved for assessments.
Many other problems with the State Loan Fund provisions are evident
and include, but are not limited to, provisions that fail to clearly
express what the loans would be for and fail to provide sufficient
mechanisms for accountability or actually forgive loan debt. The Agency
is also concerned about the provision which would create an allotment
process to provide funds to states which does not take into account
community needs.
With respect to the allocation formula, the brownfields loan fund
will involve relatively small sums of money. A requirement to develop a
formula introduces unnecessary complexity and potential delay into our
ability to disburse brownfields assistance. Further, S.8 would require
that the formula be updated at least every two years. The amount of
money involved simply does not justify so resource intensive a funding
mechanism, particularly considering the risk of delay. Moreover, there
is no need for a formula. The combination of criteria and statutorily
specified caps (contemplated in all previous legislative proposals)
would work well to ensure fair distribution of scarce Federal dollars.
3. S.8 provides that private developers can receive cleanup
grants.
Under S.8 private developers (who may also be potentially
responsible parties) could receive cleanup grants. S.8 and prior drafts
of S.8 would have provided only loans for cleanup. We appreciate that
in some instances it may be appropriate to award a cleanup grant to a
public entity, particularly where a brownfield may be returned to a use
such as a public park, which will not produce revenue. However, it is
bad policy to give money to private developers, who will presumably see
returns on their investments and therefore can, and should, replenish
the RLF's. EPA does not support paying private investors to clean up
their own properties. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we do not
support violation of the polluter pays principle.
4. S.8 does not address the full range of activities
presently conducted under the EPA Brownfields
Initiative.
S.8 does not adequately address the breadth of EPA's current
brownfields program. It omits technical support and funding for job
training and workforce development.
5. S.8 brownfield grants for response actions at
brownfields facilities are not a good use of
Superfund.
Under the current EPA program for grants for site assessment
pilots, or for grants to capitalize revolving loan funds for cleanup,
neither cities nor EPA are undertaking direct site cleanup. S.8
contains a reference to performance of response actions (section 127(b)
at brownfields facilities under the brownfields grant program, assuming
that the State loan program does not otherwise supplant this section).
EPA has always avoided funding direct site cleanup activities. Directly
funding site cleanups through a grant mechanism would not result in the
leveraging of these funds for additional cleanups.
Finally, to the extent that Fund monies are made available for
response actions at any site, the Administration has consistently
supported the principle that responsible parties should pay for cleanup
costs and that such costs may be recoverable from responsible parties.
The brownfields grants program for assessments and the capitalization
of a revolving loan fund has always been operated in a manner
consistent with the polluter pays principle and with the need to
maximize leverage of Federal cleanup funds. We would not wish to see
changes such as those envisioned by S.8 to this program.
Conclusion
S.8, as reported, would deny the very positive contribution EPA's
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. Unlike many of the
environmental programs of the past, the initiative starts and ends at
the local level. Cities decide what their problems are--and the
bankers, lenders, investors, developers, and businesses of every stripe
decide along with community residents how to solve them--EPA acts as
the catalyst for change--not its manager. States play a role, too, but
that role is as an equal partner. As the Brownfields program has
developed, communities are telling us that it is vital that their voice
not be filtered through an interpreter. Communities are the key to
success and their voice must be heard clearly and directly.
The reported bill fundamentally changes the program thereby making
brownfields efforts less effective and less efficient.
gao report critical of pace of superfund cleanups
Question. During the hearing, Senator Bond referenced a GAO report
that was critical of the pace of Superfund cleanups, and the amount of
dollars spent on lawyers, etc., rather than cleanups. Was the report
accurate?
Answer. The report is not accurate. Both the methodology and the
data used in the durations report portray a program that is slowing the
pace of cleanups, when the opposite is true. Superfund cleanup time
frames are decreasing, not increasing. The report does not reflect the
realities of the current Superfund program. Recognition that Superfund
is a fundamentally different program is paramount in any durations
report and is currently lacking in the GAO report.
More than twice as many Superfund sites have had construction of
the remedy completed in the past five years than in the first 12 years
of the Superfund program combined. There were 149 of these
``construction complete'' National Priority List (NPL) sites as of
September 30, 1992, and an additional 349 since then, for a total of
498 ``construction completions'' as of the end of fiscal year 1997. The
bulk of the almost 1,400 superfund sites on the NPL can be cleaned up
and are being cleaned up in a more timely fashion than in the past.
Eighty percent of the sites on the NPL are under construction or are
through the construction of the remedy. In the past five years,
Superfund has clearly benefitted from dozens of major program reforms,
contract management improvements, and the experiences of the first
twelve years.
With regard to enforcement, the Agency seeks to maximize
potentially responsible party involvement in site cleanup while
emphasizing fairness in the settlement process. Activities supporting
this goal include protecting small contributors to site contamination
from costly litigation; these settlements are reported annually.
Reductions in private party legal costs are not available to the Agency
but are an accompanying benefit to the Agency's approach toward
achieving site cleanup.
rcra remediation waste reform
Question. I understand that the Administration recently released
legislation specifications on RCRA Remediation Waste Reform? Do these
differ from the approach in Senator Lott's draft legislation,
circulated in January? Is legislative reform necessary? Will there be
environmental benefits realized as a result of such reforms?
Answer. The Administration has long believed that appropriate
targeted legislative changes are needed to address RCRA remediation
wastes. These targeted changes include: application of the RCRA land
disposal restrictions; minimum technology requirements; and permitting
requirements to hazardous wastes generated and managed during cleanups
(remediation waste). These changes would enhance environmental
protection by encouraging aggressive remediation of contaminated sites
where such remediation might not otherwise occur, might occur more
slowly, or might occur in a way that emphasized less treatment and/or
less permanent remedies. This conclusion was also made in the 1997 GAO
report, ``Hazardous Waste: Remediation Waste Requirements Can Increase
the Time and Cost of Cleanups'' U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/
RCED-98-4, October 1997.
The approach to remediation waste reform outlined in the
Administration's legislative specifications differs from the approach
taken in Senator Lott's draft legislation in a number of important ways
including: (1) remediation wastes would remain in the RCRA subtitle C
system, explicitly preserving existing RCRA enforcement and citizen
suit provisions; (2) remediation waste would be subject to clear
national standards for treatment and management, providing a certain
amount of site-specific flexibility while maintaining a clear national
baseline; (3) remediation waste management facilities would be subject
to RCRA subtitle C permitting requirements which would be streamlined
and more flexible than existing RCRA permits but would preserve the
RCRA cradle to grave management system.
The environmental benefits that would result derive from reducing
existing barriers to cleanup and thereby encouraging faster and
additional cleanups. Cleaning up contaminated sites reduces risks to
surrounding populations and ecosystems form exposure to contaminants.
Ground-water contamination is a particular concern. The long-term
impacts of this exposure vary depending on the type of contamination
and the extent of exposure. Health effects can include cancer, nervous
system effects (tremors, sensory abnormalities), effects on the
endocrine and reproductive systems, high blood pressure, and memory and
concentration problems. While the Agency is addressing the need to
control exposure at the highest risk sites on a priority basis, faster
and additional cleanups will provide greater protection and lower costs
in the long run. The legislative specifications encourage state
cleanups and independent and voluntary cleanups at low and medium
priority sites, where otherwise cleanup might occur more slowly.
chemical safety and hazard investigation board
Question. I am pleased to see that even with its tiny fiscal year
1998 budget of $4 million, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board is off to a promising start. The Board, of course, will always
need to draw from the expertise of EPA, OSHA, and other agencies. Is
the Agency prepared to play a supporting role in the Board's
investigations?
Answer. Yes. EPA recognizes the Chemical Safety Board has the lead
in investigating the causes of chemical accidents, and we stand ready
to support them. To this end, EPA and the Board are developing a
Memorandum of Understanding to clarify each agency's role. The MOU will
cover coordination of field activities as well as research, information
sharing, accident databases, international activities and other areas
of chemical safety.
We do not expect to complete this agreement for several months
because the Board is obligated by law to establish MOU's with OSHA and
NTSB first. In the meantime, we will support the Board in the following
manner with the available resources:
Accident Investigators.--EPA has a small, but effective team of
accident investigators. Each member is trained and has experience in
accident investigation techniques and procedures. Investigators can
perform a wide-range of site-related activities such as collecting/
examining evidence, conducting interviews, analyzing documents and
materials, and examining chemical processes.
Outside technical experts.--Through contracts, EPA has developed a
network of technical experts who we can make available to the Board.
These experts have special knowledge in such areas as specific chemical
families and particular types of chemical accidents.
In-house experts.--EPA's program staff at Headquarters, in regional
and field offices are available to perform specific technical,
analytical and logistical support tasks the Board may require during an
accident investigation.
It is also important to stress that a complementary accident
prevention effort will ensure success in investigating and preventing
chemical accidents. As EPA transitions to its new role, our priority
will be to continue to build with our available resources a credible
accident prevention program in cooperation with the Board, OSHA and
other agencies. We will concentrate our activities on:
Respond to and Implement Board Recommendations.--As EPA's accident
report activity winds down in early fiscal year 1999, we anticipate a
significant growth in workload to respond to and take actions on the
Board's recommendations to EPA resulting from their investigations and
other responsibilities. This is a statutorily mandated responsibility
for EPA under CAA Sec. 112r(6)(I) which became effective with the
board's funding, and reflects the experience of other agencies with
independent investigatory boards; i.e., DOT and DOE.
We expect that several recommendations will be generated by
accidents investigated by the Board and that these recommendations
would likely be related to emergency planning, lists of substances
subject to emergency planning or chemical accident prevention, and
hazards analysis, process safety management, or emergency response
under the Risk Management Program for prevention of chemical accidents.
The recommendations might call for regulatory action, outreach or
guidance to the regulated community or state and local levels.
Information Gathering.--We will gather information in the field to
improve our understanding of how to prevent accidents, so we can
respond faster and more effectively to Board recommendations. This
activity will be a small but essential part of the program. It stems
from our authorities for accident prevention under the CAA Sec. 112(r)
and CERCLA Sec. 104 and information gathering under CAA Sec. 114 and
Sec. 307 and CERCLA Sec. 104. The work will be done in cooperation with
other agencies such as the Board and OSHA and would complement their
efforts (much as FAA and NTSB work together in the field).
Prevention Actions.--In addition to what EPA learns from the
Chemical Safety Board, we will also act to prevent accidents, based
upon what we learn in the field and from other sources (e.g., chemical
safety audits, past accident investigations, research, compliance,
enforcement, etc.). Our chemical safety responsibilities under CAA
Sec. 112r (1), (3), (7), (8), and (9) and CERCLA Sec. 104 (b) and (e)
require us to take actions to prevent accidents. A top priority will be
to ensure that accident stakeholders are notified promptly so they take
steps to minimize risk. As warranted, we will also develop guidance,
modify existing rules and develop new ones, conduct and promote
research, and communicate with industry, government and the public to
enhance the application of safety measures.
toxic use reporting
Question. For years, the Administration has publicly supported the
concept of toxic chemical use reporting. Will the Administration
support legislation to promote such reporting?
Answer. EPA continues to support chemical use reporting. EPA
believes that chemical use data could improve the public's
understanding of and ability to evaluate environmental issues that
arise from the use of toxic materials at chemical facilities. Materials
accounting information could improve the public's ability to evaluate
facility source reduction and pollution prevention performance, focus
emergency planning efforts related to the transportation of chemicals
through communities, provide understanding on the amounts of chemicals
going into products, and address worker safety and health issues.
In what is known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Phase 3
initiative, EPA is itself contemplating adding chemical use information
to the TRI. (The concept of chemical use refers to ``materials
accounting'' information: the amounts of chemicals entering a facility,
the amounts manufactured or consumed on site, and the amounts leaving
the facility in products and wastes). The Administration has placed a
high priority on the TRI Phase 3 initiative. In an August 1995
memorandum to the EPA Administrator, President Clinton directed EPA to
expedite TRI expansion `` * * * including information on mass balance,
materials accounting, or other chemical use data.''
EPA has held public meetings on the TRI Phase 3 initiative and has
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), receiving over
40,000 comments in response. EPA has reviewed the comments and issues,
has reviewed two state programs (Massachusetts and New Jersey) that
collect chemical use information, and is continuing to evaluate a
number of other issues, prior to making a decision on how best to
proceed.
atsdr budget
Question. I am a big supporter of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), because of their good work at several New
Jersey sites, including two in Toms River (Ciba Geigy and Union
Carbide) and the Lipari Landfill. I notice that the Administration
actually asked to cut $10 million from ATSDR's budget. How do you
justify the requested budget cut?
Answer. Congressional add-ons from fiscal year 1998 were not
sustained in the Agency's fiscal year 1999 Request. With a reduction of
$10 million, ATSDR's funding level in fiscal year 1999 remains at the
fiscal year 1998 President's Budget level of $64 million.
ATSDR is a valuable partner for EPA at priority Superfund sites--
particularly at sites moving into the remedy selection/construction
phase. ATSDR's assessments can, and are, used effectively to
communicate the risks and threats being addressed by Superfund
cleanups. However, our investments must focus on our efforts to
actually remove the threats we know to exist at the Nation's worst
sites. Not withstanding ATSDR's importance to safeguarding public
health, EPA needs the additional funding to meet its construction
completion goals which will prevent populations from exposure to
hazardous waste.
pesticides: registration of lower-risk
Question. What steps are EPA taking to expedite registration of
lower-risk replacement pesticides, especially for ``minor use crops,''
such as cranberries?
Answer. EPA is committed to making every effort to ensure that
farmers have the critical tools they need to grow our food. EPA wants
all affected growers to be able to anticipate and plan for our actions.
We do not want, and do not expect, any disruption in the availability
of pest control tools without warning. We are balancing tolerance
reassessment with the introduction of new products and pest control
methods to help ensure that both chemical and non-chemical alternatives
are available.
EPA has stepped up its efforts to provide better, safer choices of
pesticides for farmers. In the past few years, EPA has created two new
programs aimed at expediting reviews and ultimately market entry of
lower risk products and safer substitutes. The Agency created the
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division. The types of products
registered in this Division generally have a non-toxic mode of action.
By combining the risk managers with the review scientists in one
division, we have been able to streamline the entire review process.
About half of post-Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new active
ingredients have been for biopesticides.
The second program, known as the Reduced-Risk Pesticide Program,
has been in place since 1994. Applications that come in under the
Reduced-Risk Program are placed at the head of the review queue. To
date, 17 new chemicals have been approved as reduced risk alternatives.
This program clearly provides an incentive for companies to develop
lower-risk products and safer substitute products. Among the 13
chemicals currently under review as part of this program, 5 new active
ingredients are potentially significant substitutes for some
organophosphate registered uses for which reviews should be completed
before tolerance reassessment on organophosphate pesticides is
completed. EPA has also proposed a draft policy to give expedited
consideration to applications for reduced risk pesticides that may be
alternatives to the organophosphates. As stated in the Vice President's
April 8 memorandum on food safety, EPA is establishing an advisory
process to ensure broad stakeholder involvement in the development and
implementation of an approach to tolerance reassessment for
organophosphate pesticides.
EPA is particularly concerned that options are available for minor
crop growers. The Agency has put in place a priority system for minor
uses which allows applications to be expedited, created a minor use
team with an ombudsman within the pesticide program, and has broadened
communication efforts with growers and trade associations concerned
about minor use issues. In addition, we have published guidance on the
minor use prioritization criteria and held a workshop on minor use
registration.
In addition, EPA works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) on a regular basis to ensure that the impact of its regulations
and decisions on farmers is considered. EPA and USDA also have a
Memorandum of Understanding to foster cooperative efforts to provide
replacements for pesticides that are likely to be subject to
cancellation or suspension by EPA, or are subject to voluntary
cancellation based on risk or economic concerns.
fqpa: organophosphates
Question. EPA has indicated that it intends to reassess
organophosphates under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to
determine if they meet the new health standard under the Act. I
understand that organophosphates can be toxic to the brain and central
nervous system, yet few of them have been tested for their effects on
developing brain and nervous system of infants and children. What steps
is EPA taking to reevaluate their testing requirements to specifically
reassess these chemicals for their developmental neurotoxicity?
Answer. In the past, EPA has utilized its data call-in authority to
request developmental neurotoxicity studies where the potential for
certain developmental effects existed. The need for more routine use of
developmental neurotoxicity testing was one of the topics discussed at
the March 1998 meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and the Agency is
reviewing the SAP's comments. The SAP did not reach consensus on a path
the Agency should follow but urges the Agency to continue evaluation of
the core tests required and evaluation of the design inherent in these
required tests to optimize the likelihood of detection of developmental
toxicity. In addition, EPA is currently revising its testing
requirements for developmental neurotoxicity and expects to publish
proposed guidelines in June 1998.
fqpa: organophosphates exposure
Question. While I understand that data on some sources of exposure
to organophosphates are incomplete, does EPA currently have sufficient
data to determine that there is reason for concern about exposure of
the public to organo-phosphate pesticides?
Answer. EPA certainly believes there is reason to conduct a more
detailed risk assessment of the organophosphate pesticides, which is
currently being done. As you know, organophosphates are in the first
group of pesticides to be reassessed under the stricter Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) standard. EPA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture have formed an Advisory Committee (Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee--TRAC) to consult on the framework for
organophosphate tolerance reassessment. Specifically, this group will
discuss appropriate processes for making pesticide tolerance decisions,
what documentation is needed, and how to ensure appropriate public
participation and transparency. While this group will focus on
organophosphates, it is hoped that their advice will help establish
principles for tolerance reassessment of all pesticides.
fqpa: tolerance reassessment process
Question. You mentioned at the hearing that EPA will be
establishing an advisory committee to provide input on EPA's tolerance
reassessment process. How will this advisory committee impact EPA's
ability to meet its FQPA deadline to reevaluate \1/3\ of all pesticide
tolerances by August 1999?
Answer. The Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) was
recently formed and held its first meeting on May 28-29. As mentioned
previously, the Committee will focus on organophosphates in an attempt
to assist EPA in developing a framework for making decisions during
tolerance reassessment. This Committee will largely be providing advice
on broad policy issues and is not a technical, scientific advisory
group. The Agency's refined risk assessment for organophosphates will
continue on a parallel track with the Advisory Committee's work. Once
the risk assessment is completed, the Committee's recommendations will
assist EPA in reassessing the tolerances by August 1999.
Question. How will the Agency meet this deadline?
Answer. At this point, EPA still anticipates completing its review
of the organophosphates by August 1999. It is important to note,
however, that the Agency is continuing to reassess tolerances for other
pesticides and will have completed a number of these other
reassessments by August 1999, thereby contributing to the \1/3\ of
tolerance reevaluations mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA).
fqpa: public health implications
Question. Some in the agricultural and chemical industry have
suggested that the Agency should not make assumptions about levels of
exposure and not consider these other exposure sources until actual
data are submitted by the chemical companies. What are the public
health implications if EPA fails to consider other sources of exposure
to pesticides when reassessing these chemicals? If EPA does not
consider other exposure sources when data on those exposures are
incomplete, can they comply with the requirement of FQPA that pesticide
tolerances take into account aggregate exposure?
Answer. EPA uses the best data available. Where data are
incomplete, EPA may compensate by using an additional uncertainty
factor or making a reasonable health-protective assumption. This has
long been EPA's practice and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
emphasizes the importance of uncertainty factors where data are
incomplete. Where risk estimates are used, for instance in drinking
water exposure, EPA relies on actual data supplemented with
scientifically reviewed models and not on worst-case assumptions. Where
detailed data, such as monitoring data, are not available, EPA uses
screening procedures to identify pesticides that are unlikely to get
into drinking water. This screening process allows the Agency to make
timely decisions without requiring additional data from registrants
that are not necessary to make a decision. If a pesticide does not pass
this screen, EPA considers factors such as the nature of the health
concern, overall risk, and the potential magnitude of drinking water
contamination. The Scientific Advisory Panel and the International Life
Sciences Institute is providing expert advice and review of our
methods.
EPA feels this approach is appropriate, both to facilitate the
registration of new, reduced-risk alternatives to conventional
pesticides and to allow action on pesticides where available, reliable
data indicate there is unacceptable risk.
fqpa: ten-fold kids
Question. Just last week, several scientists and pediatric experts
told Congress at a briefing that there were significant shortcomings in
EPA's toxicological data with respect to the safety of pesticides for
infants and children. In addition, a recent study by Rutgers University
suggests that some home-use pesticides previously thought to dissipate
may actually accumulate on the surface of children's toys for weeks
after the initial application. How is EPA implementing the 10-fold
kids' safety factor to account for these uncertainties with respect to
exposure and toxicity?
Answer. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) provides
important new protections for the Nation's consumers, with special
emphasis on measures to ensure the protection of infants and children.
For example, FQPA requires for the first time that EPA make an explicit
determination that pesticide tolerances be set at levels that are safe
for infants and children.
In January 1998, EPA submitted its approach to the FQPA safety
factor to the Scientific Advisory Panel for review, including how the
Agency is dealing with exposure and toxicity issues. This approach
described how the Agency considers the completeness of the toxicity
database, the type and severity of the effect observed, and the nature
and quality of the available exposure data. The application of the FQPA
safety factor is not a matter simply of uncertainty, but is also a way
of assuring an extra measure of protection for infants and children in
cases where special sensitivity or exposure for these subgroups is
identified. The retention, reduction, or removal of the FQPA safety
factor is based upon a weight-of-evidence evaluation of all applicable
data and reflects sound scientific judgment and principles. An internal
FQPA Safety Factor Committee consisting of toxicologists, exposure
scientists, and risk managers recommends whether to retain, reduce, or
remove the FQPA safety factor.
To allow for transparency in the Agency's approach, EPA has asked
for advice on applying the FQPA safety factor from independent
scientific experts and invited stakeholder consultation through the
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC). The SAP is generally supportive of the new approach
but identified the need for more clarity. The Agency will be sending a
revised guidance on the FQPA safety factor to the SAP in July.
In addition, on February 25, 1998, EPA Administrator Carol Browner
and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen requested that the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, the Office of Research
and Development, and the Office of Children's Health Protection conduct
an evaluation of the Agency's implementation efforts regarding the FQPA
safety factor. An intra-Agency workgroup established in response to
this request will soon release its initial report. The group is
evaluating both the adequacy of the data used for making decisions
about the additional factor and also the adequacy of procedures for
consistency, transparency, and documentation.
clean air act: proposed noX emissions trading program
Question. I commend the Administration for developing its
``Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan'', but I am concerned
about the impacts it might allow on air quality in the Northeast, as
well as unfair economic advantages that would be enjoyed by coal-fired
units in the Midwest that were grand-fathered under the Clean Air Act.
Under the proposed NOX emissions trading program, will
the allowable emissions of air pollutants per kilowatt-hour be
levelized between competing electricity?
Answer. The Administration's Comprehensive Electricity Competition
Plan does not seek to eliminate existing differentials in emission
standards for electricity generating units. However, the plan would
clarify EPA's authority to implement a cap-and-trade mechanism to limit
power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in 22 eastern
states and the District of Columbia.
clean air act: midwestern coal-fired units
Question. Will Midwestern coal-fired units continue to enjoy the
``environmental subsidy'' of compliance with lower emission standards?
Answer. Under the Administration's electricity competition plan,
all generating units would be subject to the same National Ambient Air
Quality Standards as before. All units are already subject to the
national requirements for SO2. The generating units in the
22 eastern states would be required, under the proposed plan, to lower
their NOX emissions with the assistance of the cap-and-trade
mechanism authorized in the plan.
northeast states for coordinated air use management
Question. Are the recent findings of the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), reported in ``Air Pollution
Impacts of Increased Deregulation in the Electric Power Industry: An
Initial Analysis'' consistent with your views on the potential impacts
of deregulation? If so do you believe that additional controls are
needed to offset increased generation by our nation's coal plants?
Answer. EPA is concerned about changes in electricity generation
patterns between 1995 and 1996 that have resulted in increased
emissions of NOx from power plants, as cited by NESCAUM.
Increased emissions for whatever reason, particularly if they persist
into the future, are a matter of great concern to EPA.
In November 1997, EPA proposed a rule that would direct 22 eastern
states and the District of Columbia to substantially reduce
NOX emissions in order to address the transport of ozone.
With further authority to implement a cap-and-trade mechanism for power
plant NOX emissions, as proposed in the Administration's
electricity competition plan, EPA believes it can effectively prevent
such emissions from increasing in the eastern U.S.
clean air act: noX emissions cap
Question. Would additional controls, such as a cap on emissions of
NOX, give the EPA sufficient authority to offset the
economic incentives that Midwestern coal plants will have to increase
utilization in a deregulated environment?
Answer. EPA believes that a cap on NOX emissions, with
trading, would effectively remove economic incentives for increased
utilization of coal-fired plants that might otherwise occur in a
deregulated generation market due to differences in environmental
standards.
diesel emissions: promote voluntary sip
Question. New Jersey is the leader in promoting voluntary SIP
credit programs for diesel retrofits. I hope that, with EPA's support,
this program will be undertaken by other states. Please provide me an
update of EPA's initiative to promote voluntary SIP credit programs for
diesel retrofits.
Answer. EPA and its partners are developing a retrofit protocol
that will provide the basis for voluntarily obtaining SIP credit
programs for diesel retrofits. The protocol is in the final stages of
development with a completion target by September 30, 1998. EPA's
partners in this effort include the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM), New Jersey Department of the Environment,
and numerous industry groups.
EPA is developing a procedure that maximizes flexibility while at
the same time providing a high degree of assurance that the credits
generated are related to real-world emission reductions. The protocol
is being written such that it will apply to a wide range of retrofit
technologies, and will serve as the basis for numerous other retrofit
protocols/programs.
EPA's Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) will be promoting the New
Jersey retrofit program as the first Voluntary Measures protocol
developed under EPA's Voluntary Measures Policy and will be promoting
voluntary diesel retrofit programs for other areas at regional
workshops around the United States. Four workshops are currently
planned. These workshops will be publicized nationally and will be
attended by numerous state, regional, and local government officials as
well as private industry representatives. In addition, the concept of
obtaining SIP credit for diesel retrofits will be promoted through
other channels to the EPA regional offices, state and local
governments, and other stakeholders. Information will also be available
at EPA's web site, at the retrofit pages.
clean air act: noX enforcement
Question. There are two specific issues before EPA dealing with
NOX. One involves a challenge from Mid-west governors and
utilities; the other involves enforcement action against diesel engine
manufacturers. Could you please update us on the status of each and
your judgment on the time-table for settling each matter?
Answer. On November 7, 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency
published in the Federal Register a proposal to require 22 states and
the District of Columbia to submit state implementation plans that
address the regional transport of ground-level ozone, the main
component of smog. In addition to the original proposal, EPA published
a supplemental notice to this rulemaking on May 11, 1998. The comment
period for the supplemental notice extends through June 25, 1998. EPA
has received a considerable amount of comments on this rulemaking from
states, affected industries, and other stakeholders, including
Midwestern governors and utilities. EPA will continue to work over the
next several months to address comments submitted for both the notice
of proposed rulemaking and the supplemental notice. EPA expects to
complete the final rulemaking in September 1998.
EPA and the Department of Justice are negotiating settlements with
the manufacturers of heavy duty diesel engines that are alleged to have
been built with defective emission control devices. Negotiations should
be finished by the end of June 1998.
gpra: epa goals vs environmental goals
Question. Could the Agency provide me a list of those activities
which promote clean air, clean water, safe food and each of the other
environmental goals, which are now characterized as supporting
``credible deterrence,'' ``right to know,'' ``sound science,''
``pollution prevention,'' and other EPA ``goals'' that are actually
means to achieving environmental goals?
Answer. You will find a listing of the activities implementing the
three goals you cite in the description provided in the combined
budget/annual plan document. However, we are unable to provide an
authoritative disaggregation of these activities in terms of the
specific contribution made to the three goals you cite. Part of the
reason for the goal structure is to represent the Agency's efforts at
improving the means of environmental protection. However, please note
that much of what the Agency expects to accomplish (expressed as
``performance measures'' in the budget/annual plan document) in these
areas relate to contributions to water quality, drinking water, air
quality and the like. To point out two general examples, the
performance measures contained in Goal 9 break out compliance and
enforcement workloads by the kind of environmental program they support
(e.g., mobile sources, water--pollution discharges, pesticide and toxic
inspections, etc.). In the second case, many of the ``deliverables''
committed to in Goal 8 relate to better understanding of the
interrelations of multiple receptors of pollution, of benefit to
multiple media environmental control programs.
gpra: achieving environmental goals
Question. Could the Agency please provide me the means by which it
tracks the effectiveness of its activities in achieving the
environmental goals of clean air and water and safe food?
Answer. You will find a listing of the activities by which the
Agency plans to achieve its objectives for clean air, water and safe
food in the description provided in the combined budget/annual plan
document. We acknowledge that such measurement of program effectiveness
is a matter for continuous improvement. For example, part of our
commitment to implement GPRA is to institute an ongoing ``multi-year
planning'' effort in each of our 10 goals, for the explicit purpose of
fashioning a ``roadmap'' for improving the performance goals.
Specifically, our agenda is to make more of our annual performance
goals expressions of discrete, incremental progress towards longer-term
targets of explicit environmental-quality improvements.
gpra: tracking progress of individual commercial sectors
Question. Does the Agency track the progress of individual
commercial sectors in reducing their air and water pollution and waste,
and in providing safer products and services?
Answer. EPA does not have a sector-specific tracking system for
environmental performance. However, the Agency makes use of its various
data bases in working with specific industries in its sector programs,
using these data to assess the environmental performance and
improvement opportunities for the selected industries. Data bases such
as TRI enable the aggregation of environmental performance data on a
sector-specific basis. Programs such as the Agency's Sustainable
Industry Program and Sector Profile Program provide an important
foundation of information on which to base sector-specific program and
policy development.
In addition, the CSI Metal Finishing Sector has recently launched a
voluntary, sector-wide Strategic (Performance) Goals Program. This
first-of-its-kind reinvention program includes a multi-stakeholder
endorsed system for tracking the progress of the sector in achieving
its goals for improved resource utilization, emission reduction,
compliance, and regulatory burden reduction. (Several Connecticut
stakeholders contributed to the development of this program.)
With regard to safer products and services, these outcomes are
closely tied to continuous, cost-effective improvement in environmental
performance--the stated goal of EPA's sector-based environmental
programs. The Agency does not track these performance criteria, largely
because it extends beyond EPA's scope of responsibility; the Consumer
Products Safety Commission may have a product safety data base that is
sector-based.
gpra: promoting progress of individual commercial sectors
Question. How does the Agency assess the extent to which its
enforcement, right-to-know, technical assistance, and voluntary
partnership activities promote progress in individual commercial
sectors?
Answer. EPA makes a particular effort to assess whether the sum of
its activities and initiatives (such as right-to-know, enforcement, and
technical assistance) promote progress in individual commercial sectors
when such sectors are identified as being especially important sources
of pollution that adversely effect human health and/or the environment.
In these cases, it is the Agency's responsibility to determine whether
its efforts are effectively reducing if not eliminating the problematic
discharges and emissions. If discharges are not being adequately
reduced, then the sector approach will often help determine alternative
approaches that may yield the desired improvements. Sectors that
discharge high volumes of highly toxic chemicals and other types of
pollutants are typically those that fall into this category. Past
efforts to holistically assess the effects of EPA's activities have
included sectors such as pulp and paper, petroleum refining, printing,
and dry-cleaning.
gpra: moving toward strategic plan
Question. Does EPA intend to move, at some point, to a strategic
plan in which ``EPA's Goals'' are environmental goals exclusively, and
in which all activities are developed and assessed in terms of their
effectiveness of achieving the environmental goals?
Answer. A strategic plan that could express objectives purely in
terms of environmental measures may indeed be a worthy ideal. However,
two practical considerations work against achievement of such an ideal.
First is the reality of being able to accurately represent the
contribution from the necessary support activities, including those
enhancing the means of improving environmental quality.
Secondly, environmental protection is more effectively and
efficiently achieved by giving citizens the means to know their
problems at the grassroots and to solve them, by better scientific
understanding of the problems and their solutions, and by more
efficient compliance with essential standards through a better
appreciation of the deterrence value of enforcement. Hence, all these
are essential Agency priorities on a par with the Agency's basic
responsibilities to see that levels of environmental quality are
sustained and improved. The Agency is committed to ``working smarter,''
to foster a new way of achieving environmental protection, and its
choice of strategic goals reflects that commitment. This commitment
embodies the realization that sustained improvements in the quality of
the air, water, food and other kinds of environmental media that we all
seek will depend, in the long run, on fashioning new ways of doing
business that build on the successes to date. Sometimes better
``means'' are as valuable as better ``ends.''
______
Question Submitted by Senator Hagel
combined animal feeding operations (cafo's)
Question. EPA has proposed broadly regulating this nation's
livestock producers and their operations. In Nebraska, it is clear that
the onerous ``one-size-fits-all'' approach of Federal livestock
regulatory standards is not appropriate. It fails a ``real world''
test. In reality, this will add another frustrating level of Federal
bureaucracy on our livestock producers, on top of regulations already
imposed and enforced by the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). What is the cost of forcing these EPA regulations on our
livestock producers? What is the impact on local main street commerce?
These questions are completely disregarded by an EPA bureaucracy that
regulates from Washington with no understanding of the implications of
their actions in the real world. And for what? Why?
Answer. EPA is presently working with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to develop a joint strategy on animal feeding operations
(AFO's). This strategy will give priority to the development of
voluntary, incentive based approaches to assisting livestock producers
in efforts to protect the environment. The vast majority of animal
feeding operations are likely to be addressed using these voluntary
approaches.
Some large producers now have permits under the Clean Water Act and
the strategy may call for some additional producers to obtain such
permits over a specific period (e.g. by 2005). Some States now require
livestock producers to address water quality and related environmental
issues. National minimum regulations related to animal feeding
operations help assure that large facilities have a ``level playing
field'' and that producers in States with strong environmental
programs, like Nebraska, are not at a competitive disadvantage in
competing with producers from States with less protective requirements.
The costs to a given facility of any future Federal requirements
for reducing water pollution from large animal feeding operations will
vary based on several factors including the specific pollution control
requirements and the extent to which some facilities may already have
implemented some or all of the requirements under local, State or
Federal laws.
subcommittee recess
Senator Bond. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
May 7.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Tuesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
May 7.]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Burns, Stevens, Mikulski, and
Boxer.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE WITT, DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GARY JOHNSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIRECTORATE
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing is the first VA-HUD Subcommittee hearing
for the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process. Once again, we
will be confronted with a very tough task in crafting the 1999
appropriations bills as the discretionary budget caps
established in last year's budget agreement provide for no real
growth in nondefense discretionary spending.
Unfortunately, the President and the Office of Management
and Budget did us no favor in proposing a 1999 budget which
breached those caps by using what I consider to be phony
offsets. Moreover, the President's budget request in a number
of key areas within this subcommittee's portfolio falls short
of the need, including veterans medical care, housing for the
elderly, and FEMA disaster relief, which we will be discussing
today.
Clearly, we will be forced to make some difficult tradeoffs
in order to accommodate such critical funding requirements.
This morning we will take testimony from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, followed by the Corporation for
National and Community Service.
We welcome James Lee Witt, Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and those accompanying him this
morning.
Mr. Witt, while we in Washington have enjoyed a very mild
winter courtesy of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino,
other parts of the country have not been so fortunate. FEMA
currently is responding to major disasters in more than a few
States which are reeling from El Nino-related weather events.
Mr. Witt, once again you and the FEMA staff deserve praise
in your response effort and we acknowledge your good work. We
look forward to getting an update on the status of disaster
relief efforts in New England, Florida, and California and
other States and territories suffering major disasters in
recent weeks.
Turning to the budget request, FEMA is requesting $831
million for fiscal year 1999, including $308 million for
disaster relief. In addition, FEMA is requesting $2.3 billion
in disaster relief contingency funds outside of the
discretionary caps.
safety of dams
For the operating programs and the emergency food and
shelter program, FEMA's request is modest and represents little
change from the current year. We do, however, have serious
concerns with the proposed $11 million cut to State and local
assistance and the $1.4 million cut to the new dam safety
program. I am very disappointed that the powers that be at OMB
have not recognized the value of your disaster mitigation
program as it relates to FEMA's dam safety program. The program
is authorized at $3.9 million this year, a measure I fought
hard to get in the authorization because we know too well the
disasters that occur when dams fail. Yet OMB saw fit only to
request $1.5 million.
As you may recall, last year the administration requested
zero funding for the dam safety program. OMB, our good friends
of budget cutters----
Senator Mikulski. Shouldn't that be safety of dams?
Senator Bond. The safety of dams?
Senator Mikulski. It sounds like the damn safety program.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. The way they are funding it, I prefer to call
it the dam safety program. When they give it full funding, we
will call it a safety of dams program. [Laughter.]
Our good friends at OMB are often accused of knowing the
cost of everything and the value of nothing. That seems to fit
in this instance.
The $1.5 million request is unacceptable. We will work to
remedy it in the committee bill. And if my distinguished
ranking member insists on calling it the safety of dams
program, we will so designate it.
Not surprisingly, we will focus on disaster relief issues
today. FEMA's proposal to take off budget $2.3 billion in
fiscal year 1999 disaster relief costs is extremely troubling.
Moreover, FEMA's budget request for fiscal year 1999, including
the off-budget contingency funds, is not even enough to cover
anticipated requirements for fiscal year 1999 and prior year
disasters.
burgeoning cost of disaster relief
Once again, the VA-HUD Subcommittee will be confronted with
a need to replenish the FEMA checkbook. Had the administration
budgeted for those requirements under the caps, it would have
made our job a lot easier. That would have been the fiscally
prudent course to follow.
As you know, Mr. Witt, I have long been concerned with the
burgeoning costs of disaster relief. In the last 5 years, we
have appropriated a staggering $18 billion to FEMA for disaster
relief, compared to $6.7 billion for the prior 5 year period.
cost containment in disaster relief
Nature has not been that much worse. Costs clearly are out
of control and something just has to be done about it.
For several years, I requested FEMA to submit a legislative
plan to control disaster costs. After much cajoling, arm
twisting, and threats of reduced funding, FEMA finally
submitted a proposal for reforming the Stafford Act last
summer.
The proposed amendments address several very important
areas, including new incentives for mitigation, streamlining
the grant process, and eliminating certain facilities currently
eligible for disaster relief, such as golf courses.
It did not include all of the reforms recommended by the
inspector general or the GAO, such as the need for disaster
criteria, but it was a good first start and I appreciate the
work that you put into that proposal.
I remain hopeful--I am not sure why, but being an eternal
optimist, I have some hope--that the legislation will be acted
upon by the authorizing committee this year and I would
strongly urge you and request you to do all you can to
encourage such action by working with members of those
committees, as well as such stakeholders as the States, cities,
counties and others.
While legislative changes may not be feasible in the near
term, I believe there is more FEMA can do to control costs
without amendments to the Stafford Act. But FEMA has not made
cost containment a priority, as demonstrated by the fact that
FEMA's strategic plan does not even address this issue.
I must tell you that I am disappointed that FEMA still has
not yet issued a final rule limiting the number of appeals, an
administrative change which has been promised for some time.
Without legislative or administrative changes to the current
disaster relief program, we can expect that disaster relief
costs will continue to rise each year. This simply is not
sustainable.
We must get a handle on disaster relief costs. I would hope
you would be willing to make disaster cost containment as much
the hallmark of your tenure as you have made mitigation.
Let me also add that there are many reasons for the
increase in disaster costs, not the least of which is the
numbers and severity of earthquakes, hurricanes, and other
disasters. But we should also acknowledge that, as FEMA has
become more proactive, States have become increasingly reliant
on Federal aid.
In the past 5 years, the number of requests from Governors
for major disaster declarations has increased by 36 percent.
I firmly believe that the State-FEMA relationship must be a
true partnership. There must be a strong State commitment to
preparedness, there must be accountability. If States are not
doing their share, are not requiring adequate insurance on
municipal facilities, are not undertaking appropriate
mitigation measures, there ought to be consequences, possibly
in the form of reduced Federal aid.
That is not a popular stance. That is taking away the
dessert plate. That is taking away the candy and ice cream. But
I believe it is a fair stance.
predisaster mitigation criteria
Moving on to mitigation, an area you have made a top
priority, FEMA is requesting $50 million for its new
predisaster mitigation program, called Project Impact. While
the concept of building disaster resistant communities is
excellent and your focus on this critical issue is commendable,
I am concerned that we have not seen reasonable, quantifiable
criteria or guidelines for how this program should work.
Recognizing the importance of mitigation, we agreed to
provide $30 million for Project Impact for fiscal year 1998,
but did so with very few details from FEMA. This program must
have clear criteria and performance measures. It must be more
than a new grant program, but a strategic element of a national
strategy to encourage actions to mitigate future disasters. And
we must understand the distinctions between this program and
the hazard mitigation grant program under section 404 of the
Stafford Act for which $1 billion currently remains
unobligated.
I continue to have concerns with the fact that the States
are not spending these funds and question the establishment of
a new program when the existing one is not being fully
utilized. We understand that a report is underway and due to us
at the end of the month, which we hope will address these
issues.
Mr. Witt, I understand that in testimony before our House
counterparts earlier this week you stated that it is your real
friends who tell you what you need to hear.
Well, by now I hope that you will consider us your very
good friends.
Let me turn to my distinguished ranking member, Senator
Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, in recognition that the
full committee chairman is here, I would defer to him and
extend the courtesy.
Senator Stevens. I thank you very much. I am here to listen
and just make one comment. But I would be pleased to hear what
you have to say, too.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Witt, we welcome you once again to the Appropriations
Committee and want to thank you and also the very able staff of
FEMA and also the FEMA people in the field who have responded
to the tremendous number of disasters that we have had this
year, whether it has been Maine ice storms, tornadoes in
Florida, disasters de jour in California, and also throughout
the United States of America there seems to have been,
particularly in the last 3 years, an increase in natural
disasters.
We look forward to hearing what you need in order to be
able to respond. But, as you know, when you took responsibility
for this agency and brought under this rapid response, we
talked about two things: one, preparedness. In other words,
what can we do before a disaster occurs to make sure that FEMA
and the people in the States were fit for duty.
We would like to hear where you are in preparedness and
what financial resources you need to do that.
Second, we are looking for predisaster mitigation. As you
and I know, it is often the infrastructure of local communities
or a variety of other aspects of a specific community that
makes them disaster prone. We cannot stop the forces of nature
though we can often predict what a community will do.
I will be interested to know how we can, using predictions,
prevent at least the consequences to property and to human
lives. I think that is really one of our biggest challenges in
the area of prevention.
The other area I would like to be able to take up in my
questioning, though, is something not caused by nature but
something caused by the rogues and scum of this world and it is
those who have biological weapons, those who are developing
right now the repugnant, despicable, ghoulish weapons of mass
destruction.
I know that you are a vital part of the President's team to
make sure that we would be able to prevent and have the ability
to respond to a biological or chemical terrorist attack on the
United States of America or one of its communities.
I look forward to hearing as much as you can share in an
unclassified briefing what FEMA is doing so that we stand ready
in the event that there is any attempt to attack the United
States of America, we have our defenses from the military and
we have our civil defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
Now I turn to our distinguished chairman for his comments.
STATEMENT OF TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to see you, Mr. Witt.
I have come because I share the feeling that Senator Bond
has just expressed. The amount of money that we have going out
on disaster relief I do not criticize as much as I am trying to
analyze. It does seem to be on a very sharp curve upwards and
it comes at us in a way that we can hardly deny the next
victims the same level of support that the victims of the last
disaster received.
And yet, I am not sure that we have looked at those
services and payments with really an analytical eye in terms of
ability to afford in view of the caps we live under now. I have
come to ask you this.
I was going to ask GAO to take a look at it. But have you
studied how the changes in the past few years in terms of the
benefits that are available to victims of disaster,
particularly with regard to those who are living in areas that
seem to have the same disaster pattern every 2 or 3 years?
I saw someone from one State that said well, yes, he had
rebuilt his house three times.
Now somewhere there has to be a limit that says if you
rebuild it once, that ought to be enough for the taxpayers. If
it is destroyed again by a flood or the same kind of disaster,
it would seem to me that there was some risk taking in staying
in an area where there are flood plains, for instance, or
hurricane patterns.
With due regard to my friend from California, I remember as
a young man when one whole area of California slid into the
sea. I was interested to see that it was the area behind that
that slid in this year.
We have to get some standards, I think, and some criteria
so that we can be freer, particularly when I realize that the
new Madrid Fault Line is still there and it has not rung the
bells in Boston for 100 years.
We are going to get a massive one, soon, and if we apply
the same level of assistance to people in massive disasters, we
just will not be able to afford it.
Are you making a review on that now?
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. When would we see the results of that
review?
Mr. Witt. We hope very soon. We are looking at the entire
disaster program across the board including individual
assistance grants and the public assistance program, which we
are reengineering and streamlining.
loans versus grants for disaster relief
Senator Stevens. I remember so well the 1964 earthquake in
Alaska. We got a series of loans to rebuild our homes.
I noticed that in recent disasters, people get grants to
rebuild their homes.
Mr. Witt. Some of them do qualify for grants.
Senator Stevens. We have changed the standards considerably
through the program. Is that an unfair judgment?
Mr. Witt. I don't think the standards have been changed,
Senator. The loan program that you are referring to is an SBA
program.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Witt. The individual and family grant program, is a
program that FEMA funds at a 75/25 match with the States who
run the program.
The average grant to homeowners nationwide is about $3,500.
The maximum allowable under that program is $13,400.
The homeowners may be eligible for up to $10,000 to make
their home livable in lieu of receiving temporary housing under
the Disaster Housing Assistance Program. But before applicants
can qualify for an IFG grant, they have to go through the SBA
to see if they are eligible for a loan.
Senator Stevens. All right.
I do not want to prolong this, but I do think the problem
of fairness is going to come on us if we have a massive
disaster and we try to make available benefits at the same
level we have had for these unfortunate, but fairly small,
disasters on a localized basis.
We have to make some tough decisions in advance of those
big ones and I don't see how we can do it unless we have some
real statistical data to see what is the fair thing to expect
the taxpayers to pay in the event of people suffering from
disasters like we may incur in the near future.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have one question.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
support on this. It is not just the rebuilding of homes, but
FEMA recently paid $400 million with a 10-percent cost share to
rebuild a university hospital. Frankly, the university is in a
lot better financial condition than the U.S. Government.
This approach is not sustainable. I very much appreciate
the support of the chairman of the committee and I assure you
that we will be following up.
We are delighted to have Senator Boxer with us.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA BOXER
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you Senator
Mikulski for your leadership.
James Lee Witt, it is always good to see you. I,
unfortunately, get to see you too often in my State.
As a matter of fact, I would say to my colleagues that on
Saturday, the President sat at the LAX Airport and he met with
survivors of our recent El Nino storms and people who had been,
literally, pushed by the force of mud out of their homes. There
were families with babies, just an unbelievable array of people
and stories.
I just want to thank him, even though the President
obviously is not in this room right now. I wanted to thank him
again for doing that. Also I wanted to thank Vice President
Gore for visiting us and also, of course, Director Witt, who is
always there. We consider you an honorary Californian.
I don't know how much more of this we are going to have. It
is just a very eerie feeling because you go out there and the
sun is shining, and yet you know what they are telling us. So
far what they have told us is true. If this is so, we are going
to see more of this, the force of nature.
I think what struck most people this time, Mr. Chairman,
was when the two highway patrolmen were killed. You look at
them and feel these guys are just going to be able to do
anything they want. Well, they lost their lives trying to
rescue folks who had fallen into one of these mudslides.
It is really quite amazing.
Let me get to the purpose of this hearing which is to
discuss the future.
I am concerned about the immediate future, about the
ability of FEMA to meet the need. I know that Senators,
Congresspeople, and you will do all that we can. But I read
yesterday in the press from a news wire that the President is
submitting an amendment to the 1999 budget to use $1.86 billion
of disaster funds to pay for the full cost of Bosnia.
I just would like for you to clarify that because that is
clearly troublesome and I am hopeful, from the way you are
already shaking your head, that that is in error.
I look forward to hearing you say that.
Let me just quickly ask if I can put my whole statement in
the record and just make three quick points here, if I might.
Senator Bond. We would be happy to accept your full
statement, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
What I want to share with my colleague, Senator Mikulski,
who came out to California for an El Nino summit, for which I
was so grateful to her, and with you, Mr. Chairman, who have
been so passionate toward all of us who have gone through this
is that our El Nino summit and the fact that James Lee Witt was
there and prepared for it really helped us.
We repaired all the flood damage from our 1997 storms. So
we were ready. The levies so far are holding, knock on wood. We
have streamlined the permitting process to get channels cleared
and gave every good sized city and county information on how to
prepare.
Also, because of our efforts, those of all of us, more
people got flood insurance. We had a 40-percent increase in
those folks who had flood insurance because we were out there
before the rains started, giving out phone numbers.
Usually we sit here and complain about things. It is not
that we do not have some complaints. But this was a good step
forward. The agency has responded magnificently in terms of
allowing us to rebuild freeways.
Just recently, this week, Santa Barbara will be able to
move forward in cleaning out debris basins, which is very
important.
As I say, we expect more storms and we cannot afford to not
be vigilant. We know what is coming. We are grownups and have
been warned.
I just want, once again, to say to James Lee Witt and to
both my colleagues thank you very much. I am so honored to be
on this particular subcommittee. It is not a theoretical
assignment. It is such an important assignment for my State.
prepared statement
I thank both of you and I again thank James Lee. I look
forward to hearing from him and getting some reassurances on
the budget.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Boxer
I first want to thank you, the President and Vice President Gore
for your recent trips to California to visit with many of our people
who have suffered through the awesome destructive power of the El Nino
winter storms. These visits boosted spirits and added greatly to our
efforts to recover from these storms.
I was there with the President when he met with those who suffered
through the ordeals of this horrific mudslides.
The new FEMA was successful again in working with our State and
local agencies to be ready to assist recovery efforts the instant the
President issued his declarations. Since our El Nino summit last year,
we have done a lot in California to prepare for the storms. We repaired
all the flood damage from the 1997 storms, streamlined the permitting
process to get our channels cleared and gave every good-sized city and
every county information on how to prepare.
I am proud to know that as a result of our efforts, the number of
National Flood Insurance Policies increased by 40 percent from 1996 to
1997, the largest one year increase in California in the program's
history. I would like to hear further from you on how well we did in
preparing State and local communities for this disaster and any
suggestions for future improvements.
I want to thank you also for the news this week that Santa Barbara
County was approved for $4.5 million in FEMA assistance for the
clearance of 13 debris basins. I know my field staff worked very
closely with local agencies and FEMA for this request. That will be
critical for preparing the county for the next round of El Nino storms.
Mr. Witt, as you know, we still face another series of El Nino
storms. I would like to hear your best estimate of the impact of these
storms, considering the fact that we now have a large snowpack in the
Sierra mountains that will be melting soon and overflowing rivers and
reservoirs. All indications say the El Nino storms are not finished.
Since you are now an honorary Californian, let me thank you for
returning ``home'' again and being there to assist us in our time of
need.
importance of buyouts
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. As one
who represents a State that has been heavily hit by disasters,
particularly in the 1993 and the followup 1995 flooding
disasters, we know how important the disaster relief is. We
want to do everything to make sure that FEMA is well equipped
to go there.
The rule that was put down for the Midwestern States after
the floods was we will help you this time, but do not go in
harm's way again.
We have worked with FEMA and other agencies for buyouts to
get people out of the hazard areas. A recent article in the
Washington Post, actually on Tuesday, mentioned a city in
California that, since its incorporation 7 years ago, has had
six federally declared natural disasters, resulting in actual
and projected governmental costs of $15 million.
I think this is why we need to emphasize mitigation.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Bond. When we help people out, let's help them not
out of the current disaster but to get out of harm's way in the
future. I believe this is a goal we all share and want to work
toward.
prepared statement
Senator Craig is unable to attend today's hearing, but has
requested that his full statement be inserted in the record at
this time.
Prepared Statement of Senator Craig
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to thank the Chair and
the Ranking Member for holding this hearing in such a timely manner. I
will not take long, but would like to take this opportunity to speak to
the annual budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see my friend FEMA Director James
Witt before us today. As you know, Director Witt has had a busy year. A
great deal of his attention has been directed towards my home State of
Idaho, which recently experienced a series of devastating natural
disasters. A majority of the counties in Idaho have been named as part
of a Presidential Declaration at one time or another during the last
two years. Some were hit by ice storms, others experienced severe
flooding or other disasters--many communities are still struggling with
recovery efforts.
In each case, FEMA was quick to respond to our immediate needs.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the needs of these communities continue
long after the water recedes or the power comes back on. It is this
continued need that I want to address here today. Last year, as part of
the Senate Report which accompanied FEMA's fiscal year 1998
appropriations, the Committee noted:
``The Committee recognizes the need for better coordination
among Federal agencies and departments during the long-term
recovery process following a natural disaster. The current lack
of formal coordination of long-term recovery efforts stands in
contrast to the recent experience of effective short-term
coordination by FEMA. Accordingly, the administration is
requested to submit a plan to Congress to provide for the
designation of a single agency with the responsibility and
authority to coordinate all long-term recovery efforts among
the various participating Federal agencies. In addition, the
Committee encourages the legislative committees to examine this
important issue.''
The need for such coordination was recently highlighted when the
communities of Kellogg and Wardner, Idaho, experienced what has been
called a ``rain on snow event.'' With the ground already frozen and
covered in snow, rainwater was unable to be absorbed. The result was a
massive flood of water, snow, and mud through the heart of these two
communities. Left in its wake was damage in excess of $10.8 million.
To help begin putting these two communities back together, FEMA
assigned a special project coordinator to assist in the development of
a long-term recovery solution. His assistance and knowledge of how
Federal agencies function proved invaluable in initializing a
coordinated recovery effort. While this appears to be the first
coordinated effort of its kind, community and State leaders continue to
struggle with a few remaining Federal agencies which have yet to fully
engage in the recovery process. I continue to believe that what is
needed is for the administration to develop a strategy to coordinate
long-term recovery efforts.
I must report, Mr. Chairman, FEMA did an exceptional job in keeping
the communities informed throughout this entire process. Likewise, the
Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services has responded well above the call of
duty to the ongoing needs of these communities. If nothing else, our
experience has shown the need for better inter-agency coordination
during the long-term recovery phase. I implore the Chairman to again
stress to the administration the need to act on the Committee's request
in this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more item I would like to draw to the
Subcommittee's attention. Included in the administration's request for
funding is a net reduction of $11.4 million in State and local
assistance grants. The changes would effectively replace the current
Federal-State cost-sharing formula with a 50-50 split. I was surprised
to learn from Director Witt's testimony yesterday before our
counterparts in the House, that only a few States would be impacted by
this dramatic reduction. Idaho State officials have informed me that my
State is not fully prepared for such a shift in funding and that
emergency efforts there would be severely jeopardized--putting many
Idahoans at risk.
I will have several questions for Director Witt concerning this
matter and would welcome any explanation he might give on this
important issue.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity. I look forward
to the testimony here today and to working with you over the next few
weeks to make sure the needs of the Nation are met.
Statement of James Lee Witt
Senator Bond. Having given a full description of FEMA,
perhaps it is time for us to hear from the witness.
So, Mr. Witt, thank you very much for being here. We will
accept your full statement as submitted for the record for all
the members of the committee and would invite you to provide us
whatever highlights you wish to at this time.
Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senators.
First, I would like to introduce Gary Johnson, our Chief
Financial Officer, who is with me. Also, Mr. Chairman, we have
some new faces in the hearing today. I would like to introduce
JoAnn Howard, who is the new Federal Insurance Administrator,
to you. Also we have Mike Armstrong, the new Associate Director
for Mitigation, and Michelle Burkett, whom I think you know,
was our Regional Director in Chicago but is now over our Office
of Policy and Regional Operations at FEMA headquarters.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make my opening statement brief and
focus on a little of what we are doing, I know our time is
short and you have a lot of questions that we hope to be able
to answer.
In October of last year, Senators Boxer and Mikulski came
to California to help us to address the El Nino predictions
that were facing us. Because of their support and because of
local government support, we had over 600 local officials at
that El Nino summit.
Because of that summit and the awareness that grew out of
it--every TV station in California was at the summit--
communities cleaned up their channels, communities cut dead
trees and dead limbs away from power lines, and there were
communities that even had their citizens adopt storm drains,
they actually provided them a raincoat and a rake to keep those
storm drains open.
The city of Berkeley officials told me last week that they
had probably saved over $7 million because of the preventative
measures they took before El Nino. There are many, many other
communities that experienced the same thing.
El Nino has cut a wide swath through our country, from
California to the Gulf States, from Florida to the New England
States. A lot of people have lost their lives--over 40 people
in Florida, over 17 in California, several in the New England
States, 7 in Tennessee, and some in North Carolina.
It has been a very unusual year. We had a typhoon in Guam
in December. I can tell you the employees of FEMA should be
commended for the way they responded to the typhoon in Guam and
the dedication that they showed. They left their families
during the Christmas holidays to help the people of Guam, just
as they have across the country. I just want to thank them for
their efforts.
prepared statement
I am looking forward to sharing with you what we are doing
to contain disaster costs and with Senator Mikulski about our
antiterrorism program.
I would be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James L. Witt
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and staff. I
am pleased to be with you today to discuss FEMA's budget for fiscal
year 1999.
I am joined today by my Chief Financial Officer, Gary Johnson who,
together with his staff, has done so much to make FEMA's budget easy to
understand and the agency more accountable. Also with me are the rest
of our executive management team, which contains some new faces and new
perspectives.
For FEMA it has been another busy year. Last spring the Red River
flood in the upper Midwest was devastating. In the fall we were blessed
with a relatively quiet period, particularly during hurricane season.
But at the end of the year, on December 17th, typhoon Paka devastated
the northern part of Guam. Many FEMA employees from across the country
spent their holidays away from family and friends to deliver assistance
to those who'd lost so much.
I'm very proud of the employees at FEMA who make these sacrifices
and just think of it as part of their job. That is why I have worked
hard to keep our salaries and expenses at a level that can keep us
fully staffed. With the responsibilities FEMA faces, we need our
talented staff.
Recently the ice storms in the northeast created incredible damage
in New York, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. My staff in operations
support sent a convoy of trucks up to the region. Those trucks were
filled with generators that provided emergency power so that life and
work could continue.
These generators and other supplies were available through our
Disaster Information Systems Clearinghouse (DISC) and our Territorial
Logistics Center (TLC). The TLC was part of last years initiative to
reduce disaster operating costs. By recycling and maintaining equipment
used in a disaster operation, we saved over $13 million last year on
computers, printers, fax machines and cellular telephones.
Right now we are dealing with what we knew was coming: El Nino. It
has caused devastating floods around the country from California to the
east coast and killer tornadoes in Florida. When scientists predicted
El Nino, we worked with the highest risk States and communities to have
people better prepared than ever before and I know that work helped
make a difference.
As we look at our budget I first want to call your attention to our
request for the disaster relief fund. This year we have asked for
$307.7 million for the fund, including $121 million for disaster
support costs. In addition, we have requested $2.26 billion in
emergency contingency funds. Together this totals over $2.5 billion,
which is our five year average for obligations, not including the
Northridge disaster, plus disaster support costs. Such an appropriation
would ensure that, regardless of disaster activity, we could continue
to pay down our overall requirements from more than four hundred open
disasters. We urge your careful consideration and support.
Another initiative this year is to aggressively work to reduce the
hundreds of open disasters I just referenced. We have formed three
territorial disaster close-out teams. They will be reporting to Gary
Johnson and me on their progress. As the teams close out old disasters
we will be deobligating funds from some of those events.
This can really make a difference. Our eastern team's first target
was working on closing out a few old, and difficult, issues from
Hurricane Andrew in Florida. We worked closely with the State, kept
Senators Graham and Mack and other Florida offices informed as to our
work, and we have made real progress.
What is required here isn't magic--but a clear focus on getting a
job done. That is what these teams are doing. We will keep you apprised
of our progress in closing out old disasters.
Our disaster response activities, as always, are critical, but I
want to focus more on preparing for disasters and preventing repetitive
damage. This leads to our request for $50 million for pre-disaster
mitigation spending.
I don't think I've talked about any subject more than the need for
pre-disaster mitigation. But I don't tire of talking about this subject
because it is the future and it matters.
I'm especially anxious to discuss this project with this committee.
Whether a family budget or a national budget, how we spend money
reflects what we care about. FEMA's spending is the same.
And that is why my most significant initiative for this budget--a
$50 million initiative--is for pre-disaster mitigation.
When we at FEMA talk about pre-disaster mitigation we are referring
to project impact: Building disaster-resistant communities.
This is a partnership between FEMA and communities across the
country that is powered by shared experience, local initiative and a
determination to reach out to new partners with the belief that we can
make a difference in reducing long-term disaster losses and human
suffering.
To many communities, the multiple hazards they face, and have
experienced in the past, made lasting impressions.
These are areas where I've visited too frequently. They are
communities that are ready to reduce the loss of lives and property--
communities that are tired of paying the price emotionally and
financially.
The new partners I mentioned are the private sector businesses that
have concluded that the better prepared a community is, the more likely
the business will maintain operations after a disaster.
A company will stay in business if the town's infrastructure is
able to withstand a disaster and, most importantly, they will be open
for business if their workers can make it work, knowing that their town
and their schools are safe and functioning.
Let me give you just a few examples of what is happening in our
pilot communities:
--In Deerfield Beach, Florida, work is already underway to retrofit
the high school, which also serves as the town's emergency
shelter against the threat of hurricanes. At the same time the
community is working closely with State Farm Insurance to
construct an emergency operations center and meeting facility
that will be retrofitted against local hazards. This model
facility, which will be located along the I-95 corridor, will
then be open to the public to provide mitigation information.
--In Seattle, the community is taking many creative and important
steps to lessen their risks from earthquakes; from residential
retrofitting to increasing school safety. Seattle is going to
match our $1 million commitment with nearly $6 million in cash
and in-kind contributions toward project impact.
--In Pascagoula, Mississippi, we are working closely with the city
government and with Ingalls shipyard on a public awareness
campaign that has something special to offer: Special loan
arrangements by Merchant & Marine Bank to those homeowners who
are taking out home improvement loans to make their homes safer
from the threats of hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding and other
potential disasters.
--In Alameda County, California, we are working with two communities
that are not waiting for the worst to happen. The ``Partnership
for a Safe Oakland'' is working to identify hazards and risks
and implement long-term mitigation measures that could begin to
counter the effects of future disasters. In Berkeley, the
community has levied nearly a quarter billion dollars of taxes
on itself to retrofit its schools against potential, future
seismic damage.
In many project impact communities the Corporation for National
Service, ``AmeriCorps'', is sponsoring a ``spring break'' event where
its members will spend a week on project impact activities.
These are all exciting projects and we believe this is the future
of emergency management. The time is now. Let's implement our knowledge
and do those things to make our communities safer.
It is our hope, by the end of this year, to have one disaster-
resistant community in each of the 50 States. I know we can do this
with your support.
In a very fundamental way, project impact is being supported
throughout the FEMA:
--Its objectives are included in training for our staff and State and
local emergency managers and fire chiefs and other fire
officials;
--It complements our work in flood insurance to address repetitive
losses;
--It implements the knowledge developed by FEMA and its partners in
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program;
--It is another area of increased partnership with State emergency
and floodplain managers; and
--It is encouraging improved flood mapping at the local level that
can enhance our own mapping capability.
As we move forward on project impact, our Hazard Mitigation Program
continues to work with States to move structures out of floodplains
across the country. Over the last four years, we have moved more than
20,000 structures out of harm's way. This effort complements FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program.
Since the passage of the Flood Reform Act in 1994, and our ``cover
America'' advertising campaign, we have expanded the number of flood
insurance policies in the country from 3.2 million in 1995 to more than
3.9 million as of January 1998. During this last year, until the recent
El Nino activity, we've had a slight break in flooding events. These
factors have combined to help us reduce our borrowing for the flood
insurance fund from $917 million to less than $810 million.
In addition, the Reform Act created the Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program, which provides additional funds to remove endangered
properties. We are working to target these funds and make them
complement both project impact and our mitigation projects.
We are also working to help State and local partners mitigate their
communities' fire risk through fire data analysis, new technological
approaches to fire safety, public fire education and fire mitigation
training.
Let me take this opportunity to connect our actions, because I want
to demonstrate a full picture of emergency management that makes sense
and is going to save us in the future.
--We are increasing the awareness of the risks facing the Nation
through project impact and ``cover America'';
--The number of flood insurance policies are on the rise as people
choose to protect themselves;
--We are responding more quickly, effectively and efficiently to
disaster events;
--By implementing business process re-engineering FEMA will
streamline our process for funding infrastructure repair in the
wake of a major disaster;
--Following a flood disaster, we are implementing the hazard
mitigation program to take vulnerable properties out of the
floodplain;
as we move these structures, we reduce the Government's risk to the
older construction with subsidized rates and also reduce our exposure
to disaster relief costs.
As project impact communities multiply we are creating a positive
movement that helps communities help themselves and others in reducing
risk and increasing public health and safety.
Our first responder training for terrorism is widely recognized by
local public safety officials as some of the finest training available
to help communities prepare for this threat.
It's our own experience that tells us we are moving in a direction
that inspires people to become involved in reducing the future risks
both to themselves and to their children.
In fact, during the El Nino storms, one of the most hopeful stories
was related to me by Congressman Sam Farr. As bad as the flooding has
been, Congressman Farr said that the terrific work FEMA and State and
local governments had done together after the floods of 1995 to
relocate residences was making a difference right now. There were
families no longer in danger. Floodwater was coursing through areas
that used to have homes but now was open space.
That shows it can be done. We can make a difference. This is an
exciting time and a creative, exhilarating mission. We at FEMA
appreciate the help the committee has given us to reach this point.
Another budget feature I want to call to your attention falls under
our preparedness, training and exercises directorate. The program is
REP--Radiological Emergency Preparedness. This program has successfully
assisted State and local communities in assuring a responsible
preparedness posture for communities surrounding nuclear power plants.
Historically, FEMA's appropriation has been offset by fees collected
from NRC licensees for our REP Program activities.
What we are requesting in our budget for the program is a one-time
start up appropriation of $12.8 million for fiscal year 1999. This
would transition the program to a self-supporting fund beginning in
fiscal year 2000 which will assess and collect fees from licensees.
Recognizing Congress' support in 1998 for the Dam Safety Program,
FEMA's budget for fiscal year 1999 also includes a request of $1.5
million for training assistance and training for dam owners and State
dam safety staff.
One other initiative I want to take particular note of is our work
to protect the health and safety of FEMA's remarkable staff. Our fiscal
year 1999 budget includes an increase of nearly $2.2 million for health
and safety abatement projects at our training center in Emmitsburg,
Maryland as well as in our Denton, Texas and Bothell, Washington
regional offices.
Let me conclude with my original point that our budget announces
who we are and what we care about. At FEMA, we care about responding to
disasters, assisting people and communities to recover from disasters
and helping communities to lessen their risks in the future. This
budget reflects those priorities.
I again want to thank this committee for their strong support over
the last five years. All of us at FEMA appreciate the backing you've
given us time and again that has increased our morale and helped us to
do a better job.
Thank you for your time and attention. Together with my senior
staff, I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
disaster relief fund
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Witt.
What is the balance in the disaster fund? Do you have
sufficient funds available to meet obligations for the
remainder of the fiscal year?
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir; we have sufficient funds to meet
obligations for the remainder of this year.
Senator Bond. The administration sent up a supplemental to
Congress yesterday that did not include FEMA funding. I was
interested to know why they were not looking at a request in
view of the fact that there are not sufficient funds on hand,
as I understand it, to meet fiscal year 1998 and prior year
requirements.
You say you have adequate cash. But there are still
disaster obligations out there that are not funded. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Witt. Gary, would you respond, please?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct to a degree, Mr. Chairman.
Through the support of this subcommittee and the Congress as a
whole, the disaster relief fund was appropriated $3.3 billion
last year.
By taking that action, you did, in fact, make our disaster
relief fund current with prior year requirements and
requirements up through the end of fiscal year 1997.
The appropriation for the current year, $320 million, may
be problematic as we begin to get into more disaster activity.
We may become short on requirements for the current year. Of
course, the problem, as you are well aware, rolls into fiscal
year 1999 and has implications relative to our budget request
for 1999, sir.
Senator Bond. You are requesting $2.3 billion in
contingency funds for 1999. That amount, coupled with the on-
budget request of $307 million, represents the historical 5
year average. But I understand that that is not enough.
Is it not true that your budget request is actually $1.1
billion short, assuming normal disaster activity for the rest
of fiscal year 1998 and 1999?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, it is $1.1
billion short to meet obligations through fiscal year 1999.
Senator Bond. Why isn't FEMA requesting what is needed?
Would you agree that you think it is fiscally irresponsible to
request funds off budget, particularly when the costs are
clearly anticipated?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, we did request OMB for a direct
appropriation of $2.6 billion, which included the 5-year
average less Northridge plus disaster support costs.
community development block grants
Senator Bond. In other words, OMB, again, has short-changed
the disaster needs. That is distressing.
But at least the agency recognizes the need.
Let me turn to another aspect that has been rather
troubling to me.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in
earmarking CDBG funds for disaster relief, community
development block grant funds. Yet there is no authorized CDBG
disaster program and it appears that CDBG funds might be
duplicating what is provided by other agencies, such as the
Economic Development Administration.
What is FEMA's role in developing national plans and
policies for disaster relief programs Governmentwide?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, several months ago I had a meeting
at the Old Executive Office Building with all the Federal
agencies to talk about what we need to do and where we need to
go in the future, as well the issue of duplication of programs.
I, myself, visited Frank Raines, Director of OMB, and indicated
that we seriously need to look at the duplication of disaster
programs.
I am not an authority on HUD and CDBG dollars, but it is my
understanding that when the CDBG dollars get into the States'
and local communities' hands, then they are spent under their
guidelines. They have used CDBG dollars to help match disaster
costs, such as in the 1993 Midwest floods and in other areas.
Also, the CDBG funds have been used to help buy out
property that is in flood prone areas in communities that we
are trying to relocate and get out of harm's way.
So that is, basically, what we have tried to do.
We are continuing to work with other agencies on this
issue. We just finished a long-term recovery report for the New
England States that the President asked us to do which clearly
shows a lot of areas that need to be tightened up and other
areas of duplication.
natural disaster reduction initiative
Senator Bond. Again, referring to the Tuesday Washington
Post, there was an article in there discussing the Commerce
Department initiative called natural disaster reduction
initiative, which includes grants to communities to encourage
economic development officials and emergency planners to train
together and improve coordination.
What is FEMA's role in the initiative? Do you have any say
in that? Do you know anything about it? How does it relate to
FEMA's Project Impact?
Mr. Witt. The only thing I know about that particular
initiative is what I read in the paper, Mr. Chairman, but I am
meeting with Secretary Daley tomorrow.
Senator Bond. That would be a good idea. Give him my best.
Mr. Witt. I will, sir.
Senator Bond. I would like to know how that is going to
work.
Mr. Witt. Let me follow up and say that EDA has met with us
and is going to target some of the high-risk areas in Project
Impact and help them make mitigation a goal.
Senator Bond. Thank you, sir.
We somehow have not gotten our light system back from the
Christmas recess. So I figure that, while it is still on
recess, I have probably used up 5 minutes. I would like to make
sure that all of our members have an opportunity to ask
questions prior to the 10:30 vote.
So I will now turn to our distinguished ranking member,
Senator Mikulski, for her questions.
preparedness for terrorist attacks
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Witt, you have been one of the prime movers to move
FEMA from being an old civil defense agency to a risk-based
strategy, all hazards responding agency. I think we all became
complacent after the end of the cold war that America would not
face the direct attack of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear
missile on the United States.
Now recent events have shown that we are vulnerable, that
within our own borders we are vulnerable to the attack of
terrorism. A terrorist is unlikely to unleash a nuclear bomb,
but could unleash a biological bomb.
I am concerned, in reviewing the material, listening to the
deputy sheriff of Los Angeles on ``Nightline,'' listening to
how Los Angeles would respond to this, that we might not be as
fit for duty as we need to be or perhaps that we need to focus
greater attention and greater resources on it.
The responses that I have heard seem to be based on the
fact that if we would be hit by a biological bomb of anthrax,
ebola, botulism, and a variety of other very repugnant and
ghoulish biotech weapons, we would be working on the assumption
that we would have lots of warning, that we would have good
weather, and we would have a compliant population, eagerly
sitting by their radios to be told exactly what to do.
I do not think any of those criteria exists. I hope we
would have plenty of warning. But good weather is something we
could not predict. Also, anthrax is an airborne illness, as are
some of the others I have mentioned, and a compliant population
is unlikely to happen if they think their children or their
mothers, their aged mothers, are at risk.
So I now turn to you for you to tell me what is FEMA's role
in the whole issue of America being ready for any attack within
its own borders from a new kind of bomb, biological or
chemical, waged against our own people.
Mr. Witt. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
We are asking for $6.8 million in terrorism funding this
year. Our role in terrorism is consequence management.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Witt, I can't hear you.
Mr. Witt. We are asking for $6.8 million in
counterterrorism and antiterrorism funding this year. Our role
in the Government's terrorism program is on the consequence
management side. The Justice Department has the lead role on
the criminal or crisis management side.
Included in this $6.8 million, is $3.2 million for grants
to States for terrorism planning exercising and training
activities of which $1.2 million is for State and local grants,
and $2 million is for firefighter training. Approximately $1
million is for consequence management planning and coordination
for special events such as the World Games, interagency
planning, and maintenance of the rapid response information
system. Another $0.6 million is for planning, training,
exercise programs, and related travel; and $2 million is for
FEMA personnel protection measures, including our Federal
Regional Center needs.
fema's role in federal terrorism efforts
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Witt, what exactly is FEMA's role,
though. When you say Justice is on the criminal side and I am
on this side, we are really all on the same side.
Mr. Witt. Exactly.
Senator Mikulski. So tell me what exactly is FEMA's role?
Mr. Witt. Our programs are supporting DOD and Justice. We
have worked with them to develop----
Senator Mikulski. Tell me in concrete terms from the
perspective of a local community or a State emergency
management what is your role and is $6 million enough to get
America ready to deal with this?
Mr. Witt. Because of the difficulty in dealing with a
terrorist situation, I do not think all of our State and local
governments are prepared to respond so our role is to support
their efforts to prepare and respond to incidents like this.
On Friday I met with the Deputy Secretary of Defense and
the Acting Secretary of the Army, Mike Walker to go over the
terrorism program. We talked about what is happening in 120
metropolitan cities. I think we need to cover more people,
particularly fire service people who are going to be first
responders on the scene.
We should not reinvent the wheel but utilize the existing
structures that we have in place, such as State fire training
academies, State training offices of emergency management, and
National Guard units in each State, and through a team effort
at the State and local level, train these people to know what
to do should a terrorist incident occur.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Witt, do you believe that there is a
sense of urgency within the task force to begin to have these
plans? Do you believe there is a sense of urgency?
Mr. Witt. Yes; I do.
Senator Mikulski. Is the coordinating task force of
Defense, Justice, FEMA, et cetera, meeting with regularity?
Mr. Witt. We are working very closely together and very
hard.
Senator Mikulski. Are you meeting with regularity?
Mr. Witt. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And then, in terms of that, what is the
role of HHS to back you and the Department of Defense and the
National Guard up?
Mr. Witt. HHS has responsibility for the disaster medical
teams that would be trained and equipped to respond. HHS, EPA,
FEMA, DOD, and Justice all have important roles in this. We are
also annexing this into our Federal Response Plan as well.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Witt, I would like to pursue this
with you in more detail. I understand that yesterday there was
a hearing with the intelligence community. Senator Gregg, our
colleague, and State-Justice-Commerce are pursuing this.
I do not want to sound the alarm in terms of exacerbating
fear among the American people. I know that there will be a
classified briefing. I would like to discuss this with you
further, where we have marshaled the resources of the Federal
Government to be ready and that we are ready, building on
existing Federal response structures, and also our existing
public health network.
Unlike a fire or a hurricane, where it is disaster relief
that comes in, the first responders here will be the people in
emergency rooms who might not know what is happening.
So I would like to discuss this with you further and also
the aspect of whether $6 million is enough to do it.
Do I have another minute or is my time up?
Senator Bond. You have 1 more minute.
Senator, I know that we have votes at 10:30. I want to give
all the members here an opportunity for questioning the
Director.
Senator Mikulski. Let me cooperate with you in that, Mr.
Chairman.
You know my concerns, really, the whole issue of
preparedness, meaning prediction, also what we need to do for
disaster mitigation and then also we do share Senator Bond's
concerns about fiscal matters.
But let me yield to my colleagues in that spirit of the
vote.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator. I very much
appreciate your bringing up that important consideration.
Let me turn, on a rotating basis, now, to Senator Burns.
national association of counties [naco]
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another
hearing going on now, a budget hearing, and one of my favorite
people to beat up on is Secretary of Interior Babbitt, who is
there. So I don't want to spare him that exercise. [Laughter.]
Mr. Witt, thank you for coming this morning. I only have
one question and will be very quick.
How many meetings did you or your people have with the
representative with NACO, that meeting just concluding this
week here in town?
Mr. Witt. Several staff people from our offices met with
NACO this week.
Senator Burns. Did you meet with any of the folks at NACO?
Mr. Witt. I was not invited to, sir.
Senator Burns. You were not invited to?
Mr. Witt. No, sir.
Senator Burns. Oh.
I want to go down the same line that Senator Mikulski went
down because that is the only group that comes to this town
that does not have their hand out and is not asking for
something. They come to town with solutions and most of them
are on the ounce of prevention side in some of our disasters.
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I am concerned that they did not get a very
good audience from this administration. I am sorry we crossed
up in communications. Maybe we can work on that. But I met with
three other groups. One of them was a public safety group and
they sort of complained that they really did not get the
audience that they wanted to get. Now whether that was a snafu
in scheduling or whatever, I don't know.
But I would suggest that this is a group that is actually
the first responders. They are actually the people who are on
the front line.
We have to be aware that it does not take missile launching
capabilities to hit this country with the kind of weapons that
bad people have nowadays. The kind of weapon that is out there
right now that probably grows as much fear in the American
people can be delivered in a briefcase. It can walk through any
airport at any time of day and get into this country. County,
first responders, are concerned about this.
So Senator Mikulski raises a very valid point. In that
structure, even though you are talking to Defense, and even
though you are talking to HHS, talking to all of these
Government agencies, let's not overlook the role that the
counties will play in the event of an emergency.
I think they have to be in on the very, very first of the
discussions when we talk about response to an emergency of that
kind.
That is the only thing I have to say today. I think you are
doing a great job.
Mr. Witt. Thank you.
Senator Burns. I just would suggest that this is what I
picked up from their organization. I do not know the details on
it and I would not go into the details because I know how those
things happen.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond. Senator, I was
a member of NACO as a county official for 10 years, and I know
how important that organization is.
Senator Burns. I am one of those old county commissioners,
too.
Mr. Witt. I have spoken to and worked with NACO many times
when they have been to Washington. NACO is part of our
emergency management task force, as is the National Emergency
Management Association [NEMA].
Mike Armstrong, Associate Director for Mitigation, and Bob
Adamcik of the Response and Recovery Directorate, spoke to the
emergency committee at NACO while they were here.
I would be happy at any time to meet with them. I think
they are the greatest. They are at the grassroots level.
Senator Burns. Yes; it sure is. I know you are aware of
that.
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I just wanted to make that suggestion and
say to the rest of my colleagues that this is where it is going
to be. The first decision made in any kind of emergency of that
kind is very, very critical as to whether we get the response
started right or wrong. That is the basis of that.
So I appreciate your sensitivities to that and congratulate
you on that.
That is the only thing I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much.
I will now go upstairs and beat up on Babbitt. This is beat
up Babbitt day, or BBD. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Senator Burns, thank you. Thank you for
coming here in such a kind, cooperative spirit. We appreciate
that. We appreciate hearing your kinder, gentler side.
I will now turn to my colleague from California.
Senator Boxer. Things get pretty bad when Senator Bond
turns to me to bail him out of a problem here. Things are very
interesting. [Laughter.]
Senator Mikulski. Is this a hearing on encryption? I mean,
what is going on?
Senator Boxer. I don't know, but we are going to wait to
find out.
Senator Bond. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. As Senator Burns is leaving, and he has
admitted that he is an old county official, since we are all
admitting how old we are, I, too, am an old county official. I,
of course, would echo those words.
I think that both Senators Mikulski and Burns have pointed
out the fact that those are the folks who are at the front
lines. No one understands that more, James Lee Witt, than you
do.
I would say when he backed Senator Mikulski in her line of
questioning that I would add he talked about a bomb sneaking
through an airport. In Oklahoma City, of course, it was from
one of us. So it is even more of a devastating threat because
it could be a threat from within as well as from without.
Without getting off into that line of questioning, I just
want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if there is a way for this
subcommittee to focus a little bit more on the issue Senator
Mikulski did raise, I think it would be important. I think we
are so focused now, because of El Nino, that it is hard to turn
our attention from that. But, clearly, you are doing it and I
hope you will let us know if you do not feel you have the
resources that you need.
budgetary source for bosnia amendment
In the 4 minutes I have left, I have a few questions. You
did not answer my first question which was this wire service
story, the U.S. wire story that says for 1999, the President's
budget contains an allowance for emergencies and national
disasters but that he is submitting an amendment to use $1.86
billion of those funds to pay for the full cost of Bosnia
operations.
Mr. Witt. I could not answer you, Senator, because this is
the first time I have heard of it.
Senator Boxer. OK. Could you check that out?
Mr. Witt. Yes; I certainly will.
Senator Boxer. That will be helpful because I think, if
that is the case, we have some problems here.
flood predictions
I want to ask, as we look at California, what is your best
prediction or the predictions that you are getting from NOAA
and others of further flooding this spring when the snow pack
melts and El Nino brings more storms? They are talking about
through April.
Mr. Witt. I am very concerned about it, Senator Boxer, and
have met with General Furman of the Corps of Engineers. I also
talked to many of the State and local elected officials in
California. The snow pack is within 2 inches of breaking the
record.
Senator Boxer. It is what?
Mr. Witt. It is within 2 inches of breaking the record,
which means if we get a warmup with warm rains, we could
seriously be looking at some damaging flooding. We are trying
to get prepared for that and do as much prevention as we can.
The Corps has done a great job out there doing that.
hazard mitigation grant program
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Chairman, you talked about the importance of hazard
mitigation. I could not agree with you more. I know that this
director wants to make mitigation his legacy.
I am concerned in my State, Mr. Chairman, because my State
has received a good deal of funding for mitigation, as you
know, at the end of every disaster. We have an excellent
program to make a certain percentage of the damage available
for mitigation.
In my State, it seems to be taking a long time to spend
this money. Mr. Chairman, when you are looking at fiscal
responsibility, I think we need to see that the States are
spending this money in a timely fashion, the mitigation funds.
In my State, we are just having a little bit of a hard time.
I wonder, Mr. Witt, if you would support some kind of
timeframe in which the States have to spend that money. I know
we want to give them flexibility. For example, if we have an
earthquake and we get a percentage of that damage, we have
already said that we would like to see them use it to mitigate
for flooding and other things, not necessarily earthquakes.
What about putting a timeframe on that?
Mr. Witt. Senator Boxer, Mike Armstrong has been working
with the NEMA mitigation committee to streamline the process so
that rebuilding can be done more quickly.
In addition to that streamlining, we have established a 2-
year limit for the States to have the money obligated and the
project finished. If they do not have it finished within that
2-year period, then they lose the money.
california hazard mitigation grants
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I have some other questions about seawalls and mudslides,
but in the interest of time I will submit those.
My one last question is do you have an accurate number for
how much money is still sitting in the State of California from
old disasters that they have not yet spent on mitigation?
Mr. Witt. Mike, would you answer that?
Senator Bond. Would you use the microphone and for the
record identify yourself and your title, please?
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I am Michael
Armstrong, Associate Director for Mitigation.
In unobligated balances for open disasters, as of the end
of January, a total of $459.4 million in hazard mitigation
grant program funding remains for California disasters; $417
million of this is from the Northridge earthquake.
Senator Boxer. How many years ago now is that? That was
1991? No; 1994?
Mr. Witt. 1994.
Senator Boxer. So we have these funds sitting there, almost
one-half billion dollars, over $400 million since 1994, is that
correct?
Mr. Armstrong. That's correct.
time limit for hazard mitigation grants
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I think I am such a fan of
mitigation. We have so many things to do. I think the States,
just speaking honestly, should have a deadline because there
are so many things we could do, such as retrofitting bridges.
There are some wonderfully important things that we could do.
I would urge that we perhaps should take a look at setting
a deadline.
James Lee Witt, can you do that administratively or do we
have to do that legislatively, set a deadline?
Mr. Witt. We have set the 2-year deadline, as I mentioned.
Mike, do you want to respond?
Mr. Armstrong. Again, we have done several things to try to
streamline and move along the hazard mitigation grant program.
As Director Witt said, we have set a deadline of 2 years for
obligation of dollars. We have also streamlined the
environmental review process.
Senator Boxer. OK. That's great. But this is 4 years.
Mr. Armstrong. We just instituted the 2-year deadline.
Senator Boxer. Oh. Good.
Senator Bond. Is it a final regulation? Have you gone
through the process? Has it been published and commented on?
Mr. Armstrong. It has gone through the regulation process.
Senator Bond. Pardon?
Mr. Witt. It is a regulation.
Senator Bond. And it is now in effect, is that correct?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Witt. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Good. In other words, are you saying to me
is it retroactive or is it just for the future? Where do we
stand with this money? In other words, should I call the
Governor and tell him to move forward?
Mr. Witt. Let me respond first.
I talked to Dick Andrews when we were in California and I
asked him when we could expect to see those mitigation grant
projects funded and finished because we are expecting more El
Nino events coming in.
He told me that they were prepared to send in 524 grant
applications. I notified my staff to make sure that the region
was ready to receive and process them very quickly and get them
turned around.
I don't think we've received them yet.
Mr. Armstrong. They have a March 9 deadline.
Mr. Witt. To get those in.
Mr. Armstrong. All applications.
Senator Boxer. Holy cow. OK.
Thank you very much. I am getting right on the phone. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Mikulski, were there other questions you wanted to
ask?
results of predisaster mitigation efforts
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Witt, what do you think have been the
results of your predisaster mitigation efforts so far for
disaster resistant communities?
Mr. Witt. Senator Mikulski, we have not only saved lives
but we have saved property and helped cut disaster costs. There
is no doubt about that. I think you have seen that.
The reason I feel Project Impact will make such a
difference is because the program operates at the grassroots
level in the community. For every dollar we spend on
mitigation, we save $2 in response and recovery costs.
Predisaster mitigation can save a lot of property.
For the past 5 years, we have all seen devastating
disasters like this country has never seen before. I have seen
people lose everything they worked all their lives for in the
blink of an eye. What is interesting is we are now seeing
Governors, like Governor Batt in Idaho, introduce legislation
to prevent people from building in the flood plain. We are
seeing mayors talk about issuing stiff fines for people
building or developing in a flood plain.
Before, we had never seen this type of initiative on the
mitigation side. Project Impact is about eliminating the risk
before we have the disaster.
I cannot tell you the extent of enthusiasm, interest, and
support we have seen for this effort.
support for predisaster mitigation
Senator Mikulski. It is important that you have the support
of the National Governors Association on this because,
ultimately, they are the ones that provide the leadership,
particularly in rural areas.
Mr. Witt. Yes; I have met with the Western Governors
Association, and they are supporting prevention. Each of the
Governors I talk to supports the prevention before we have a
disaster.
The interesting thing is that private industry is
supporting this very strongly as well. They are actually
contributing more to the project in the communities, sometimes
6 and 7 times more, than we are putting into it. So it will
make a difference.
We respond and spend money for response and recovery and
then do mitigation to prevent the losses from happening again.
If we focus on prevention in particularly high risk
communities, we are going to save lives, protect jobs, save
property, and cut costs. That is the goal of Project Impact. I
think we can prove to Congress and this committee that
predisaster mitigation works, and we are looking forward to
doing that.
technical assistance for project impact
Senator Mikulski. I know that in Maryland, where we have
received a modest grant, first of all, the involvement of the
private sector has been tremendous--not only with State and
local government, the role of Governor Glendening, but the role
of the Corps of Engineers in giving us sound advice. So we knew
we were going to make wise use of this.
Everything from Kmart to Fidelity Bank, Potomac Dairy Farms
to Interfaith Housing has pledged their support to work with
you in Project Impact. I think what it has done is to bring the
community together before the disaster. The American people
will always rise to the occasion at a disaster, but this has
been truly community building and I have been very heartened by
the role, first, of the private sector.
I feel what we are pursuing is very sound because we have
had the advice of the Corps of Engineers.
Where do you want to go or what are you recommending this
Project Impact or disaster resistant do for communities? Where
is the technical assistance provided so that we really know
that we are not just spending money and that it is not just a
new form of money to local communities, but that the
engineering, the civil engineering, is sound.
Mr. Witt. What the appropriation committees have asked us
to do is to establish a blue ribbon panel. We are working now
to have a report in to Congress by March 31. It is a peer
review panel. The goals of this panel are to support the
requests from Congress related to how we are going to go
forward, how we are going to allocate the money, and what
criteria we are going to use to carry out the program. The
panel is going to review and comment on alternative mitigation
strategies, and provide FEMA with recommendations.
Senator Mikulski. Wait 1 minute. I am lost in the panels,
commissions, and things.
Mr. Witt. What Congress has asked us to do is to set up a
committee to look at developing a national predisaster
mitigation plan that lays out where we are going with this
project, how it is going to be developed, and what it is going
to do.
Senator Mikulski. So we are going to have a commission on
this?
Mr. Witt. A committee, Senator. They will be finished with
their report by March 31.
objective criteria for predisaster mitigation
Senator Bond. May I just interject one thing? I want to see
the objective criteria on how the projects are going to be
selected.
Fifty million dollars is not going to go a long way. I want
a credible, objective, readily ascertainable set of criteria
that any community, any State, any county wanting to get into
it can know that it will be used to judge their project.
As I mentioned to you in our discussions, we want to make
sure there are objective criteria and I will expect that on
March 31.
I will not be disappointed, will I?
Mr. Witt. Senator, I am not going to disappoint you.
Senator Bond. I want to know how it is being allocated.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Bond, I could not agree with you
more. I think maybe one of the criteria to consider is that
there are sound engineering solutions and that by any objective
standard--like in our case in western Maryland, Governor
Glendening convened a task force, but it was the corps that
gave us the sound engineering solutions. I mean, if you cannot
trust the corps, then I am just not sure.
So if you do not have good engineering and it is just kind
of make-believe, then I don't think you should get the money.
So you need to have sound engineering. Then perhaps the
other criteria is that there be a demonstrated commitment of
local support. In that way we know where communities are at the
most risk, where are the engineering solutions that could be
achieved, what is the cost of achieving those engineering
solutions, and is there local support so it is just not a new
form of Government money--something along those lines.
I think if we are not on a sound engineering footing, then
we don't know what we are going to get for our money.
Mr. Witt. I wholeheartedly agree with you. The Corps of
Engineers and we have met and we work very closely together.
The Corps of Engineers has been involved in the prevention side
right along with us.
Senator Bond. I think Senator Mikulski has given you a good
start on the criteria and we will be willing to provide
additional money for Project Impact when we have that list of
criteria and not before. That is easy enough, isn't it?
Senator Mikulski. OK.
Senator Bond. No criteria, no money.
Let me move along.
Are you finished?
Senator Mikulski. Sure. I'm happy.
Senator Bond. I have a number of additional questions that
I will be submitting for the record.
dam safety
Senator Mikulski. I am ready to talk about dam safety.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. We would be delighted to show you some of our
damn problems. [Laughter.]
Senator Mikulski. Oh, I worry about that.
Senator Bond. It is actually a very serious thing, of
course.
Senator Mikulski. This is like a talk show over here.
First of all, I know it is very serious. We always think of
big dams. But throughout many of our communities in our country
it is exactly the small and midsized dams that are aging. Many
were built during WPA days and are really of grave concern.
Senator Bond. I appreciate your support on that because we
do have many of those dams that hold back significant bodies of
water. They may not be the great hydroelectric dams which are
usually inspected and in which there is a great interest in dam
maintenance. But there are still earthen dams with significant
bodies of water, communities, activities, and people below them
which can be put in danger.
Senator Mikulski. Yes; it is scary.
ways to reduce disaster costs
Senator Bond. With the time I have remaining, I would like
to go back to the Stafford Act and the legislative proposal for
reducing disaster costs.
If the legislation which the administration sent up were
enacted, how much do you estimate the Federal Government could
save over, say, the next 5 years?
Mr. Witt. Our inspector general and other staff members
tried to determine the most realistic estimate based on the
recommendations.
Senator, $3 billion over 5 years. It was about $580 million
a year, I believe.
Senator Bond. Can FEMA implement some of these proposed
changes without legislation? Could you propose a rulemaking in
some areas or talk to the authorizing committee to determine
the feasibility of making some of the changes through the
regulatory process?
Mr. Witt. I have asked our General Counsel that very
question. We can do that. We will have to go out to the State,
local, private, and nonprofit rural electric authorities, as
well as members of Congress, to get comments. Then, based on
those comments, we could implement some of the changes.
Senator Bond. We just congratulated you on putting the 2-
year regulation limit on mitigation funds. When will we see the
regulations coming forth from FEMA? When will you be prepared
to propose those for comment?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, the House is having a hearing on
March 26 on the Stafford Act amendments. We will need to see
how it goes at that hearing.
Senator Bond. Are you going to await the outcome of that
hearing before making any decision on regulatory matters?
Mr. Witt. We can go ahead and be prepared.
Senator Bond. I would think it would be very helpful if you
offered specific examples before the authorizing committee and
presented that to the authorizing committee in the Senate
because I believe, as we look at all aspects of disaster
assistance, making sure we can continue to afford disaster
relief for people who truly are in need is very important. To
do that we must make sure that there are reasonable, defined
limits on the money available.
I gather you have already issued a rule disallowing
disaster relief for trees and shrubs, is that so?
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.
Senator Bond. That's bold, very bold.
Mr. Witt. Very bold. [Laughter.]
I took a lot of heat on that one. [Laughter.]
declaration criteria
Senator Bond. OK. I see that votes are supposed to occur in
the next 5 minutes.
The Stafford Act authorizes the provision of Federal
disaster aid when State and local capabilities are overwhelmed.
Again, there is no criterion as to what that threshold ought to
be.
At last year's hearing, you testified that you would be
submitting comprehensive legislation, including the criteria
for disaster declaration. I have heard that even the State
emergency managers are looking at the need to establish
objective measures that will insure fairness in the declaration
process.
I do not recall that your proposed legislation addressed
the need for this criterion. If not, why not? Wouldn't it help
make sure everybody understands when a disaster can be declared
and deal with sometimes the very urgent but often political
requests for disaster relief?
Mr. Witt. I agree with you, Senator. We are working with
NEMA on this as we work through the reengineering of the public
assistance program. Hopefully, we will be able to have that
criteria.
Senator Bond. Not hopefully. When will you have it?
Mr. Witt. I will just have to let you know the date,
Senator.
Senator Bond. We will be awaiting that information.
mudslides
I see the vote is occurring. I want to ask just one or two
questions.
For our friends from the Corporation for National and
Community Service, we have two votes and we will try to vote as
soon as we can on the second vote. But there will be some time
delay. So I would expect at least 15 minutes of recess when we
go over to vote.
On Project Impact, I have already asked questions about the
criteria. I will submit others for the record.
On mitigation, this article in the Washington Post
described the disaster-rebuild cycle in coastal California in
areas susceptible to mudslides, earthquakes. Again, Malibu is
one of FEMA's biggest disaster aid recipients for its size,
most of it going for infrastructure rebuilding and cleanup.
What is FEMA's role in this problem and how does FEMA's
mitigation strategy address the need to look for ways to break
the cycle of build/disaster/rebuild/disaster?
What are you doing about that, on the mudslides?
Mr. Witt. We do not fund rebuilding the mudslides. We do
help to stabilize a slide if it is a threat to life/safety
issues.
Senator Bond. But you do pay relief.
Mr. Witt. Debris cleanup. Yes, sir.
Senator Bond. Well, now, if the mudslides have occurred--
and I believe Senator Stevens mentioned that this is not a new
phenomenon--is it not appropriate that there be an effective
mitigation strategy? We are not going to continue to pay, what
is it, 6 out of 7 years that I think we had disaster relief.
Where is the end of that cycle?
Mr. Witt. Malibu and, of course, California itself is a
unique situation. They went through the fires in Malibu which
destroyed the vegetation on those hillsides. The people and the
elected officials of Malibu have taken a very strong stance in
favor of mitigation. As a result of the fires in Malibu, they
have passed resolutions for homeowners to keep the brush
cleared away from their homes. The fire chief now goes out and
inspects those.
The residents of Topagna Canyon have even adopted their own
predisaster mitigation program.
They have taken a lot of preventative measures.
Senator Bond. But there is a broader need to address the
mudslide problems.
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.
Senator Bond. We all know what the problems were in flood
insurance and we have taken many steps to prevent the flood
disasters. We have worked with you on that.
For example, according to the article, the President has
promised to consider a request for federally sponsored mudslide
insurance. I assume that that will be on an actuarially sound
basis. Do you know anything about it?
Mr. Witt. I read about it in the paper, too, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow up just briefly here. We try to work with the
States and give them as much flexibility as possible to
prioritize their proposed mitigation projects. But the history
of landslides in California is something we all recognize as a
problem. So to plan better for the future, we are working with
the State and USGS to keep the database of historical
landslides current so that the State, county, and cities can
improve planning and development.
insurance requirements for municipal facilities
Senator Bond. Speaking of State actions, 3 years ago, FEMA
initiated a Performance Partnership Program with the States.
So-called PPA's were intended to provide flexibility in
exchange for improved accountability, replacing the old
stovepipe micromanaged projects of providing preparedness
grants to the States.
Can you explain to me what progress has been made in
implementing performance partnerships, how the States are held
more accountable than in the past--for example, requiring
States to hold adequate insurance on municipal facilities?
What is going on in that area?
Mr. Witt. The insurance--I did talk to the State directors
when they were in Washington. I have asked the Response and
Recovery Directorate to go out to all the States and request
that the States report to us once a year on what buildings they
self-insure, or have insured, from the State down to the local
level, and how much per square feet they are self-insuring or
are insuring.
Senator Bond. Mr. Witt, thank you very much. Thanks to your
colleagues as well.
Additional committee questions
We will submit additional questions for the record. I hear
the master's voice, our bells. With that, the committee will
stand in recess.
Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[A brief was recess was taken.]
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
disaster relief fund balance
Question. What is the balance in the disaster relief fund and do
you have sufficient funds available to meet obligations for the
remainder of the fiscal year, assuming ``normal'' disaster activity
during the balance of the year?
Answer. As of February 28, the unobligated balance in the disaster
relief fund was $3,292,412,000. Assuming ``normal'' disaster activity
(i.e., that requirements from disaster activity in the remaining months
of the fiscal year are in line with the five year average of
obligations less Northridge), there are sufficient funds to meet
obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Question. How much do you need to meet all requirements anticipated
for fiscal year 1998 and prior year disasters, again assuming normal
disaster activity for the balance of the year?
Answer. Using data as of February 28, 1998, FEMA estimates that it
will need $1.6 billion in additional resources by the end of fiscal
year 1998 in order to meet requirements anticipated for fiscal year
1998 and prior year disasters.
Question. A supplemental was sent to Congress yesterday by the
administration, but did not include FEMA funding. Why isn't the
administration requesting a supplemental for disaster relief in view of
the fact that there will not be adequate funds on hand to meet fiscal
year 1998 and prior year requirements?
Answer. FEMA was not part of the Administration's original request
for a supplemental. However, on March 24, the Administration requested
$1.6 billion in emergency contingency funds to meet FEMA's estimated
requirements through September 30, 1998.
fiscal year 1999 ``off-budget'' request
Question. FEMA is requesting $2.3 billion in contingency funds for
fiscal year 1999. This amount, coupled with your ``on-budget'' request
of $307 million, represents the 5-year historical average cost of
disaster relief. According to current projections, your budget request
is $1.1 billion short of what is needed to meet anticipated
requirements. Why isn't FEMA requesting what is needed to meet
anticipated requirements?
Answer. Estimates as of the end of February, which factor in
estimated requirements from the El Nino related storms in California
and Florida, actually leave an estimated shortfall of $1.5 billion to
meet anticipated requirements at the end of fiscal year 1999. This
estimated shortfall assumes passage of the appropriation request and
the $2.3 billion in contingency funds. However, even using the February
estimates, FEMA still anticipates an unobligated balance of $369
million at the end of fiscal year 1999. Because of the magnitude of the
contingency fund that would have been requested to meet requirements,
the administration opted to request a more conservative amount that
should meet estimated obligations.
presidential task force
Question. I understand FEMA is heading up a Presidential task force
addressing long-term recovery issues following the Northeast storms.
Could you describe the role of the task force and its findings and
recommendations on recovery issues?
Answer. The President activated the Long-term Recovery Task Force
to assist the States of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont
recover from the devastating ice storm that struck the Northeast in
January 1988, and designated me as the Task Force Chair.
In early February the Task Force members met with representatives
from each of the States to identify the areas of greatest impact and to
determine how the Federal departments and agencies might best assist
the individuals, businesses and communities recover from the storm.
Based on that information the Task Force identified the following six
areas of impact and developed a ``Blueprint for Action'' to guide the
recovery efforts.
--Energy and Infrastructure Losses
--Agricultural Losses
--Damage to Forests and Trees
--Recreation and Tourism Losses
--Health and Safety Concerns
--Special Population Needs
The recommendations in the ``Blueprint for Action'' generally
identify measures that can be taken to ensure that the existing Federal
programs provide the assistance needed in each of these areas. Where it
appears that there may be a gap in Federal authorities or funding, the
report recommends that the Office of Management and Budget and the
pertinent Agency further investigate the possible gaps. A copy of the
``Blueprint for Action'' is attached.
FEMA will take the lead in organizing a meeting with Federal and
State recovery officials this summer to both monitor the progress of
recovery and better identify any long-term agricultural, forestry or
other impacts that may not yet be evident.
Question. In recent years there has been growing interest in
earmarking CDBG funds for disaster relief, yet there is no authorized
CDBG disaster program, and it appears that CDBG funds could duplicate
what is provided by other agencies such as EDA. What is FEMA's role in
developing national plans and policies for disaster relief programs
government wide?
Answer. The fundamental plan that guides the Federal response to
disasters and that ensures coordination of assistance is the ``Federal
Response Plan.'' Twenty-seven Federal agencies and the American Red
Cross are signatories to this plan. An effort is now underway to update
the ``Federal Response Plan.'' This update will include development of
a Recovery Annex that outlines how the traditional disaster recovery
agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Economic Development Administration and the Small Business
Administration, interface and coordinate after disasters.
For extraordinary disasters such as the upper Midwest flooding in
the spring of 1997 the President may choose to activate the Long-term
Recovery Task Force. FEMA chairs the Task Force efforts and convenes
the Task Force members and affected States to coordinate the long-term
recovery. The Task Force identifies the programs that can assist
individuals, businesses, communities, and States recover, as well as
any gaps in programs or funding.
For example, in Drayton, North Dakota FEMA is coordinating with EDA
and HUD to develop a project that would remove structures from risk,
yet ensure the sustained viability of the community. This project
involves potential funding from FEMA to acquire five commercial (one of
which houses the County medical clinic) and eight residential
structures. The land to be acquired is primarily threatened by erosion,
and would become open space. EDA may provide a grant to purchase
another commercial building outside the floodplain and convert it into
a ``mini-mall''/retail office facility. The clinic, as well as the
other businesses would relocate to this facility. HUD funding would
support bringing the clinic's office space up to current medical codes
and standards.
While this is but one example, it shows how the Federal family
coordinates the delivery of assistance after disasters to meet State
priorities and community needs.
Question. There are several agencies involved in buyouts, including
FEMA, HUD, and the Army Corps of Engineers. What is the national buyout
plan, why are so many agencies involved, and what are the different
roles and responsibilities of the various agencies.
Answer. Removal of structures from the floodplain (referred to as
``buyouts'') is one element of a multi-hazard approach to reducing the
long term impacts of natural disasters on the nation. To achieve these
cost-effective projects, several Federal departments and agencies have
authorities that give them the capability to acquire properties. These
include FEMA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Economic Development
Administration (EDA). While the programs may all support acquisition
projects, they are designed to address different needs at the local
level, and as such, form the basis for a coordinated acquisition
strategy.
FEMA programs have provided funding to acquire over 23,500 flood-
prone properties throughout the U.S., and are for the specific purpose
of reducing or eliminating future damage and risk to life and property
from natural hazards. Under HUD's programs, acquisition can be
undertaken for a broader array of purposes including re-housing
strategies, urban renewal, economic development, and affordable
housing. The USACE primarily funds land acquisition to support large-
scale structural flood control, flood storage, and wetlands management
projects. Additionally, communities often seek EDA support to ensure
their open space acquisition projects do not deplete the local housing
stock. These programs operate in tandem providing communities with
essential flexibility to meet their hazard mitigation and recovery
needs.
An example of how these programs can work together can be found in
South Pembina, North Dakota. In this community, FEMA is funding the
acquisition of approximately 20 residential structures and mobile
homes. The land acquired will be used for open space and recreational
purposes. To ensure adequate housing outside the floodplain is
available for Pembina's labor force, EDA is providing a grant to
develop a 20-site mobile home park, and to acquire land for the future
construction of a 24-plex residential apartment structure. The local
community is using HUD funding to provide the matching fund requirement
under the EDA grant. The availability of differing, yet flexible
Federal programs enables communities to satisfy a broad range of
disaster recovery and hazard mitigation needs.
Question. An article appearing earlier this week in The Washington
Post discussed a Commerce Department initiative called the Natural
Disaster Reduction Initiative, which includes grants to communities to
encourage economic development officials and emergency planners to
train together and improve coordination. What is FEMA's role in this
initiative, and how does it relate to FEMA's Project Impact?
Answer. FEMA and the Department of Commerce (DOC) have been
involved in discussions about fostering tighter linkages between FEMA's
Project Impact and the DOC's Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative. One
of the ways in which we hope to work together is through the
development of training for economic development officials and
emergency planners at the local level on how to work more closely
together and incorporate mitigation into economic development planning.
Over the next few weeks, FEMA and DOC's Economic Development
Administration (EDA) hope to finalize an agreement whereby EDA will
provide the funding and technical assistance to support development of
the subject training, and FEMA will utilize its staff and resources at
its Emergency Management Institute (EMI) to prepare the course
instruction. Under the agreement, FEMA and EDA will work together to
offer the training to economic development and emergency planning
officials at EMI. The training would also be made available to
officials in Project Impact communities on an as-needed basis so that
they can strengthen mitigation components of their community and
economic development planning. As we move forward, FEMA and the
Department of Commerce will continue to identify opportunities for the
two agencies to work together through the two respective initiatives.
state cost-share waivers
Question. What are the criteria for recommending to the President
that the 25 percent state cost-share be reduced, and has this per-
capita threshold been closely adhered to in recommending cost-share
reductions?
How long has this criteria been in place and when will the updated
threshold be implemented?
The Senators from Maine have requested a legislative cost-share
reduction for Maine. What is the per-capita damage in Maine? Do you
have a position on this request?
Answer. Currently, FEMA's policy is to recommend that eligible
Public Assistance disaster costs be reimbursed at 90 percent Federal
funding only for those disasters which are of a catastrophic nature and
the statewide per capita impact exceeds $64. This criterion has been in
place since 1985. The present criteria has consistently been used for
all 38 cost share adjustments granted to date with the exception of the
August 5, 1997, legislative cost share adjustment for the State of
Minnesota (FEMA-1175-DR, the Presidential Disaster Declaration for the
Red River flood). In this case, Congress included within the 1998
Budget Reconciliation, Public Law 105-33, which was signed by the
President, a 90/10 cost share adjustment for six counties even though
the State did not meet the $64 threshold.
The Committee on Appropriations Report 105-53 expressed a concern
that FEMA had not updated the standard it uses to determine when to
increase the Federal share of disaster costs since 1985, and that the
standard was not in regulation. In response to that concern FEMA
prepared a proposed rule that would raise the $64 threshold now used to
recommend cost-share adjustments up to current dollars, and would
adjust that threshold annually. Based on the Consumer Price Index the
new threshold would be $100 per capita. However, since this is such a
large increase, the rule proposes to raise this threshold over a two-
year period, with $80 per capita as the interim threshold. The
projected annual cost-savings from this rule is $38 million. The
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register for comment on
March 5, 1998, with comments due May 4, 1998.
As of March 17, 1998, the Federal obligations for the Maine
disaster (FEMA-1198-DR), declared January 13, 1998, is $9,578,002.
Based on a 1990 statewide population of 1,227,928, the statewide per
capita impact of this event is $7.80. FEMA strives to administer the
President's Disaster Relief Fund program in a fair and equitable manner
in each disaster.
business process re-engineering
Question. I understand you have underway a process to improve and
streamline the grants process for infrastructure projects. Could you
describe what improvements you plan to implement and what sort of cost
savings are anticipated? Do you anticipate FEMA will be able to close-
out disasters much faster as a result of the new process?
Answer. The goal of the New Public Assistance Program is to better
serve our customers by obligating 50 percent of emergency work funding
within 30 days of declaration, obligating 80 percent of permanent work
funding within 180 days of declaration and closing 80 percent of
disasters within two years. The new program involves four components:
people, policy, process and performance. To better serve our customers'
needs, our staff must be very knowledgeable about program issues and
possess good interpersonal skills. To this end, we are developing a
program to credential our staff and to provide more training to our
State partners. Secondly, we are simplifying our policies and
publishing them in paper and in electronic formats so that our staff,
as well as State and local partners can easily access them. This will
promote more consistent decision making throughout the program, which
will increase customer satisfaction and reduce the number of appeals.
The third component of the new program is process. We are
streamlining the process to make it less bureaucratic and more
responsive to our customers' needs. We are empowering our staff in the
field with authority to make program decisions, which reduces the need
for multiple reviews at the disaster field office. Our objective is to
provide timely assistance to applicants.
Lastly, we want to provide effective, efficient and consistent
assistance to our customers. To help evaluate our performance, we will
conduct customer satisfaction surveys after each disaster. Further, we
are building critical performance indicators into our process. This
will allow us to adjust process components to improve customer
satisfaction.
The estimated savings in administrative costs for the New Public
Assistance Program will be approximately $9 million annually. We
anticipate that 90 percent of the disasters will be closed
programmatically within two years.
Question. Last spring FEMA initiated a pilot grants acceleration
program for Northridge projects. Is participation more or less than
FEMA anticipated? What has been learned so far?
Answer. Participation has been favorable. Of the approximately 120
Subgrantees who owned the approximately 400 eligible projects
(generally, at least one large building no more than 75 percent
complete), 77 Subgrantees requested offers on at least one facility. As
of March 13, 1998, 104 settlement offers were made. Of those, 69
settlement offers were accepted, 16 were rejected, and the balance is
pending.
FEMA has worked swiftly since September 1997 to develop
professional cost estimates, validate them and convey them to the
Grantee/Subgrantees. In addition to those offers already made, FEMA has
an additional number of estimates in process. And some Subgrantees have
indicated that they intended to request settlement offers on additional
buildings after reviewing initial cases.
Levels of interest vary; some enthusiastic Subgrantees have asked
for settlements on projects that are not even part of the program;
others who opt not to participate prefer the assurance that all
eligible actual construction costs will be met by FEMA, as in the
current Damage Survey Report (DSR) process. We have found that some
Subgrantees are very pleased with the program. And, in general, we are
finding that the Subgrantees prefer the GAP option to the traditional
DSR process because they have a reduced administrative burden and know
the dollar amount within which they must manage.
Question. The Northridge pilot involves capping settlements up
front, with no appeals allowed. Will this concept be applied on a
broader basis?
Answer. The cost estimating methodology developed for Northridge
and validated for national use, now is being provided nationally as a
tool to make better initial estimates of damage costs. However, without
statutory change, final settlements on estimates will not be
implemented on a larger scale. Because the law currently provides
appeal rights on program matters, we do not envision a full-scale
implementation of settlements based on estimates without appeal.
project impact
Question. FEMA is requesting $50 million for the new pre-disaster
mitigation program called Project Impact in fiscal year 1999, and
received $30 million in fiscal year 1998, most of which has not yet
been distributed.
How will FEMA target these grants to areas with the highest risk of
disasters?
Answer. In looking for communities in which to pilot Project
Impact, we are looking at areas of high risk as one of the critical
factors of selection. Indicators we are looking toward to determine
high risk include number of disaster declarations and repetitive
losses. The way in which the process of mitigation will be applied in
each community will be driven by the community culture and
vulnerabilities. In addition to any priorities identified at the local
level, FEMA will be encouraging the communities to address those
problems that directly affect disaster expenditures, such as vulnerable
infrastructure.
Question. I understand that Project Impact has never been announced
in the Federal Register. Will all local communities nationwide be given
an equal opportunity to apply for Project Impact funds?
Answer. The Administration has set a goal of having one Project
Impact community in each State by the end of the current fiscal year.
We have pilot projects well underway to field-test a new process for
engendering an on-going commitment to mitigation in a variety of high-
risk communities. As we learn from these first two rounds of
designations, we are developing what we expect to be the parameters of
a program in the future. Once this is established we anticipate local
communities nationwide will be invited to participate as partners in
Project Impact.
Question. What role will States play in the selection and
implementation of Project Impact grants?
Answer. States are considered to be critical partners to the
success of Project Impact. We are counting on the State emergency
management agencies to manage a process within the State with all
appropriate stakeholders to identify and recommend to FEMA communities
that are appropriate for Project Impact. In addition to risk and
organizational qualities within the communities, we would hope that the
communities recommended to FEMA by the States will fit within the
overall strategic mitigation plan and activities of each State.
Question. You have indicated that you would like a Project Impact
grant in every State. Are all States interested and are there strong
candidate projects in all States?
Answer. Momentum for Project Impact is growing with each passing
week. Currently we have communities under consideration in all States.
Some of the States have forwarded their recommendations to us; others
are still working with our regional offices to determine which
communities would be most appropriate.
Question. What criteria does FEMA plan to use to measure the
success of Project Impact, and how does FEMA plan to ensure that the
appropriate level of outside effort and resources are channeled into
the program?
Answer. The success of the Project Impact initiative will be
demonstrated by the public and private partnership actions taken by the
community that demonstrate lives and property are at less risk from the
natural hazards that threaten them.
FEMA is currently developing several methods in which to measure
short and long-term risk reduction in Project Impact communities. One
effort underway is the development of a systematic methodology to
document the processes and implementation of the actions that pilot
communities have identified to lessen their future losses from natural
disasters. The University of Delaware Disaster Research Center is
working with FEMA to conduct an evaluation study, with four specific
objectives: (1) to describe the processes through which pilot
communities developed their plans and objectives under the Project
Impact initiative; (2) to monitor and document the progress pilot
communities are making toward achieving their stated goals; (3) to
identify factors that encourage successful program development and
implementation in the pilot communities; and (4) to make
recommendations and point out factors that FEMA should take into
account in implementing the program on a national scale. FEMA will also
be looking at specific indicators within each Project Impact community
that demonstrate mitigation is working and true risk reduction is
occurring.
To ensure that the appropriate level of outside effort and
resources are channeled into the program, FEMA will continue to seek
support from the Congress, the Administration, national organizations,
and the private sector. In addition, we are developing tools and
training to assist our employees in fostering partnership approaches in
communities as a way to effectively leverage this initiative.
Question. Obviously, every community will not receive a Project
Impact grant. What else is FEMA doing to encourage mitigation in
communities nationwide? Do you believe additional incentives are
needed--such as tying federal disaster assistance or preparedness
grants under the cooperative agreement with States--to mitigation?
Answer. FEMA provides a wide range of assistance to communities on
a regular basis to assist them in meeting their own risk reduction
priorities and needs. This assistance includes the publication and
dissemination of guidance and technical materials, the delivery of
direct technical assistance on state-of-the-art mitigation measures and
practices, providing training and education opportunities, and
disseminating mitigation outreach materials for their use within their
own jurisdictions. Through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program,
communities have their floodplains mapped to provide local officials
with the information they need to develop smartly and in a disaster
resistant way. FEMA also provides funding through State and local
grants to help localities develop emergency management capabilities,
and funds certain high-priority mitigation measures through the Flood
Mitigation Assistance and National Hurricane Programs. These types of
assistance will continue to be made available to communities interested
in promoting mitigation and preparedness activities outside of a
Project Impact designation.
FEMA also works with county and local associations, including the
National Association of Counties, and the International City and County
Managers Association, and others to develop and disseminate mitigation
and preparedness information that meets community needs. Partnerships
such as these provide valuable support to local efforts to reduce risk.
Despite these types of assistance, FEMA believes that additional
incentives are needed if we are ever to have a significant impact with
mitigation across the nation. For this reason, FEMA is currently
working with the private sector, including the insurance industry,
financial institutions, and even officials on Wall Street, to develop
additional incentives that can be applied in communities across the
country, such as reduced interest mitigation loan products, risk-based
community bond ratings, and reductions in premiums or deductibles on
hazard insurance. FEMA is working with State and other Federal agencies
to leverage resources to promote mitigation activity. Additional
incentives are also being pursued within FEMA's existing programs. It
is our hope that in the next several years, a multitude of new
incentives will be available to assist communities in addressing their
own risks and priorities.
hazard mitigation grants
Question. When will a final rule be published in the Federal
Register limiting the timeframes States have for obligating Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds?
Answer. FEMA does not plan on publishing a final rule in the
Federal Register at this time. Instead, FEMA issued policy guidance in
December 1997 that reaffirms existing regulations on timelines under
the HMGP. The deadlines for States to submit applications remain the
same as currently outlined in the HMGP program regulations.
This new policy does, however, place a new deadline on FEMA staff
in reviewing project applications in a more efficient manner. FEMA will
be required to obligate all funds within approximately 24 months of a
disaster declaration. FEMA is working with States to ensure that the
regulatory deadlines are met and to provide limited extensions where
warranted.
state capability assessments
Question. This week FEMA released its long-awaited Capability
Assessment of the States which we asked for several years ago owing to
concern that we did not have a good assessment of State's ability to
respond to major disasters. FEMA's report is based on State self-
assessments.
Do you really believe self-assessments will establish an accurate,
honest picture of capabilities?
Answer. We believe that self-assessments are the most effective
option for a number of reasons. First, because we did not tie funding
to the assessment results, the States had no incentive to game the
assessment in an attempt to gain additional funds. Secondly, States
indicated in their responses whether the assessment was based upon real
world experience, exercise experience, or whether the specific area
being assessed was untested. We believe that the assessment is
generally an honest depiction of the State emergency management
experience. This is reflected in the detail provided by numerous State
responses to the assessment, which in many cases went beyond the scope
of the questions, and were self-critical and introspective.
Most States conducted their Capability Assessment Readiness (CAR)
reviews with on-site Regional involvement. Some Regions formed CAR
teams to partner with their respective States in the process and the
assessment. It is FEMA's position that an honest, accurate assessment
occurs when there is the opportunity for the partners to be jointly
involved in conducting the assessment and reviewing the results.
Question. Why would any State rate itself negatively in any area?
How will FEMA validate the accuracy of the assessments?
Answer. States have a vested interest in reviewing their own level
of preparedness and correcting deficiencies where identified. The CAR
establishes a set of performance criteria that have been accepted by
the States as a baseline for performance measurement. Validation of
results occurs in the process. The State conducts a self-assessment,
then the State and FEMA jointly review that self-assessment face-to-
face, and discuss the State assessment; and/or the State and FEMA
conduct the self-assessment together to provide a more valid
perspective on the status of the emergency management partnership. As a
result, emergency management partners mutually develop actions that
address areas identified by the assessment as needing improvement, and
incorporate actions into the Performance Partnership Agreement and the
annual Cooperative Agreement (PPA/CA).
Question. Did the self-assessments include an assessment of the
risks faced by the State? If not, how can a State rate it's capability
without first assessing what it is preparing for?
Answer. Yes, the assessments included State Hazard Identification
and Risk Assessment.
Question. How will these assessments be used? Will the results of
the assessments be used to make funding decisions?
Answer: FEMA has embraced several strategies, long and short term,
to address the areas needing improvement identified by the CAR process,
and to ensure that areas identified as strengths continue to be
maintained. These strategies shape the way States and localities
utilize grant funds through: (1) Performance Partnership Agreement
reviews with the States during fiscal year 1998; (2) emphasis on the
State annual Cooperative Agreements; (3) improvement of individual
Emergency Management Functions based on State requirements; (4)
refinement of the CAR review process; and (5) participation in the
development of an accreditation process for State and local emergency
management organizations. We do not intend to directly link financial
assistance to States based upon the CAR results for fear that this
would serve as an incentive to slant results to garner funds, when what
is needed is an honest assessment.
Question. Specific areas identified as needing specific improvement
included planning for a response to nuclear, biological and chemical
terrorist incident; resource management; and coordination between State
emergency management agencies and the private sector. What are FEMA's
plans to address these important weaknesses.
Answer: FEMA Regions will utilize the CAR results to review the
existing State and FEMA Performance Partnership Agreements, revise them
as necessary, and negotiate the annual Cooperative Agreements with
States to focus on correcting identified areas for improvement. In
addition, exercises and training programs will emphasize areas
identified as needing improvement.
Question. In your report, it is noted that there were questions
about the quality and validity of the results, and that ``the initial
effort is only a starting point. The process will take time to
evolve.'' What are your specific plans for refining the ``capability
assessment for readiness?''
Answer: We began discussions with our State partners immediately
after completion of the fiscal year 1997 CAR to identify and work on
components of the CAR process that could be improved. Workshops with
Regions and States have been conducted which focused on reviewing the
CAR in support of the Performance Partnership Agreements and the annual
funded Cooperative Agreement. The purpose of the workshops was to (1)
plan and implement a more effective CAR process for the future; (2)
identify specific ways to support customers to gain greater value from
the assessment; and (3) continue to build the partnership between FEMA
HQ and customers in the Regions, States, locals and related public,
private and volunteer communities.
The recommendations of these workshops, which involved 57 States
and territories and 10 regions, were as follows: (1) refine questions
to avoid duplication; (2) weight questions more comparably; (3) develop
standard guide for facilitation of joint FEMA/State sessions; (4)
refine frequency of assessments; and, (5) perform regional assessments.
We will be implementing these recommendations in the next CAR process,
and will continue this feedback cycle to ensure that the instrument
remains effective and useful for all parties to the process.
state and local assistance
FEMA's budget proposes a cut of $11 million to state and local
assistance, and an increase in the state cost-sharing of these grants.
The states obviously are quite concerned with this proposed reduction.
According to a survey of states, potentially 154.5 positions on state
emergency management staffs would be eliminated.
Question. Why is FEMA proposing such a drastic reduction?
Answer. The 1999 request represents an overall reduction of
$11,646,000 from the 1998 level, and is related to the Agency phasing
out Federal requirements funded by State and Local Assistance (SLA)
grants that previously were of higher priority, but no longer warrant
100 percent funding.
The reduction in SLA grants also reflects one of many adjustments
made by the Agency to achieve 1999 budget targets driven by the
Balanced Budget Agreement. Since 1993, FEMA has absorbed the greater
share of budget reductions at the national level or at the expense of
other programs, holding States harmless as much as possible until the
1999 budget. For example, funding levels for SLA grants between 1993
actual obligations and the 1999 request reflect a decrease of only 4.2
percent, despite the fact that FEMA's Emergency Management Planning and
Assistance (EMPA) appropriation has been reduced by over 20 percent.
During the same period, however, overall Performance Partnership
Agreement (PPA) grants to States funded from EMPA have increased by 4.7
percent, and now include funding for State Hazard Mitigation Officers
and Hazardous Materials preparedness. (For comparability purposes, the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness amount is included in the 1999
figure.)
The decision, in addition to helping meet budget targets, begins to
transition support for State and local emergency management planning
functions to no more than 50 percent in accordance with congressional
direction in the Conference Report on the 1996 appropriation and the
House Report on the 1997 appropriation. The results of this change will
uniformly provide 50 percent funding for emergency management planning
positions at State and local levels, and 100 percent funding for
emergency management training and planning activities related to
hazardous materials incidents.
Question. Were states given fair warning that this reduction was
coming, so state legislatures could act to increase state funding?
Answer. In 1995, as part of FEMA's implementation of reinvention
under the National Performance Review, we simplified our program
structure and devolved management of a number of program activities to
the States under Performance Partnership Agreements. Five programs,
including three that historically had no cost-share requirements, were
consolidated into the State and Local Assistance (SLA) program. Of the
resources consolidated into SLA, 75 percent originated in programs that
required State and local governments to at least match the amount of
the Federal contribution.
FEMA's program guidance for fiscal year 1996, as originally issued
in July 1995, specified that all funding provided under SLA would have
to be equally matched by the State and local governments. Some States
expressed concern that they would not be able to obtain resources from
their legislatures to meet this matching requirement on short notice.
FEMA then revised the fiscal year 1996 guidance by adding language to
the effect that some FEMA funding would be available `` * * * without
State cost share for fiscal year 1996.'' This FEMA action was
recognized in the Conference Report on the 1996 Appropriation which
directed FEMA to continue funding ``certain planning positions'' at 100
percent as we had in the past, but to plan to reduce the Federal share
to no more than 50 percent for fiscal year 1997 and beyond.
FEMA continued working with the States and, in response to their
continuing concerns, asked Congress for legislation to permit a
consistent 75 percent Federal, 25 percent State cost share for all
preparedness programs authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended. This action was made
public in May 1997. During this same time frame, letters were sent to
State Governors from the FEMA Regional Directors urging the States to
seek the resources necessary to match all SLA funding in fiscal year
1999. While FEMA was unable to provide information regarding the
content of the 1999 budget request until such time it was submitted to
Congress in the President's budget, we believe that these actions
should have made it clear to the States that there was a need for them
to seek additional State and local resources for activities funded
through SLA.
borrowings
Question. The level of borrowing in the Flood Insurance program is
unprecedented. What amount currently is owed Treasury and what are
FEMA's plans and timeline for repaying the debt?
Answer. The outstanding borrowing reached $917 million at the end
of June 1997. Through repayments, including $72 million in interest,
the outstanding borrowing is down to $810 million.
Since levels of flooding are still the critical determinant in
repaying the current borrowing, it is not possible to determine with
certainty when the repayment will be complete. Through simulation
modeling, FEMA has estimated the probability of repaying current
borrowing over the next five year period. Based on premium income
alone, FEMA has a 16 to 27 percent probability of completely repaying
the amount borrowed from the Treasury at some point within the next
five fiscal years.
FEMA is submitting a report to Congress which outlines various
alternative strategies for repaying the borrowing that could increase
the probability of complete repayment within the next five years to 41
to 50 percent.
substantial damage
Question. An article appearing in the Baton Rouge Advocate (10/20/
97) said ``on paper a federal policy known as the `50 percent rule'
seems to make a lot of sense. In practice, it might as well not even
exist. The rule is suppose to force people to elevate, move, or
demolish a house if damages from a flood total more than half its
market value. But experts on flooding say the rule is widely ignored.''
This is costing the flood insurance program millions of dollars in
unnecessary flood claims as structures flood, are rebuilt as they were,
and flood again. What does FEMA plan to do to ensure implementation of
the 50-percent rule? How widespread is this problem? Does the 50-
percent rule need to be amended to address repeat flooding, since many
houses flood repeatedly with levels too low to trigger the rule?
Answer. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims
representative (Write Your Own or direct Government business) completes
a preliminary damage assessment form during the initial visit to the
damaged structure when there is a claim. That form is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office, which in
turn provides the damage assessment form to the local officials to
alert them to the possibility of a substantially damaged structure when
they issue the repair permit. During a major catastrophe the NFIP
reminds all Write Your Own Companies and the NFIP direct of the
requirement to complete the preliminary damage assessment form.
Under NFIP regulations, communities have the responsibility to
enforce their ordinances affecting requirements that substantially
improved buildings meet Post-FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map)
construction standards. This includes buildings that have been
substantially damaged as well. In developing the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994, it was known that because of the
additional costs of reconstruction that are imposed on the property
owner, there is a reluctance on the part of community officials, to
declare a building to be substantially damaged. To address this, the
Act authorized the NFIP to provide coverage for compliance with local
floodplain management ordinances. This has been implemented as
Increased Cost of Compliance coverage (which is paid by policyholders)
and provides up to $15,000 toward the cost of rebuilding to Post-FIRM
standards in response to local ordinance requirements. Such ordinances
apply to substantially damaged buildings, or where a community has an
appropriate ordinance, to repetitively damaged buildings, as defined in
the statute. This new coverage was implemented June 1, 1997 for all new
policies and renewed policies becoming effective on or after that date.
chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program (csepp)
Question. FEMA is requesting $46 million for the CSEPP program.
Very little detail is provided in the Congressional budget
justification describing how these funds will be used. Please provide a
detailed description, including a break-out of the budget request by
headquarters, regions, states and the local communities and a break-out
of how these funds will be utilized by state and local governments.
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, as in prior years, FEMA's Chemical
Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) activities will be
funded by Army on a reimbursable basis.
The purpose of CSEPP is to help communities enhance existing
emergency management systems and achieve the level of preparedness
required by this hazard. FEMA is requesting $46M in reimbursable
authority for the following:
--Salaries, benefits and travel ($3.5M)--Supports FEMA staff
(Headquarters and six Regions) assigned to the program.
--Administrative overhead cost ($422,000).
Technical support for the program includes:
--Planning ($800,000)--support to the CSEPP community (10 States and
39 counties) for development of major software; to assess
emergency response plans for compliance with established CSEPP
policies and guidance; to implement performance indicator
modules to evaluate understanding of CSEPP guidance regarding
emergency medical services, public education and information,
and post-incident operations; to complete development of CSEPP
Planner's Companion series addressing requirements in CSEPP
Planning Guidance; and to provide technical planning assistance
to States and local jurisdictions.
--Training ($600,000)--develop and support training for such State
and county CSEPP training requirements as Risk Communications,
ACTFAST, Chemical Awareness, Personal Protective Equipment,
Technical Planning and Evaluation, and use of audio-injectors
by civilian emergency medical personnel to treat civilians
exposed to nerve agents, etc.
--Public Education and Awareness ($425,000)--preparation and
distribution of CSEPP public awareness materials and documents,
technical assistance to States and counties, and Joint
Information Center/System.
--Automated Data Processing (ADP) ($211,000)--continuation of the
integration of alert/notification, ADP, and communication
systems for jurisdictions not yet equipped, and support for
CSEPP ADP system and Federal Emergency Management Information
System port maintenance, software license, equipment purchases,
operating system upgrade and FEMIS client software suites.
--CSEPP Community Exercises ($1.2M)--Assistance to FEMA and Army
Exercise Co-Directors to train, conduct, and evaluate
exercises, and develop the Evaluation Exercise Report, revise
CSEPP Exercise Program document, and continue to develop
interactive exercise scenarios that simulate incident and post-
incident conditions and exercise execution of key tasks.
--Exercise Direct Support ($256,000)--Funding to conduct eight CSEPP
federally evaluated exercises.
--Implement a Program Performance Monitoring System to assure that
system capabilities are in place in the ten CSEPP States and 39
counties at the earliest possible date.
In addition to the above, DOD is requesting $39M that will be
provided to the 10 CSEPP States through a Cooperative Agreement as
follows: Alabama--$4.9M; Kentucky--$15M; Utah--$5.6M; Maryland--$1.8M;
Illinois--$500,000; Indiana--$1.4M; Arkansas--$2.3M; Colorado--$1.8M;
Oregon--$4M; and Washington--$1.3M. This funding will enhance State and
county emergency capabilities in the following areas:
--Functioning Alert and Notification system for Immediate Response
Zones (IRZ) and Protective Action Zones (PAZ);
--Functioning Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for each PAZ and IRZ
county;
--Integrated communications systems for IRZ, Joint Information Center
(JIC)/State;
--Functioning automated data processing system connecting on-post
EOC/off-post EOC/JIC/State EOC;
--Training programs which are consistent with FEMA State Training
Plan;
--Exercise program consistent with approved exercise policy;
--Community involvement program for public education and awareness;
--Personnel, such as CSEPP coordinators, public information/affairs
officers, planners, ADP specialists to support CSEPP
activities; and
--Coordinate plans in conformance with established CSEPP guidance for
State. IRZ and PAZ counties.
mt. weather expansion plan
Question. What is the status of the Mt. Weather expansion plan? How
much is proposed for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to address
the $14.9 million worth of projects delineated in the April 1997 Mt.
Weather Expansion Plan Report?
Answers.
Status.--In fiscal year 1997, FEMA used $1.7 million on projects
identified in the Mount Weather Expansion Plan. The Agency plans
additional expenditures of $1.5 million in fiscal year 1998 and $2.1
million in fiscal year 1999. Most of these expenditures are
improvements to the existing infrastructure. Details of these projects
follow:
Fiscal year 1997
Expansion of the Conference and Training Center was funded in 1997,
as detailed in the reprogramming request forwarded to Congress and
subsequently approved. The contract was let through competitive small
business set-aside procurement in the amount of $1.25 million. Work has
begun, and completion is anticipated by September 30, 1998. In addition
to the building construction, fiscal year 1997 funds in the amount of
$230,000 were spent to expand parking to serve the training facility.
$251,200, part of which was reimbursed from tenants, was spent on
the renovation of a building for office space. The project is scheduled
for completion May 1, 1998.
Fiscal year 1998
Design for the renovation of Building 230 to provide additional
office space is estimated in fiscal year 1998 at $150,000. Construction
will be undertaken on this building either at the expense of a new
tenant or when sufficient monies accrue in the Working Capital Fund
(WCF).
A modular building will be purchased to provide 4,500 square feet
of additional warehouse storage at a cost of about $100,000.
Infrastructure improvement projects scheduled for fiscal year 1998
total $1.2 million and include roof repairs ($310,000), Electrical
Distribution System upgrades ($200,000), modifications and repairs to
Bldg. 411 ($150,000), energy conservation/lighting upgrades ($100,000),
fuel tank replacements ($100,000), and other projects of lesser cost.
Fiscal year 1999
Design for the renovation of Building 105 is budgeted at $150,000
for fiscal year 1999. Construction will occur at the expense of a new
tenant or when sufficient monies accrue in the Working Capital Fund.
In fiscal year 1999, $150,000 is budgeted to design the renovation
of a dormitory building.
Infrastructure improvements included in the fiscal year 1999 WCF
spending plan total over $1.2 million, and include paint and carpet
replacement ($362,000), roadway resurfacing ($300,000), roof repairs
($166,000), cafeteria facility and equipment upgrades ($150,000), PA
system upgrade ($130,000), Water Distribution upgrades ($100,000), and
other projects of lesser cost.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
state and local assistance
Question. The President's request for FEMA funding eliminates $16
million from 100 percent funded grant assistance programs used for
state and local assistance. This vital assistance is replaced with a
50-50 federal-state cost sharing mechanism. The agency's justification,
however, notes that these grants are for ``improving the capability of
state and local emergency management to plan for, respond to, and
recover from disasters.''
How will the reduction of 100 percent federally funded grants
improve state and local preparedness?
Answer. The reduction in 100 percent funding is related to the
Agency phasing out Federal requirements funded by State and Local
Assistance (SLA) grants that previously were of higher priority, but no
longer warrant 100 percent funding. Instead of these Federal
requirements, States have more flexibility to design an emergency
management program that addresses specific risks to their jurisdiction.
Question. In testimony before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee, you indicated that only a couple of states would be
seriously impacted by the reduction in 100 percent funded grant
assistance. Which states do you anticipate these being?
Answer. At the time of the hearing only two States, Maryland and
Texas, had indicated that they would have severe problems with this
reduction.
Question. The National Emergency Management Association has
identified at least 23 states that have indicated that they will be
severely impacted by this reduction. How do you account for the
difference?
Answer. Since the Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, I have
spoken to several other States that have shared their concerns
regarding the reduction.
Question. I am, of course, greatly concerned on this proposal's
impact on Idaho. As a former State Emergency Manager, what do you
believe will be the impact of this reduction to a county such as Clark
County, Idaho, which has a tax base of only 835 people?
Answer. The impact on any particular local government will vary
depending on how the State decides to deal with the reduction. Our best
estimate of the percent decrease in SLA funding for the State of Idaho
is 12.5 percent. The SLA program is only one source of FEMA assistance
to State and local governments. We do not believe that the redirection
will fundamentally damage the capacity of State and local governments
to meet the needs of disaster victims.
Question. Is it not the case that this reduction is merely a shift
of preparedness costs to state and local communities?
Answer. The reduction in 100 percent funding is related to the
Agency's phasing out Federal requirements funded by SLA grants that
previously were of higher priority, but no longer warrant 100 percent
funding. Instead of these Federal requirements, States have more
flexibility to design an emergency management program that addresses
specific risks in their jurisdiction.
Question. To your knowledge, have state legislatures provided
appropriate funding to compensate for this change? What of those states
with biennial budget cycles?
Answer. It would appear from the results of the National Emergency
Management Association survey that not all State legislatures have
provided compensatory funding for their emergency management programs.
States that heeded the information provided with the 1998 cooperative
agreement guidance have anticipated the shift away from 100 percent
Federal funding, and are prepared for this change. States that have
relied on the 100 percent Federal funding associated with Cold War
program activities would have a more difficult adjustment to make.
However, they should also benefit in the near future from improved
support at the State and local levels and increased certainty about
roles and goals of their emergency management organizations.
Question. Wouldn't states and local communities be better prepared
to accept this new responsibility if it were to be phased in over time?
Answer. The situation varies from State to State. It appears that
more than half of the States are prepared for this change. Most
understand that they must take primary responsibility for developing
capabilities for State and local preparedness and response for all but
the most catastrophic disasters.
Question. In addition, I question the wisdom in diverting this
money away from emergency preparedness. What other FEMA programs would
be increased as a result in this change?
Answer. The reduction in SLA grants reflects one of many
adjustments made by the Agency, including the elimination of all 1998
congressional add-ons, to achieve 1999 budget targets for EMPA driven
by the Balanced Budget Agreement. The request does include an increase
of $2.1 million to address health and safety deficiencies and Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements at FEMA-owned facilities.
Question. Would you be willing to fund the 50-50 grant program at
the same level now used to fund the 100 percent grants? Or, in other
words, could we not double the number of projects covered through this
fund if these monies were not cut and the cost sharing mechanism
implemented?
Answer. Since 1993, FEMA has absorbed the greater share of budget
reductions to the Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
appropriation at the expense of programs other than State and Local
Assistance, thus holding the States harmless as much as possible. In
order to fund SLA 50 percent at the current level of SLA 100 percent,
FEMA would be forced to further erode those other critical programs.
The availability of additional Federal funds, however, may be a moot
point, since States may have difficulty in meeting the cost share
requirements of the 50 percent program.
american indian and alaska native policy
Question. If FEMA were to enter into separate partnership
agreements with each tribe in a state, would funds currently used for
state and local assistance programs be reduced from that state to pay
for the separate agreements with the tribes?
Answer. At this time, we have no plans to develop Performance
Partnerships Agreements with each tribe in the states or change
procedures on how they participate in FEMA's programs. FEMA's Native
American policy focuses on building relationships with tribes and
Alaskan native villages to better respond to their emergency management
needs and problems. We intend to build these relationships in
cooperation with States and not at their expense.
Question. How will FEMA determine who is and who is not an American
Indian for the purpose of providing assistance under the Individual
Assistance Program?
Answer. The new policy will not change FEMA's current procedures or
criteria for determining eligibility under the Individual Assistance
Program. FEMA programs help all needy citizens and qualified aliens in
the disaster area who meet eligibility requirements. We do not
discriminate based on race or ethnic origin.
Question. What will be the total fiscal impact to states and local
communities as a result of FEMA entering into separate agreements with
the tribes that may be located in a state?
Answer. Since the new policy focuses on building relationships, we
do not anticipate entering separate Performance Partnership Agreements
with the tribes that may be located in a State.
ad hoc panel on a national pre-disaster mitigation plan
Question. I'm pleased to know that the Partnership for Natural
Disaster Reduction (PNDR), located at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory, in my State, is on your panel helping
develop (the National Pre-disaster Mitigation) plan. Can you tell me
how things are progressing and when we might expect to see your plan?
Answer. Attached is a copy of the plan, based on the recommendation
of the Ad Hoc Panel, which is also attached. The panel worked
diligently and kept on schedule through its agenda of study and review.
They clearly had a very difficult assignment, but they accomplished a
great deal in a short amount of time. The Plan will be submitted by
your March 31 due date.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
project impact
Question. What are some of the initiatives of Project Impact?
Answer. Project Impact is an initiative designed to help
communities identify their risks, assign priorities, and take action
today to reduce disaster losses tomorrow. The principles upon which
Project Impact is built include:
--The key to promoting pre-disaster mitigation is in finding ways
that result in community implementation.
--More is accomplished through partnerships.
--Local ownership of the concept promotes a process that becomes part
of local culture and responds to the needs of individual
communities.
--Members of a community are interdependent, so an interdependent
approach must be implemented.
--Cultural change in communities can be supported by Federal
leadership, but should not be dependent on Federal funds.
--The initiative should enhance community sustainability.
--Federal funds should leverage mitigation into community decision-
making and resource allocation.
--This effort should not become a new Federal program--it should be a
new way of doing business.
Seven pilot communities were selected in 1997 to demonstrate the
development of Project Impact within various communities. By September
1998, FEMA's goal is to designate at least one Project Impact in every
State, and to engage at least 500 businesses.
We believe that the implementation of these principles in Project
Impact communities will foster ``Best Practice'' initiatives worthy of
duplication and recognition across the Country. We also believe that,
over time, the successes of Project Impact will replicate themselves,
and that incentives to reduce risks will be commonplace. We believe
that a local demand for mitigation will drive local decision-making.
Most importantly, we believe that disaster costs, property loss, and
human suffering will be reduced as a direct result of Project Impact's
efforts.
Question. What tangible initiatives have been implemented with
respect to the Program [Project Impact]?
Answer. Project Impact was established, in part, to overcome the
acknowledged barriers to effective mitigation. It looks for ways to
increase incentives, focus Federal leadership, provide flexibility at
the local level, build motivation, and apply existing technology and
research. These types of barriers are being addressed in the seven
pilot communities. Of the seven, five have already signed formal
agreements with FEMA and other principal partners. FEMA is actively
engaged in building partnerships, facilitating the identification of
priorities and providing technical assistance.
Private sector partners have joined to support the effort and
provide incentives. The number of participating partners continues to
grow. Examples of some of the current partners include: Merchants and
Marine Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, Home Depot, General Electric,
SAFECO Insurance, Barnes and Noble, Chevron, Promus Hotel Corporation,
Bell South, Lowes Home Improvement Centers, and Pacific Bell.
Numerous Federal agencies (including the Department of Education,
the Small Business Administration, the Economic Development Agency, the
Department of Transportation, and the United States Geological Survey),
voluntary agencies, and community-based organizations are
participating. In addition, an aggressive outreach and education
initiative is ongoing.
Examples of specific activities being undertaken in the pilots
include:
--In Deerfield Beach, Florida, funds are being used to put hurricane
straps on the auditorium and cafeteria of the local high
school, which serves as a shelter during a disaster; and,
installing wind shutters on all the high school windows.
--In Pascagoula, Mississippi, the Merchants & Marine Bank announced
it would provide below-market rate loans to qualified borrowers
to take steps to protect their properties.
--In Seattle, Washington, funding will support a locally-driven home
retrofit program; landslide and seismic vulnerability mapping
projects; in addition, the City's schools will receive funding
to further improve safety through the removal of a variety of
nonstructural hazards.
--In several locations, Home Depot is offering product knowledge
courses to help homeowners and builders better understand
disaster resistant construction.
In addition, national-level relationships are being developed with
private sector organizations, private non-profits, professional
associations, and Federal agencies. Discussions with Wall Street and
financial institutions are ongoing to create new incentives for risk
management to be reflected in financial decisions. States are
establishing similar initiatives on their own.
Question. Is this year's budget needed to get the project off the
ground, or will it be used to fund additional cities and initiatives?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget is being used for three primary
purposes. Given that in fiscal year 1997 we received an appropriation
of $2 million, we are using some funds in fiscal year 1998 to augment
the seven original pilots. Second, we will be using monies to provide
grants to another round of communities to be designated, given that we
are looking at at least one community in each State, fiscal year 1999
funds will be necessary to finish the communities we designate in this
calendar year. The third category of expenditures is for developmental
costs to get the program off the ground. For example, the development
of training or public education materials and evaluation activities.
Question. How will this program ``impact'' and benefit people?
Answer. The Project Impact initiative was developed to challenge
individuals, businesses and government entities to implement mitigation
measures before a disaster. Project Impact will benefit people in both
designated communities, and people in communities who implement the
principles of Project Impact on their own. Pre-disaster mitigation has
a systemic benefit. The engagement of the civic community creates
ancillary benefits to the community whether or not there is a disaster
in the near future. Pre-disaster mitigation contributes to sustainable
and economic development today. In the aftermath of a disaster, the
reduced or eliminated damages to critical facilities, infrastructure,
businesses and homes due to pre-disaster mitigation provides
substantial direct and indirect benefits to people throughout the
community. For example, people benefit from:
--Reduced home repair costs due to damage prevention,
--Increased reliability of road systems and lifeline services (e.g.
water, sewer, and electricity),
--Stable utility rates because companies do not need to raise rates
to cover damage costs,
--Reduced inconvenience of locating alternative child care
arrangements due to day care or school facility damages, and
--Reduced damages to businesses that threaten economic stability and
employment.
In the Project Impact pilot communities, people are already
benefiting from a number of initial actions. For example, in Seattle,
people are able to attend courses on how to perform seismic
retrofitting for their homes. They are able to borrow from the
community tool library the tool necessary to perform the retrofitting.
The tool libraries have received support from Washington Mutual,
SAFECO, and the Boeing Employees Good Neighbor Fund.
Question. What is the status of FEMA's attempt to get the program
authorized?
Answer. FEMA submitted legislation in the first session of the
105th Congress to amend the Stafford Act. Included in that legislation
is specific pre-disaster mitigation authorization. The legislation, S-
1007, has been referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Question. Where are communities in the early stage of developing
partnerships with the private sector?
Answer. Partnering with the business community is a critical part
of the Project Impact initiative. Communities need to come together in
partnership to identify the community's hazards, identify what can be
done about those hazards, prioritize the actions, and obtain public
support to take the actions. Business partners can provide the
resources for the identified actions. Through outreach activities, FEMA
is encouraging private sector involvement in local mitigation.
Over 50 businesses have joined Project Impact in the seven pilot
communities to date. Building partnerships is an ongoing effort;
therefore, the pilot communities are at different stages of developing
these partnerships with the private sector. Seattle, for example, has
identified over 30 businesses and leveraged $6 million; Deerfield
Beach, Florida, has organized a ``Business Alliance'' committee of
local business leaders which meets monthly in support of Project Impact
activities. FEMA's goal is to obtain 500 business partners by September
1998.
Question. What is FEMA doing to help communities foster public/
private partnerships?
Answer. The purpose of FEMA's Project Impact initiative is to
challenge the country to undertake actions that protect communities,
businesses, and individuals by reducing the effects of natural
disasters. FEMA has undertaken a nationwide awareness campaign to
demonstrate the benefits of hazard mitigation through a partnership
approach and an outreach effort to businesses and communities to become
disaster resistant. Project Impact serves as a catalyst for communities
to form partnerships and spotlights partnerships to create a network
for sustained momentum.
FEMA is encouraging private sector involvement in the seven pilot
communities through meetings with local Chambers of Commerce and
businesses. We are literally knocking on doors and inviting the local
business community to become part of their community's mitigation
effort. On a national level, relationships are also being developed
with private sector organizations, especially at the corporate level.
The Director has met with CEO's of large national companies and hopes
to have 500 business partners join the Project Impact initiative this
year. In addition, discussions with Wall Street and financial
institutions are ongoing to create new incentives for risk management
to be reflected in financial decisions.
Question. What is the incentive for the private sector to cooperate
in this program [Project Impact]?
FEMA believes that incentives for businesses will be accepted and
successful if related to their bottom lines. We are working to foster
an appreciation with the business community that they need to address
risk reduction for themselves, their employees, and their community.
Businesses need to prepare for disasters in order to increase the
likelihood that they will survive and recover from disasters. Companies
need to protect their own facilities; however, they also need to ensure
that their employees are protected, so that they do not become disaster
victims themselves. Employees need to get back to work as quickly as
possible so that companies can get back to business.
Businesses should also get involved in their community because they
have a stake in it. It is important to realize that businesses rely on
the same services from the community as do individuals, and private
sector recovery may be dependent on public sector recovery following a
disaster. Therefore, the private sector has a common interest in
reducing the risk to local infrastructures, which are necessary for the
continued operation of businesses. Participation in Project Impact also
provides the private sector an additional means to obtain recognition
for their involvement in the community.
The seven Project Impact pilot communities have been selected to
demonstrate the economic benefits of pre-disaster mitigation to state
and local governments, businesses, and individuals. FEMA hopes to have
500 business partners by September 1998.
Question. How will you judge the success of the program, barring
any disasters that may occur during your analysis time period?
Answer. The success of the Project Impact initiative will be
demonstrated by the public and private partnership actions taken by the
community that demonstrate lives and property are at less risk from the
natural hazards that threaten them.
FEMA is currently developing several methods in which to measure
short- and long-term risk reduction in Project Impact communities. One
effort underway is the development of a systematic methodology to
document the processes and implementation of the actions that pilot
communities have identified to lessen their future losses from natural
disasters. The University of Delaware Disaster Research Center is
working with FEMA to conduct an evaluation study. The study has four
specific objectives: (1) to describe the processes through which pilot
communities developed their plans and objectives under the Project
Impact initiative; (2) to monitor and document the progress pilot
communities are making toward achieving their stated goals; (3) to
identify factors that encourage successful program development and
implementation in the pilot communities; and (4) to make
recommendations and point out factors that FEMA should take into
account in implementing the program on a national scale.
FEMA will also be looking at specific indicators within each
Project Impact community that demonstrate mitigation is working and
true risk reduction is occurring. These indicators include:
--Comparison of how disasters impact Project Impact communities
before and after the community implements Project Impact
actions.
--Comparison of how disasters impact Project Impact communities
versus non-Project Impact communities.
--Research on how people view mitigation in Project Impact
communities before the activities are taken and in specified
time increments after the activities have started.
--Research on how people in non-Project Impact communities view
mitigation.
--Research on the behavioral changes in Project Impact communities
and in non-Project Impact communities. For example, are people
in a Project Impact community doing more, are they more aware
of mitigation and what are they doing to reduce their own
potential damages from disasters.
--Indicators of the awareness level of hazard and risk among
community officials and community residents.
--Indicators that the Disaster Relief Fund expenditures have or will
be reduced based on mitigation actions taken within Project
Impact communities.
--Community adoption of higher codes and standards for any hazard.
--Development of a mitigation plan or incorporation of mitigation
provisions into the community's comprehensive or land use
plans.
Question. Will you build off the 16 case studies cited in your
smaller report issued last year?
Answer. FEMA will soon be publishing a second report on the costs
and benefits of natural hazard mitigation; however, the focus will be
different from the first volume prepared last year. This second volume
will highlight successful mitigation measures undertaken by the private
sector. Each case study in this second volume will illustrate how
hazard mitigation measures are cost effective and can help the private
sector maximize the reliability of service and minimize the costs of
repairs and lost revenues following disasters.
A third report, currently in the planning stages, will focus on
community pre-disaster mitigation ``success stories'' (i.e., effective
pre-disaster mitigation measures accomplished by local governments). We
have already started collecting case studies for this project, and hope
to have this volume completed sometime next fiscal year.
fitness for duty/preparedness training
Question. How will the cut in SLA affect local governments ability
to be prepared against the serious threat of terrorism and the use of
weapons of mass destruction?
Answer. The reduction to State and Local Assistance should not
impact FEMA's current level of support provided for State and local
anti-terrorism training and exercising. The part of SLA that is
specified for use in counter-terrorism projects ($1.2 million) remains
budgeted for that purpose.
institutionalizing reform
Question. What is the status of the task force on disaster cost
savings?
Answer. The task force was established to explore options on
disaster cost savings and to produce a report to Congress. Its tasks
were accomplished and the group was dissolved. Implementation of cost
savings measures and development of legislative proposals were assigned
to various organizations within FEMA.
Question. Where are you with re-engineering the factors used to
judge severity, magnitude, impact and procedures for conducting
Preliminary Damage Assessment?
Answer. FEMA has developed a series of 26 Essential Elements of
Information (EEI's) that are used as factors in determining the
severity and magnitude of impact of a disaster and the status of
response operations. These EEI's are incorporated into appropriate
operational documents and associated training activities. We are
currently in the process of reviewing these EEI's in coordination with
the other Federal Departments and Agencies that support us under the
Federal Response Plan.
In order to collect appropriate data, FEMA utilizes predictive
modeling, remote sensing and aerial reconnaissance, rapid needs
assessment teams, and/or Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) teams.
The rapid needs assessment capability was developed to rapidly
deploy (within 12 hours of activation) and conduct a rapid assessment
of the situation to determine potential requirements for Federal
resources in the event of a catastrophic or near-catastrophic event,
such as Hurricane Andrew. The PDA teams are designed to be self-
sufficient for up to 72 hours and are supported by our Mobile Emergency
Response System (MERS) Detachments. Logistical support packages are
maintained at Denton, TX, Bothell, WA, and Thomasville, GA. The teams
are staffed with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Public Health Service, the American Red Cross and the Environmental
Protection Agency. An Urban Search and Rescue representative designated
by FEMA is also part of this capability.
Question. What other disaster criteria have you established for the
Agency with respect to what triggers your involvement, how much should
FEMA pay for and once the emergency is over, what business are you in
(i.e., rehab, restoration or reengineering)?
Answer. The primary considerations in making a declaration are
factors such as severity, magnitude, and the impact of the event.
Governors must certify that an event is beyond the combined
capabilities of the State and local governments. In evaluating the
impact, FEMA considers many factors and considers each request on its
individual merits. Some of the factors are listed below.
--Amount and type of damage: number of homes destroyed or with major
damage;
--Impact on the infrastructure of affected areas or critical
facilities;
--Imminent threats to public health and safety;
--Impacts to essential government services and functions;
--Available resources of State and local governments;
--Dispersion or concentration of damage;
--Level of insurance coverage in place (for homeowners and public
facilities);
--Assistance available from other sources (Federal, State, local
voluntary organizations;
--State and local resource commitments from previous, undeclared
events; and
--Frequency of disaster events over recent time period.
FEMA reimburses eligible applicants for eligible damage in
accordance with 44 CFR Subparts G and H on a 75 percent Federal/25
percent non-Federal cost share basis. The Stafford Act provides for the
repair and restoration to pre-disaster condition of facilities damaged
as a result of the declared incident.
Question. Has the final rule on limiting the number of appeals from
three to two been published?
Answer. The publication of the final rule reducing the levels of
appeal from three to two is imminent. The proposed rule was published
on November 24, 1997, and comments were due by January 23, 1998. Since
that date, FEMA has carefully considered the comments and prepared the
final rule for publication. It now is being circulated for internal
coordination prior to publication.
Question. Did the rule include who would bear the financial burden
of that appeal?
Answer. The final rule does not contain the provision requiring
grantees and subgrantees to separately track and account for all costs
to prepare and process appeals. There was considerable disparity in the
recommendations that commenters made regarding appeal costs. In the
interests of instituting the new appeals procedure as soon as possible,
FEMA removed the cost provisions from the final rule.
Question. What additional streamlining have you done to the program
since last year's hearings?
Answer. The Northridge Grant Acceleration Program and the
groundwork for the New Public Assistance Program have been the focus of
streamlining efforts in the past year. In addition, FEMA has made
significant progress in streamlining the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program in the past year by:
--Introducing a Managing State Concept for discussion with our State
partners. Under this policy concept, which we are currently
pilot testing, States assume virtually full responsibility and
authority for program implementation, reserving those actions
required of FEMA by law.
--Placing Environmental Officers in nine of the ten FEMA Regions,
seven of which have authority to review all required
documentation relating to the National Environmental Policy
Act.
--Making Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds available
state-wide for all new disasters declared after April 7, 1997.
In addition, States were given the opportunity to amend older
disasters to allow for a one-time retroactive application of
state-wide funds. These actions allow States greater
flexibility in the use of funds by targeting areas with the
most significant need of mitigation measures.
--Clarifying existing timelines under the HMGP, which includes a 24-
month deadline for FEMA to obligate funds for all disaster
declarations.
--Allowing States additional flexibility in using unspent 50/50 cost-
share funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation planning.
--Publishing a notice in the Federal Register outlining our intent to
decrease the number of allowable appeals under the HMGP and
Public Assistance programs. Based on the public comments
received on this rule, FEMA will reduce appeals from three
levels to two levels.
--Awarding State management costs under the 15 percent HMGP ceiling,
thus reducing program expenditures. Previously, management
costs were awarded outside of the HMGP ceiling.
Question. What has been the effectiveness and cost-savings to the
streamlining that occurred last year?
Answer. The Northridge Grant Acceleration Program provides a model
for an improved approach to construction cost estimating but is not
considered part of the Business Process Re-engineering initiative (now
known as the New Public Assistance Program). The projected
administrative cost savings on the $116 million of Northridge final
settlement cases were over $11.5 million dollars as of March 13, 1998.
While an evaluation of construction costs savings cannot be completed
until actual costs of rebuilding can be compared to the settlement
figures, an early evaluation of customer satisfaction established the
Grant Acceleration Program as a desirable alternative to the
traditional Damage Survey Report process. The evaluation of the
effectiveness and streamlining of the New Public Assistance Program
await its implementation in fiscal year 1999.
The primary savings to the HMGP process has been achieved through a
reduction in the amount of time it takes to identify, review and
approve projects. This time savings not only provides improved customer
service to applicants for grant awards, but it also reduces
administrative and staff-related expenses associated with carrying out
the HMGP program.
The impact of this time reduction has been dramatic. At this point
in time, it takes an average of 1 month for FEMA to complete an
environmental review compared to 6 months prior to delegating authority
to the Regions. Similarly, allowing mitigation money to be used state-
wide has permitted States to address their mitigation priorities prior
to the occurrence of a disaster, thus shortening the amount of time
needed for States to identify appropriate projects for funding when one
occurs. These types of streamlining improvements have produced
significant economies and cost savings for FEMA, the States, and
applicants.
Question. What are the projected cost-savings of any streamlining
to be done?
Answer. A recent internal Agency study pointed out that if we
streamline our Public Assistance (PA) Program and achieve a mere 1
percent improvement we will save at least $11 million annually. Use of
quality trained staff will lead to faster recovery for applicants and
communities. It is estimated that if we close Disaster Field Offices
(DFO's) within 24 months of the declaration, we will be able to achieve
from 10-50 percent savings in administrative costs or as much as $8
million to $40 million a year.
The lack of consistency in training and operations resulted in an
excessive recovery period. Better-trained staff will minimize improper
eligibility determinations, which have impacted administrative costs
through an increase in Congressional and appeal activity. With
knowledgeable staff that is working through a well-documented program,
we will be able to provide improve customer service and reduce
Congressional inquiries, appeals and negative media attention. Many
issues that have been raised to Congressional or appeal level were
caused by either a miscommunication between the applicant, the State
and the PA staff or by misinterpretation of policy.
The amount of funding made available under the HMGP is established
through legislative language in the Stafford Act; therefore, the amount
of funds expended for HMGP projects will remain the same. However,
economies and efficiencies achieved through streamlining will permit
more and better mitigation projects to be approved in less time. For
instance, it is anticipated that the reduction in appeal levels will
also reduce the amount of State, local, and FEMA time and associated
costs incurred preparing and reviewing appeals. Additionally, measures
being taken to provide States more flexibility in the use of mitigation
funds give States (as the administrators of the HMGP) greater
flexibility in the planning process of identifying areas with the
greatest need for mitigation. This should improve the quality of
applications, and further reduce both time and cost of administering
the HMGP process.
In addition, the inclusion of State management costs under the HMGP
ceiling will promote the more efficient management of the program by
the States and result in cost savings of up to 10 percent of disaster
costs associated with State administration of the program.
national dam safety program
Question. What tangible safety measures have been taken by these
task forces or boards that would insure the safety of people who live
near the 55 high hazard dams in Maryland, and high hazard dams in other
states?
Answer. The National Dam Safety Program, as authorized by Public
Law 104-303 is a non-structural hazard mitigation program. Tangible dam
safety measures are taken by Federal and State dam owners/regulators
upon their acceptance and implementation of criteria for viable dam
safety programs which reduce the risks to life and property from dam
failure. These criteria are established in the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials' (ASDSO) Model State Dam Safety Program (FEMA 123, Apr
87). One tangible measure evidenced so far is an increase in the number
of States eligible for Community Rating System (CRS) credit points
under the National Flood Insurance Program which uses the criteria.
States eligible for credit points in 1998 was 38, as opposed to 25 in
1991. Maryland is included in both the 1991 and the 1998 CRS counts.
The 1998 CRS list is the bench-mark from which future improvement will
be measured. All States have the opportunity to meet the criteria by
2002 and it is FEMA's goal to help them achieve it.
Question. Have effective emergency warning plans been put in place
for these and other high hazard dams?
Answer. States are making progress toward meeting the requirement
for Emergency Action Plans (EAP), including coordinated warning plans
for all high and significant hazard potential dams. However more still
needs to be done. A report from the 1992 National Inventory of Dams
(NID) update indicated that 17 percent of these high hazard dams had
EAP's. In response to the 1992 statistic FEMA developed an emergency
action plan training program for all dam owners which is now being
delivered by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) in
all States, except Alabama and Delaware (these States currently do not
have viable and funded dam safety programs, and as such, receive no
FEMA assistance). The 1996 NID report indicated 25 percent now have
EAP's. The statistic regarding EAP's will surely improve with the next
NID update report.
Question. Why was the budget cut from $2.9 million to $1.5 million
in the budget request, and what will be the impact of this cut?
Answer. FEMA's 1999 budget request eliminates all 1998 one-time
congressional add-ons. In the case of dam safety, this resulted in a
decrease of $2.9 million, offset by an increase of $1.5 million in
1999.
response to biological/chemical attacks
Question. What is your assessment of how effective the interagency
linkages are within the Senior Interagency Coordination Group?
Answer. Since November 1996, FEMA has chaired the Senior
Interagency Coordination Group (SICG). The SICG functions as an
interagency forum to identify, discuss and resolve issues involving
terrorism-related programs of the member agencies. Membership includes
the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FEMA, as
well as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Transportation, the General Services Administration, and the National
Communications System. Terrorism-related activities such as the Nunn-
Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, exercises and other
training initiatives have been discussed at SICG meetings to ensure
uniformity and consistency in the delivery of Federal training programs
to State and local officials. FEMA will continue to work with the other
departments and agencies to facilitate interagency coordination on
these important programs and activities.
Question. What is consequence management and what exactly does that
entail with respect to biological terrorist incidents?
Answer. Consequence management includes measures to protect public
health and safety, restore essential government services, and provide
emergency relief to governments, businesses, and individuals affected
by the consequences of terrorism. In the case of a biological terrorist
incident, consequence management would initially focus on measures to
deal with health-related aspects of the situation. This would include
the identification and tracking of victims suffering immediate or
longer-term consequences from agent exposure, as well as managing the
large numbers of potentially contaminated victims, including the
disposition of human remains. A significant consideration for any
response activity is to protect the responders. Consequence management
also includes assistance to help the affected area recover from the
effects of the incident.
Question. What will FEMA accomplish with the $6.8 million it is
spending on Terrorism-Related Initiatives in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, FEMA received a total of $6.8 million
for terrorism-related planning, coordination, training and other
activities. It includes $1 million for Federal consequence management
planning and coordination, as well as special events planning, enhanced
interagency planning and continued implementation of the Rapid Response
Information System (RRIS); $1.8 million to support State and local
emergency training and exercises, including $1.2 million in grants;
another $2 million in grants to the fire community for specialized
training in Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) operations; and $2
million for terrorism-specific upgrades of FEMA facilities, including
security equipment and enhanced guard support.
Question. What is your assessment of the current capabilities at a
Federal, State and local level to respond to biological terrorist
incidents?
Answer. As the capability of the local government to deal with the
immediate effects of an incident is essential to the success of any WMD
response, enhancing or building and maintaining the local capability
with trained and adequately equipped responders are key components of a
viable national terrorism response capability. In 1996, the National
Governors Association (NGA) surveyed 26 States (22 provided inputs),
selected because they have large urban areas within their jurisdictions
that could make them targets of a terrorist incident. A Capability
Assessment for Readiness (CAR) survey conducted by FEMA involved a
comprehensive self-assessment (involving over 1,000 characteristics or
attributes) undertaken by 56 States, territories and insular areas
regarding their preparedness and response capabilities across the
spectrum of emergency management functions.
The two surveys concluded that States have the basic capabilities
in place to effectively respond to disasters, but may require more
specialized capabilities for WMD response. A biological threat poses
the most formidable challenge for most States. Most States indicated
that they lack proper equipment to detect biological agents and/or lack
protective equipment to provide properly equipped and trained medical
response elements to such an incident.
Findings from FEMA's assessment of government preparedness include
the need for improved planning and coordination and better Federal
interface with State and local authorities in planning for and
developing a mutually supportive terrorism response capability. Also,
the need was identified to prioritize the use of the transportation
infrastructure to ensure rapid movement of critical, time-sensitive
response resources. In responding to an incident, the need was
identified to deal with a large number of victims impacted by a WMD
terrorist incident, including the identification and tracking of
victims suffering immediate or longer-term consequences from exposure
to NBC materials, as well as the requirement to manage the large
numbers of potentially contaminated victims and/or the disposition of
human remains. A significant need also was identified to protect all
responders and to ensure the availability of specialized equipment and
coordinated training for WMD response.
Question. What will be the follow-up at the local level after the
Domestic Preparedness Program training is complete in the 120 cities
selected?
Answer. At least for the 120 cities addressed by the Domestic
Preparedness Program, part of the rationale for taking a train-the-
trainer approach was to leave each city with a cadre of instructors.
FEMA recommends that follow-on training be institutionalized under the
existing State and local training infrastructure, to include police
academies, fire academies, and other training facilities, and that
training eventually reaches beyond the initial 120 cities.
FEMA's two training arms, the National Fire Academy (NFA) and the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI), make courses and course materials
available to States. NFA, in particular, has a number of delivery
systems. NFA delivers up to nine courses (including its Emergency
Response to Terrorism curriculum) in each of the 50 States. It has also
offered train-the-trainers in its Emergency Response to Terrorism
curriculum for the 50 States and 150 metropolitan area fire services
that participate in the Training Resource and Date Exchange (TRADE)
group.
This is but one example of how the Federal Government can support
the State and local training infrastructure. Other departments and
agencies also have training programs for different constituencies. We
understand there are a number of proposals under consideration within
the Department of Defense on how to sustain the Domestic Preparedness
Program training, and we will continue to work with the interagency
community to develop that strategy.
Question. What is your assessment of the unmet needs to prepare
States and cities to respond to a biological attack?
Answer. Biological agents pose a unique challenge to first
responders, in that they may be more difficult to initially detect or
characterize and to determine the extent of the spread of the agent.
Many first responders lack proper equipment to detect biological agents
and/or lack protective equipment to provide properly equipped and
trained medical response elements to such an incident. In addition,
there is a need for continuing, specialized first responder training
regarding the use of the appropriate personal protective equipment for
the various biological agents; management of victim and family
assistance in a mass casualty event; medical management considerations,
including the need to inform primary care facilities in and around an
affected area rapidly to allow hospitals, clinics and other facilities
to better prepare themselves to deal with large numbers of potentially
contaminated victims; triage and decontamination procedures using
available medical resources to include dealing with immediate and long-
term treatment issues; and multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional
training and exercising to clarify roles and responsibilities and
improve interoperability of plans and procedures.
Question. Will there be the necessary local funding for equipment
and trained personnel to continue to keep the localities prepared?
Answer. Some equipment in the form of training sets is being
provided by the Department of Defense to selected cities as part of the
Domestic Preparedness Program initiative. In fiscal year 1998, the
Department of Justice also received some $12 million to provide
equipment for first responders. The FBI, in conjunction with other
agencies, is developing criteria for allocation of these funds for
equipment purchases. The initial funding in fiscal year 1997 to support
development of the Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams (MMST's) also
provided some equipment for first responders; however, there have been
no follow-on appropriations to allow MMST's to maintain their
operational capabilities and other team overhead costs, such as
maintenance of member certifications, medical screening for team
members and other expenses associated with maintenance and logistics
support for the response capability.
Question. How are we capitalizing on the unique capabilities of
other agencies such as the CDC and agency personnel in the Federal
government response planning (community)?
Answer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), through
its MMST system concept, is encouraging the development of local
concept of operations plans. The development of such plans is an
integral requirement of the contract that was signed with the 25 major
cities developing MMST's. An Interagency Coordination Group composed of
FEMA, FBI, EPA, VA, DOD, DOE, and DHHS conducted multiple meetings in
developing the requirements of these contracts. This Group will
continue to review the pharmaceutical and equipment requirements in
addition to the plan development. A major requirement of the plan is to
address the integration of Federal resources with those of the local
community, once Federal assistance arrives. These local plans will be
integrated with the overall FBI CONPLAN for Federal terrorism response
operations now under development.
Although DHHS has considerable resources within, it would rely upon
several other Federal agencies for key support assets in providing a
Federal medical emergency response to a city. These would include the
following:
--DHHS would work closely with the FBI, acting as the lead Federal
agency in a terrorist attack. This would occur both during the
crisis and consequence management phases of the incident.
--FEMA would coordinate the Federal consequence management response,
with the Federal health and medical response led by DHHS under
Emergency Support Function # 8 of the Federal Response Plan
(FRP).
--The Department of Defense (DOD) would be a central Federal agency
in dealing with rapid response. DOD would provide specific
technical assistance and deployment of personnel, as required.
The Chemical Biological Defense Command (CBDCOM) would provide
response in a chemical attack, and the U.S. Army Medical
Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and the
Naval Medical Research Institute (NAMRI) would do the same for
a biological attack. If extraction and decontamination
resources are required, the Marine Corps CBIRF can be employed,
as can many other units located throughout the United States.
In addition, DOD would support the National Disaster Medical
System (NDMS) response component with patient evacuation and
the transportation of DHHS responders, the definitive care
component of NDMS, and augmentation of supplies of appropriate
pharmaceuticals and antidotes.
--The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would support DHHS in
providing a major portion of the definitive care component of
NDMS and the primary maintenance and provision of appropriate
pharmaceuticals and antidotes for both chemical and biological
attacks.
Question. What is being done to insure that the public heath
officials and facilities at the local and State (level) are trained and
properly equipped to identify and respond (to) biological agents?
Answer. An effective medical response to a Weapon of Mass
Destruction (WMD) incident in the United States requires the
appropriate preparation and development of capabilities of all levels
of government and their effective coordination and integration in
response to a threatened or actual release of a WMD agent.
The first level of response is at the local level, particularly
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) responders. The local plans and
capabilities are critical, and enhancement efforts in partnership with
the Federal government need to be continued. A multi-department effort,
enhanced by Nunn-Lugar-Domenici initiatives, is improving the
capabilities of first responders throughout the United States in
dealing with a WMD incident resulting in mass casualties.
The second level of response is at the State level. This can
include assets of the National Guard with capabilities to deal with
some WMD effects.
The third level of response is at the Federal level. FEMA has the
lead role for consequence management in the event of a WMD incident.
Under the Federal Response Plan, Emergency Support Function (ESF) # 8
has the responsibility for coordinating Federal medical resources to
support local health systems in providing the initial and definitive
care to victims of an attack. There are several initiatives directed at
enhancing local capabilities using the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS). In 1997, four national medical response teams (NMRT's) were
trained and equipped as a part of NDMS to be able to provide
specialized services in the incident community, including
decontamination, triage and initial care. Their capabilities can also
include technical advice to local hospitals or decontamination and care
external to local hospitals in the event those services are required.
Other initiatives have been identified to deal with the care of
victims after the initial response to include enhancing surveillance
and laboratory systems at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration; improving interfaces
with nationwide poison control centers; and enabling the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to develop and maintain a
registry of exposure and develop/maintain on-line data bases. Other
activities are focusing on maintaining a stockpile of specialized
antidotes, vaccines, and pharmaceuticals that are not usually produced
or stockpiled in order to treat individuals exposed to chemical or
biological WMD agents; and addressing overall logistical support
requirements.
Question. How involved is the CDC in working with local and State
officials to provide training to public health officials in the
identification of biological agents?
Answer. Although there are no direct training courses provided to
public health official in the identification of biological agents by
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Center is a
participant in the Department of Health and Human Service's (DHHS)
review and coordination of the biological and medical training aspects
of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program. Additionally,
the CDC is involved on a daily basis with public health officials
throughout the country in response to their queries on matters such as
these.
Should a terrorist incident involving biological agents occur, the
CDC would fulfill a key role within DHHS in providing extensive
technical expertise and assistance to Federal, State and local
officials as part of the Federal government's overall response efforts.
In these circumstances the DHHS Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP)
has lead responsibility to coordinate health and medical related
activities.
Several other operating divisions within the OEP are available to
provide medical support to local and State officials in the event of a
terrorist incident involving WMD, including the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These operating
divisions can provide the technical assistance as required during the
crisis and consequence management phases of a WMD incident.
Question. What public and media relations efforts will be
implemented in the event of an incident to mitigate widespread panic?
Answer. An interagency public affairs group, led by FEMA and with
representation from other key Federal response agencies has been
meeting over the past several months to develop appropriate mechanisms
to coordinate release of immediate emergency information to the public
and the media during a terrorist incident involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). The collective efforts of this group will result in
development of a guide for use by Federal public affairs officials that
is intended to accomplish the following:
--Provide for the timely, accurate, and coordinated release of
emergency information to the public and the media that will
focus on saving lives, protecting property, and mitigating any
public panic or chaos during potential or real WMD terrorist
incident.
--Avoid compromising law enforcement efforts that are critical to the
capture and prosecution of the perpetrators of any such WMD
incident.
Key elements of this Federal interagency guide for public and media
relations' efforts in response to a domestic terrorism incident
include:
--Immediate and continuous involvement by public affairs officials
from Federal crisis and consequence management agencies, in
Washington DC, and at the scene of the incident. The focal
point for cross-leveling and coordinating the release of
emergency information among the agencies will initially be
established within the operational command center of the lead
Federal agency.
--Delivery to the public and the media of real-time expert technical
safety and handling information on the suspected WMD agents or
weapons.
--Delineation of procedures for the establishment of a Joint
Information Center (JIC) at or near the incident site to
support the lead Federal agency's activity on-scene.
The Emergency Information Guide is expected to be completed in the
near future.
allegany county/western maryland
Question. What lessons were learned by FEMA in its work with the
Western Maryland Flood Mitigation Task Force that could be used for
other communities across the country?
Answer. A significant factor in the selection of Allegany County,
Maryland as a Project Impact Pilot Community is directly related to the
success of the Maryland Governor's Flood Mitigation Task Force for
Western Maryland in coordinating recovery and mitigation efforts of
Federal, State and local governments as well as the private sector.
In the aftermath of two 1996 Presidential disaster declarations
(January flooding created by rapid snowmelt conditions and,
subsequently, Hurricane Fran), applicants found the multitude of
sources and types of available disaster assistance overwhelming and
confusing. In response to their concerns, the Task Force was developed
in order to provide a comprehensive forum in which all State agencies
met collaboratively to:
--Exchange views and identify areas of mutual responsibility and
duties.
--Optimize limited disaster recovery resources.
--Decide on the best agency to handle each aspect of the disaster
recovery effort.
The successes of the Task Force efforts were evident in several
respects: the disaster recovery process was significantly clarified and
simplified for disaster victims; a timely and cost-effective response
and recovery process was achieved; and mitigation efforts were
incorporated in the disaster recovery process.
Allegany County's selection as a Project Impact Pilot Community
will assist the County in maintaining the momentum of the initial Task
Force successes and initiatives. Through the development and successes
of this public/private partnership Task Force, a primary lesson learned
is that there needs to be an immediate coordination of all elements
involved in the recovery process under a strong leader. The State of
Maryland will be incorporating the concepts learned from this endeavor
in any future response to large-scale disasters within the state.
These Task Force concepts and methods can be applied to other
communities across the country to effect a timely and cost-effective
recovery effort. In fact, the President convened successful Federal
recovery task forces following 1997 Presidential disaster declarations
in North Dakota and Minnesota as well as the 1998 New England ice
storms.
Question. Can the process of public/private partnerships that has
been used in the Allegany County Project Impact effort be used as a
``best practices'' model?
Answer. We believe that any public/private partnership that is
viable is the ``best practice'' for that community. One of the goals of
Project Impact is to encourage and affirm positive behavior. As the
initiative matures and more lessons are learned, we will be looking for
positive behaviors to highlight not only in Allegany County but in
other Project Impact communities as well.
Question. What is FEMA planning to do to further aid the Allegany
County efforts?
Answer. We are fortunate in Allegany County that we can build on a
process that was initiated by the Western Maryland Mitigation Task
Force. We are working to facilitate the evolution of that process into
a long-term, locally driven public/private partnership.
One of the tenets of Project Impact is that mitigation is a local
issue, and best addressed by a local partnership that involves
government, business, and private citizens. Thus our involvement will
be dictated by agreements and decisions made by that partnership. As a
partner, we are offering technical assistance in a variety of areas
such as hazard identification, risk assessment, and business
contingency planning. We are coordinating with other Federal agencies
active in the area. FEMA is also providing a grant for a mitigation
project that can be showcased as a demonstration of long term
mitigation activity. We view this partnership as an evolving
relationship and anticipate that additional opportunities for our
involvement will become apparent over time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Boxer
mudslides
Question. Landslides continue to be a real concern for California,
can you give me your response to the President's proposed FEMA policy
change toward landslides?
Answer. There has been no policy change toward landslides; however,
we have developed a simplified summary of the landslide policy that is
being used in California. Because of the landslide and related problems
that characterize the current disaster (FEMA-1203-DR-CA), FEMA and the
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) are working together to
provide the maximum amount of assistance and funding available by law.
Pro-active actions being taken include:
--The simplified (but not modified) summary of the FEMA landslide
policy is being disseminated at applicant briefings. The
present landslide policy has remained essentially unchanged
since it was initially promulgated in 1984, but as with all
policies, it is periodically reviewed to ensure it is clear and
applicable. FEMA recognizes that, at times, the policy may have
been subject to restrictive interpretation, and its intent and
meaning may not have been clear to the applicants.
--We have formed a Landslide Working Group of trained geo-technical
specialists to provide timely assistance to FEMA/OES/applicant
inspection teams in initial site stability determination. In
cases of differing opinion between FEMA and the applicant, FEMA
will provide funding for an independent analysis.
--These geo-technical specialists also are available to assist in the
determination of whether or not an immediate threat exists to
health, safety or improved property, and provide information
necessary to ensure immediate funding.
--We are utilizing to the fullest extent the technical resources of
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which has the most
knowledge of landslide phenomena in California.
--We are using initial estimates to provide immediate funding for
emergency work to assist those applicants who have suffered
significant financial impacts.
I can assure you that FEMA is providing landslide-related disaster
assistance throughout California to the fullest extent possible by law.
For example, FEMA recognized the need for and immediately approved
funding for Sonoma County to engage the services of a geo-technical
firm to monitor slide activity in Rio Nido for safety reasons.
Immediately thereafter, FEMA mission assigned the USGS to install
monitoring equipment and train contract geo-technical specialists to
assist the County in the monitoring activities.
Question. Is there a possibility that landslide insurance can be
made available for individual homeowners under a national insurance
program?
Answer. The possibility relies in large part on the exploration of
complex and difficult public policy questions. For example, the issue
related to landslide insurance for homeowners, as with other natural
hazard insurance, is not only the availability, but also the
affordability of it. In a policy context, the affordability question
becomes a question of subsidy--that is, in order to make available
insurance that is also affordable, is the taxpayer willing to subsidize
actuarially expected loss? This is especially true for existing homes.
Spreading the pool of risk purchase might allow some subsidy, in the
form of artificially increased insurance premium rates in areas of
lower risk, but it is very difficult to accomplish the purchase of
natural hazards risk in low hazard areas on a voluntary basis.
Background Information on Landslide Policy
The FEMA landslide policy was initially written in 1984, and was
reviewed and reissued in 1995. The Stafford Act allows FEMA to provide
funding for repair and restoration of facilities damaged by a declared
disaster; however, it recognizes that FEMA cannot fund repair and
restoration of a damaged facility on a site known to be unstable. If a
site is stable, then FEMA provides funding in accordance with the
Stafford Act and implementing regulations. If FEMA determines a site to
be unstable, and the instability was caused solely by the disaster, the
cost to repair or restore the facility, and the ground necessary to
adequately support the facility (including cost-effective stabilization
measures) is eligible for FEMA funding. Should the instability result
from an identifiable, pre-existing condition, it is the responsibility
of the applicant to stabilize the site. Once this has been
accomplished, funding for repair of the facility is eligible. FEMA
cannot be expected to provide Federal funding to repair facilities on
sites that are known to be unstable; that is not an appropriate use of
Federal funds. The goal of the Agency is that this policy, like all
others, will be applied uniformly and consistently throughout the
country.
The Stafford Act limits FEMA funding of permanent repair to certain
eligible facilities. Neither the Stafford Act nor implementing
regulations define hillsides and natural slopes as public facilities.
Thus the permanent repair of landslides, which is not integral to the
restoration of an eligible facility, is not eligible for FEMA Public
Assistance. This applies regardless of whether or not there is a pre-
existing condition. In those situations where an immediate threat
exists, FEMA will fund cost-effective protective measures, regardless
of the existence of a pre-existing condition. However, it is necessary
for FEMA to determine whether slope instability is pre-existing before
restoring a facility, because FEMA's implementing regulations require
an eligible item of work to be as a result of a major disaster event.
project impact
Question. Out of the $5 million, FEMA has supplied Oakland with a
technical services and support grant of $679,000. The city itself has
committed $169,750 and has passed a $50 million general obligation bond
measure to purchase fire fighting equipment and an alert warning system
for the public.
Have you seen any impact during this year's storms from the Project
Impact program in Oakland?
Answer. Oakland's Project Impact initiative was formally started at
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Signing Ceremony on January 23, 1998.
Since the Signing Ceremony, the City government, community groups, the
private sector, and other partners have been working to implement the
Project Impact MOA. For example, a meeting between local financial
institutions and the Small Business Administration will convene in
April to form a loan committee, which will offer mitigation loans and
grants to homeowners and small businesses. Applications will be due in
the spring and the first loans or grants will be awarded in the summer.
In addition, two existing City programs offering loans and grants
for home maintenance and security bar retrofits will be consolidated
into the Project Impact program. The ``Christmas in April'' program
will be repairing and retrofitting 10 homes against earthquakes, with
the assistance of volunteers from all over the City. ``Spring Break''
activities on April 6-10 and April 13-17 will have student volunteers
conducting non-structural, multi-hazard evaluation and mitigation in 5
housing projects, totaling approximately 385 residences. They will also
provide preparedness information to residents and collect vital
tracking information on the residents (mostly low income, elderly, and/
disabled).
The $50 million general obligation bond measure, approved by voters
in 1992, was for capital improvements and equipment for enhanced
emergency mitigation, preparedness, and response. The bond monies were
used to: purchase fire fighting equipment and an alert and warning
system for the public; retrofit fire stations; provide handicap
accessibility for the City's temporary shelter sites; construct a new
dedicated emergency operations center and Police and Fire
communications centers; and develop a computerized emergency management
system.
Several of these improvements were used in fighting the storms
caused by El Nino, including the following:
--A radio system (530 AM dial) has been used to give warnings on
advancing storms and where and how to obtain sandbags;
--Radios given to amateur radio groups were extra ``eyes and ears,''
reporting on downed power lines, fallen trees blocking roads,
and landslides;
--A radio system (800 MHz) for the schools was used for communication
during emergencies;
--A ``Maintain the Drains'' program cleared out storm drains so that
flooded waters could flow freely and not be blocked, causing
more flooding;
--Pumps bought for the Fire Service were used to pump water out of
flooded homes; and
--A partially installed computer system, with GIS mapping capability,
was used to pinpoint incident sites including landslides,
debris clearance sites, etc., which were used by Federal,
state, and local personnel on damage survey reports.
Through Project Impact and because of its emphasis on
``partnership,'' Oakland's private sector and community groups are
reaching a new level of participation beyond what has been accomplished
with the initiatives funded by the $50 million bond or our grant.
According to the Director of Emergency Services for the City of
Oakland, the activities and potentials generated by Project Impact have
been a significant factor in several businesses deciding to stay in the
community. We expect to be able to document additional risk reduction
success stories in Oakland as the Project Impact initiative matures.
sea wall issue
Question. Is there a change in FEMA policy towards the construction
of the sea walls?
Answer. There apparently is some confusion about the project for
which FEMA is providing assistance in the City of Pacifica. Along the
shore in front of the City, there was an existing publicly owned rip-
rap revetment constructed for the purpose of protecting property by
dissipating the energy of the sea waves. El Nino storms caused very
high and strong wave action that destroyed portions of that revetment.
The strong wave actions then began eroding sand and lower rock layers
of the cliffs upon which a portion of the City is constructed. This led
to the collapse of the upper portion of the cliffs, resulting in
extensive damage to private property. FEMA deployed two geo-technical
specialists to the area, and their report indicated there was a high
probability of continuing erosion, therefore, endangering additional
private property, as well as public infrastructure. In accordance with
the provisions of the Stafford Act, FEMA provided funding for emergency
repairs to the previously existing revetment. FEMA is not constructing
a sea wall, but rather providing emergency protective measures to
reduce an immediate threat. There is no change in our policy toward the
construction of sea walls. Although this revetment is not actually a
``sea wall,'' sea walls would be eligible for repair just as is any
other item of public infrastructure which was damaged as a result of a
declared major disaster.
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRIS WOFFORD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
statement of christopher s. bond
Senator Bond. The committee will come to order.
Senator Mikulski has other commitments which make her
unable to join us for this segment. But she will have questions
for the record as will our other colleagues.
I now welcome our former colleague, Senator Harris Wofford,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and
Community Service and those accompanying him this morning.
Senator Wofford will be testifying on the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request of $499.8 million--we might as
well go ahead and call it $500 million--for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, an increase of $74 million over
the fiscal year 1998 level of $425.5 million.
I particularly am interested in understanding the current
status of the Corporation's financial management of its
programs as well as understanding the current status of the
corporation's programs, and the new initiatives, such as
America Reads.
With that, we are fortunate to have our light system in
place. It has returned, finally, from recess.
With that, Senator Wofford, if you would, please proceed.
statement of harris wofford
Mr. Wofford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can finish
before the 5 minute light.
Senator Bond. All right. If you will submit your statement,
we will take your full testimony for the record. Of course, it
will be made available to all committee members.
We welcome your comments.
Mr. Wofford. Thank you.
My written statement goes into detail about our progress on
many fronts, including the growth and accomplishments of
national service, our work in disaster response, the success of
our education awards only initiative, our plans to increase our
contribution to children's literacy, known as America Reads,
and our collaboration with Habitat for Humanity and other
leading nonprofit and faith-based organizations, as well as our
successful efforts to cut costs and carry out the important
agreement with Senator Grassley.
Thanks to your support, national service has never been
more effective in helping to solve problems in America's
communities.
However, my oral testimony today will focus on our
management and auditability, a primary concern for this
committee, for the Corporation, and for me.
The immediate challenge is to produce auditable financial
records. Our objective is an unqualified opinion on our fiscal
year 1998 financial statements. We are determined to reach that
objective.
We have corrected a great majority of the specific problems
identified by prior auditors. We have also made many other
improvements to strengthen overall management of the
Corporation. But we still have work to do.
plan to produce auditable financial records
To complete the job, we have enlisted the active assistance
of the top management team at the Office of Management and
Budget. Together, we have drafted a plan and a timetable. Our
action plan covers five broad areas.
First, improving record keeping of the National Service
Trust is crucial. We have already consolidated the staff and
centralized the functions of the trust within the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer. Now the most important step is to
install a new digital imaging system, to enter new enrollments
and to clear up discrepancies related to old records. This
system will be online this fiscal year.
Second, in cash reconciliation, we have made major changes
to assure the accuracy of our financial records. We have made
software improvements and established an automated link between
our financial system and the external systems that handle the
obligations and expenses of grantees.
By August of this year, we will be reconciling cash to each
of our two appropriations on a timely, monthly basis and
clearing identified items in a timely manner.
Third, in the critical area of grants management, we have
significantly improved the way we track and monitor grant
funds. We have increased controls over grant obligations and
implemented new procedures for accrual of expenses.
By April, we will have in place procedures to review
grantees' records of AmeriCorps members' service hours. We will
incorporate these procedures into the next cycle of program
visits beginning later this spring. We are also establishing
new practices to strengthen our record keeping regarding grant
receivables and payables, which will allow us to better track
funds owed the Corporation following audits.
Fourth, in the area of budget and funds control, we have
instituted a procedure to protect against overobligation of
grant funds. No grant is issued until it is physically entered
into the general ledger by the accounting staff. We are working
under the limitations of our current information management
system. We will permanently solve this problem when we install
a new financial management system in fiscal year 1999.
Fifth, as other financial controls, we are issuing new
policies with respect to a range of functions, including
procurement, payroll, and enhanced oversight of budget
commitments.
Mr. Chairman, we are going over this plan of action that we
have developed with the help of our OMB colleagues. We are
going over it very carefully with OMB, which will be an active
partner with us in its implementation, and we will be doing so
with our inspector general.
We will submit a detailed and realistic plan to you by
March 18 and will report to you on our progress on every part
of that plan every 60 days thereafter.
requests of the committee
To carry out this plan in a timely manner, we also need
your help. We need full funding of our request for
administrative funds. Once you have had the opportunity to
review the plan, we would like to work with you to obtain
reprogramming flexibility to address critical needs of the
Corporation, especially the management issues I have discussed
today.
Solving these management problems is essential to the
effectiveness of our programs, whether building Habitat homes,
tutoring children to read, running afterschool programs, or
assisting victims of disasters. AmeriCorps members and the
people they serve depend on our success in achieving and
maintaining sound management of the Corporation.
With our continued focus and your continued support, I am
confident we will reach the level of excellence that we all
seek.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harris Wofford
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to review the achievements of national
service over the last year, and to respond to your questions about our
programs and proposed budget.
The total fiscal year 1999 budget request from the Subcommittee for
programs authorized under the National and Community Service Trust Act
is $499.3 million, an increase of $73.8 million over the fiscal year
1998 appropriated level of $425.5 million. The amount requested will
support traditional national service programs as well as those that are
part of the America Reads initiative to insure that every child can
read well and independently by the third grade.
These funds will provide for approximately 48,000 AmeriCorps
members through grant programs and the AmeriCorps Challenge
Scholarships--our education award only program--as well as
approximately 1,100 AmeriCorps members through the National Civilian
Community Corps (NCCC) program. Participants in the AmeriCorps*VISTA
program, funded through the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, and
Related Agencies, will bring the total to approximately 56,000
AmeriCorps members.
In addition, we are seeking an appropriation of $3 million from
this Subcommittee for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
overview
My written statement for the record today covers three sets of
issues.
The first section, Auditability--our number one priority--addresses
what we have done to work towards achieving auditability of our
financial statements and our plan of action for improving management
controls.
The second section, A Review of National Service 1997-1998,
discusses the new service initiatives: America Reads; the AmeriCorps
``Education Award Only'' program; the National Service Scholarship
Program (for High Schools); The Houses that Congress Built plan; The
Martin Luther King Day of Service; and the State and Local Follow-up to
the Presidents' Summit for America's Future. It also includes updates
on the major national service programs, including AmeriCorps and Learn
and Serve America, and AmeriCorps Program Demographics.
The third section discusses the Corporation's compliance with the
Government Performance and Results Act and the proposed Reauthorization
of the National Service Programs. Finally, it discusses four further
challenges on which the Corporation requests the Subcommittee's
assistance: Full Funding of Program Administration; the Flexibility to
Transfer Funds Between Activities; the Support for the Fifth
AmeriCorps*NCCC campus; and the Need to Lift the Cap on AmeriCorps
National Direct Grants.
i. auditability
Last year, I indicated that we expected to have 97 of the 99 items
cited in the Corporation's 1996 auditability study completed and
appropriately addressed by the time the Inspector General conducted her
review during the spring and early summer of 1997. That auditability
review showed that the Corporation had fully addressed 72 items.
However, we fell short of the goal I stated in last year's hearings.
The auditability review found 21 material weaknesses and reportable
conditions that had not been fully cleared. Since that report, we have
successfully addressed 10 of these 21, have made significant and
sustained progress on seven others, and have begun to address the
remaining four. In the review, both the Office of the Inspector General
and Arthur Andersen stated that the Corporation had demonstrated a
commitment to correct the deficiencies and weaknesses.
Our efforts on these auditability issues and our activities to
establish strong financial management focus on five areas: (1) the
maintenance of the growing number of paper records related to
enrollments in the National Service Trust; (2) the timely
reconciliation of cash; (3) improvement of controls over grants
management; (4) improvement of budget and funds control; and (5)
improvement of general financial control. We have had much success in
each area. With important assistance from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), we have developed a specific action plan with a timeline
to remedy the remaining weaknesses identified in the July, 1997 review
and to provide the basis for obtaining an unqualified opinion on the
Corporation's Financial Statements for fiscal year 1998. We will be
reviewing it with OMB and the Inspector General over the next week and
expect to submit it to the Subcommittee by March 18, 1998.
The first area is the maintenance of the growing number of paper
records related to enrollments in the National Service Trust. We will
use digital imaging technology, which we expect to have in place in the
current fiscal year, to enter new enrollments and aid in the resolution
of any historical problems related to older records. This use of
imaging technology will ensure the accuracy of AmeriCorps members'
records for the future and facilitate the prompt correction of past
errors.
The second area of major effort is the timely reconciliation of
cash. In our plan, remaining auditability items related to cash
reconciliation will be successfully addressed by the end of August of
this year. Interagency charges represent a special challenge. The
timely posting of interagency charges is being addressed by OMB as part
of a government-wide solution to the problem of an antiquated system
for such charges. We will be among the first agencies to take advantage
of new capabilities when OMB and the Department of the Treasury bring
on-line the new capacity to identify sub-elements of interagency
transfers.
In the third area, grants management, we are improving the accuracy
of Trust records by enhancing our oversight program. By April, we will
have procedures in place to assess grantee record keeping systems for
AmeriCorps members' service hours and we will incorporate these
procedures into the next cycle of program site visits. In addition, we
are establishing practices to strengthen our record-keeping regarding
grant receivables and payables, such as better recording and tracking
of funds owed the Corporation following audits.
With regard to the fourth area, budget and funds control, we will
purchase and implement a new financial management system that will
provide the capability to record commitments and obligations, thereby
substantially increasing the effectiveness of controls. Meanwhile, we
have adopted new procedures that protect against the over-obligation of
grant funds.
Improvement of other financial controls is the fifth element in our
plan. This includes, among other things, strengthening procedures for
ensuring the accuracy of VISTA stipend payments and improving financial
reporting.
While we continue to address these items, we have also made other
important changes. Enhancements to our accounting and Trust systems
have improved system security and data. We have issued policies and
procedures for various financial management activities. New job
descriptions have been written. Job duties have been segregated across
our major financial functions. The staff supporting the operational
activities of the National Service Trust have been consolidated into a
single organization to improve management control.
ii. a review of national service 1997-1998
new service initiatives
America Reads
For fiscal year 1998, this Subcommittee appropriated $25 million to
the Corporation to conduct activities designed to ensure that every
school child can read well and independently by the end of third grade.
These activities come under the ``America Reads'' program and are
funded within the AmeriCorps*State program.
These funds go through the Governor-appointed State Commissions on
National and Community Service for allocation to local school-based or
community-based literacy programs utilizing AmeriCorps members. We
decided to give States the flexibility of two application dates
recognizing that they are at different stages in developing these
``America Reads'' initiatives. We have received the first fourteen
proposals for this new funding, and will receive additional proposals
in May. Between AmeriCorps*State and AmeriCorps*VISTA, we anticipate
funding over 3,000 new AmeriCorps members who will begin their work
this summer and fall as organizers, leaders and participants in these
local literacy programs.
Among the priorities for this new funding are proposals that expand
successful demonstration programs that involve national service in
improving children's literacy, respond to commitments by key state
officials such as the Governor and Chief State School Officer, and use
AmeriCorps members to mobilize volunteer reading tutors and partners.
Even as we distribute this new money, national service is already
at work in children's literacy. There are 83 programs funded through
this Committee that utilize AmeriCorps members to improve child and
family literacy. Elementary and secondary schools, as well as colleges
and universities, are heavily involved with assistance from our Learn
and Serve America programs. Further, 915 colleges and universities have
pledged to use a portion of their Federal Work-Study funds to enable
college students to tutor children and work in family literacy
programs. Today, tens of thousands of college students are working in
schools, nonprofit organizations, and child care centers across the
country to make America Reads a reality.
Let me highlight a few of these national service programs. In
California, the Chancellor's Office for the California Community
Colleges and fifteen local community colleges developed a program
entitled ``Building Individual and Community Self-Sufficiency Through
Service,'' in which over 600 AmeriCorps*State members, with 16
AmeriCorps*VISTA's, are providing services to about 5,000 pre-school
and K-3 children with special reading needs, including those of limited
English proficiency. Many of the AmeriCorps*State members are former
AFDC recipients, and they are enrolled in college courses studying
early childhood education and literacy.
In Maryland, the Notre Dame Mission Volunteer Program, founded by
the Sisters of Notre Dame, is using AmeriCorps members to tutor low-
income children, operate after-school programs, and teach English as a
Second Language to immigrant parents.
In West Virginia, the Southern West Virginia Community and
Technical College uses AmeriCorps members to tutor children, ages 3 to
8 in schools and Head Start centers, tutor parents in their homes to
prepare them to take the high school equivalency exam, and teach
parents how to conduct reading activities with their children. Programs
operate through the school year and in the summer.
The Houston READ Commission, a nonprofit created in 1988 by the
City of Houston, administers the Literacy AmeriCorps program in which
members focus on increasing children's literacy skills. They provide
English as a Second Language courses, basic skills, pre-GED and GED
classes, homework assistance to school-age children, and family and
parent literacy programs. From 1996 to 1997, 67 Houston Literacy
AmeriCorps members provided individual reading and school-readiness
instruction to 560 pre-school and school-aged children and engaged
1,300 families in the Read Write NOW project through which participants
devote time to read with their children on a regular basis. As part of
the America Reads Initiative, the Literacy AmeriCorps members in
Houston also served as tutors for 1,650 adults, helping learners to
improve their basic skills thus increasing their ability to help their
children. Since September 1997, the AmeriCorps members in Houston, as
well as in the program's sister sites of Seattle and Palm Beach County
(Florida), galvanized over 450 volunteers, including parents, as
America Reads learning partners who provided direct literacy services
to children.
In a soon-to-be-published book entitled ``Social Programs That
Work,'' Professor George Farkas of the University of Texas describes
Reading One-to-One, a program that has used college students,
AmeriCorps members, and community residents to tutor more than 6,000
students in more than 70 schools across more than ten school districts.
Professor Farkas' study showed gains for this program of 0.4 to 0.7
grade equivalents above what students would have attained without
tutoring, a significant improvement that will help assure that these
children become literate. Educational experts report that these are
truly significant accomplishments for those students who would
otherwise be lost in the system.
By this diverse experience in assisting teachers, parents, and
communities in their efforts to achieve literacy among our nation's
children, national service is well equipped for the challenge of
America Reads. National service supports the infrastructure necessary
to provide literacy programs, including: coordinating and managing
volunteer tutoring programs, tutoring in after-school, summer, Head
Start and child care programs, assuring that tutors are trained by
professional providers, managing parental involvement and family
literacy programs, supporting book drives and other programs that are
intended to make sure children develop a passion for reading, and
helping to leverage community resources to support literacy.
AmeriCorps ``Education Award Only'' Program
The AmeriCorps ``Education Award Only'' approach expands
opportunities for young people to serve as AmeriCorps members, brings
new communities and new program sponsors as our partners, and further
increases the amount of non-federal resources supporting service
programs. In this initiative, organizations apply to State Commissions
or to the Corporation and demonstrate their capacity to recruit, train
and supervise individuals serving in community-based programs and
provide the support for these AmeriCorps members with little additional
Corporation assistance. The members who successfully serve in such
programs are eligible for an AmeriCorps education award. Senator
Grassley has strongly urged this approach. At last April's Presidents'
Summit on America's Future in Philadelphia, President Clinton
challenged faith-based organizations, nonprofits, and colleges and
universities to support this initiative.
We have already approved more than 100 new ``Education Award Only''
projects, including 60 which have not previously been part of
AmeriCorps. Once they are fully operational, these programs will
support more than 15,000 new AmeriCorps members. Sponsors include the
Boys and Girls Clubs of America, which are placing 900 AmeriCorps
members in as many as 125 Clubs to serve younger Club members; the
National Council of Churches with the Council for Religious Volunteer
Agencies, which are placing several thousand members to meet community
needs through a wide range of national and local faith-based
organizations; the National Council for Urban Economic Development,
which has placed 50 members in several cities to develop crime and
violence prevention activities, provide assistance for victims of crime
and their families, and assist law enforcement with community policing
programs; and LA Vets, which is placing approximately 200 members in up
to 30 communities across the country to assist homeless veterans return
to independent living.
We will accept proposals this year as well. As a result, we
anticipate further reducing the cost-per-AmeriCorps member to the
Corporation, and expanding the opportunities for traditional nonprofit
organizations to join forces with AmeriCorps.
The National Service Scholarship Program (for High Schools)
Last year, I testified about our plans for the National Service
Scholarship Program, which recognizes outstanding service by our
nation's high school juniors and seniors. In this program, students
doing outstanding service are selected to receive a scholarship of
$1,000 for college costs, of which $500 comes from the National Service
Trust and at least $500 comes from local scholarship sponsors. For
fiscal year 1998, the Corporation was specifically allocated $5 million
of the Trust appropriation for National Service Scholarships, enabling
up to 10,000 high schools to make these awards.
The start-up year of the program was a remarkable success, with
more than 1,700 high schools providing these scholarships to students
recognized by their principals and communities. Matching scholarships
were provided by a host of community foundations, local businesses, and
religious and civic organizations, including the American Legion,
Chambers of Commerce, Elks Lodges, the Junior League, Kiwanis Clubs,
Lions Clubs, the Miss America Organization, Rotary Clubs, the Seventh
Day Adventists, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and Veterans
of Foreign Wars.
One of these 1,700 scholarship winners was Christopher Shields,
from Saint Stephen's Episcopal School in Bradenton, Florida. He has
volunteered for ten years at the American Red Cross Manatee County
Chapter, where he has served in four national disasters, running
messages, managing phone operations, distributing food to shelters, and
assisting with night shift duties. During tornadoes in the Tampa area,
he conducted damage assessment. Christopher also helped coach a
community soccer team and volunteered at the local Head Start program,
teaching arts and crafts to children. Christopher's scholarship is
helping him to attend the Ringling School of Art and Design in
Sarasota, Florida.
We are working to expand our partnerships to help encourage the
additional matching resources required to expand the program. In
Houston, for example, local financial institutions have agreed to
provide matching scholarships for all high schools in the area.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget proposal includes $7,500,000 for the
National Service Scholarship Program to support scholarships in 15,000
schools.
Under an agreement with the Corporation, the National Service
Scholarship Program is administered by the Citizens' Scholarship
Foundation of America, a private 501(c)(3) foundation located in
Minnesota. The Foundation has a long history of working with corporate
America to encourage and reward community service by youth.
The Houses that Congress Built
Habitat for Humanity has enlisted our national service programs as
key partners in this effort to build a home with and for a
disadvantaged family in each Congressional District. Currently, 413
AmeriCorps members are serving with Habitat affiliates in 128 cities
(161 Congressional Districts) in 30 States, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico. In addition to direct construction work, these
AmeriCorps members prepare sites for home-building and help recruit,
train, and supervise non-stipended volunteers, to maximize Habitat's
resources and expand its productivity.
These AmeriCorps members serving with Habitat are supported through
all of the traditional AmeriCorps funding streams, including an
AmeriCorps*National grant made directly to Habitat, four
AmeriCorps*State grants, and AmeriCorps*VISTA placements. In addition,
90 participants in the AmeriCorps*NCCC program have served with local
Habitat affiliates so far this year, joining the 220 who did so in the
first three years of the program. Twelve AmeriCorps*NCCC members are
now serving a six-week tour with Habitat in Lynchburg, Virginia,
organizing spring break work for hundreds of college volunteers in a
Habitat blitzbuild. The NCCC plans to be in at least five other
communities in coming months.
The national service network is proud to be Habitat's partner in
this Congressional initiative and in Habitat's year-round mission of
bringing affordable housing to all Americans.
The Martin Luther King Day of Service
Pursuant to the 1994 Act of Congress, the Corporation works in
partnership with the Martin Luther King Center for Non-Violent Social
Change to make the national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.
a ``Day On, Not a Day Off'' in which Americans, across the lines that
divide us, join in service to their communities. In this, the third
year of promoting this observance of Dr. King's birthday in a way that
reflects his life and teachings, we had a breakthrough in focusing
national attention on this day as a day of service. Our other national
partners included the United Way of America, the Points of Light
Foundation and Do Something--a youth service organization. With
national media attention in almost every major media market and almost
300 local projects reported in 48 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, we gained significant momentum
toward our goal and legislative responsibility to promote service in
honor of Dr. King.
Follow-up to the Presidents' Summit For America's Future
The Presidents' Summit For America's Future held last April in
Philadelphia was an opportunity for the public sector to join with the
private sector and the nonprofit sector to focus attention on the need
for a new level of concerted citizen action to turn the tide for
millions of young people. The goal of the Summit and of America's
Promise, the post-Summit campaign led by General Colin Powell, is to
mobilize millions of citizens and thousands of organizations--including
government, corporations, foundations, faith-based and community
service organizations--to help children who lack the conditions for
success in life.
At the Summit, the Presidents signed a declaration setting five
goals--five fundamental resources for a young person's success:
--an ongoing relationship with a caring adult--as a mentor, tutor or
coach;
--safe places with structured activities to learn and grow during
non-school hours;
--a healthy start and a healthy future;
--an effective education providing a marketable skill, including the
ability to read well; and
--an opportunity to serve, not just be served.
National service is already playing an active role in achieving
each of these goals. The fifth goal--service by young people--is at the
heart of our mission. Goal Five seeks a large-scale expansion of youth
service and service-learning opportunities. The Corporation is helping
to shape and promote Goal Five in collaboration with a growing alliance
of organizations committed to that effort, including the nation's great
civic and youth service organizations such as the Y.M.C.A, Boys and
Girls Clubs, the Lions Clubs, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America;
philanthropic organizations such as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the
James Irvine Foundation; corporations with an interest in youth such as
Viacom's MTV Networks; and faith-based organizations such as the
Council of Religious Volunteer Agencies.
Since April, scores of States and communities have held their own
follow-up summits to gather local partners and secure local commitments
to pursue the summit goals. The national service network is actively
assisting America's Promise in planning and carrying out these follow-
up summits along with our original Summit partners--the Points of Light
Foundation's Volunteer Centers and the United Way of America. State
Commissions, Corporation State Offices, national service sponsors, and
national service participants have worked with Governors, Mayors,
corporate leaders, and nonprofit organizations to develop their own
plans of action.
Consistent with the activities of the Summit, on January 1, 1998,
President Clinton and former President Bush reintroduced the Daily
Points of Light. Initially awarded during the Bush Administration, the
Daily Points of Light are designed to honor volunteers and volunteer
organizations that demonstrate unique and innovative approaches to
community volunteering and citizen action, with a strong emphasis on
service focused on the goals for children and young people set by the
Presidents' Summit for America's Future. The Daily Points of Light
program is co-sponsored by the Points of Light Foundation, the
Corporation for National Service, and the Knights of Columbus. The
Knights of Columbus Supreme Council provides full funding for the
awards.
updates on major national service programs
AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps members continue to ``get things done'' (the mantra of
national service) in hundreds of communities--large and small--in every
state. It is interesting to note that more than 1 in 10 are serving
their communities in programs sponsored by faith-based organizations.
The following data have been reported by just over half the
programs. In the last year, AmeriCorps members have:
--Recruited about 66,000 volunteers for tutoring or other educational
purposes.
--Tutored almost 97,000 students and mentored or counseled another
100,000.
--Conducted 50,000 home visits related to follow-up on educational
activities such as tutoring and counseling.
--Worked on parenting skills with over 24,000 parents or families.
--Responded to almost 9,000 emergencies (fires, floods, tornadoes,
search and rescue).
--Rehabilitated, renovated, restored or built nearly 100,000 units of
housing and community buildings.
--Planted tens of millions of trees.
--Cleaned or restored thousands of miles of river banks and beaches.
--Assisted 15,000 pregnant women to receive prenatal care.
--Immunized over 20,000 children and adults.
--Conducted over 4,000 community safety patrols.
The American National Red Cross operates an AmeriCorps National
Rapid Response Corps in Los Angeles and five other cities. AmeriCorps
members provide emergency assistance to victims and communities,
emergency food, shelter and clothing to disaster victims, and increase
preparedness among children and youth in underserved areas. The Rapid
Response Corps currently has teams from every project site deployed to
assist in disaster relief. Recently, 40 members have assisted the Red
Cross with the Coastal California floods, the Northern California
disaster relief effort, and in Florida after a tornado touched down.
In addition to the Rapid Response Corps, AmeriCorps members serving
in local programs often are asked to help lead recovery efforts when a
disaster strikes the community. For instance, AmeriCorps members
serving with the Colorado Youth Conservation and Service Corps
responded to the Spring Creek Flood which struck Fort Collins, Colorado
on July 28, 1997. The flash flood took the lives of five residents and
caused extraordinary damage to the community. The AmeriCorps members
helped secure the flood corridor, clear debris from the area, sandbag
homes that were still taking in water from flood runoff, and operate
the local disaster relief center.
The Blue Hills AmeriCorps program engages 21 AmeriCorps members in
a partnership with the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department to help
close drug houses, reduce crime by reporting drug activity, establish
safety corridors, and train youth and adults in conflict resolution.
This year, Blue Hills AmeriCorps members recruited and trained 504
volunteers to serve as guards at 62 school bus stops. Over the last
three years, Blue Hills AmeriCorps has closed down more than 50 drug
houses, some of which have been taken over by the city and are being
rehabilitated as affordable single-family housing for low income
families. The 28 AmeriCorps members sponsored by the American Youth
Foundation's St. Louis Partners for Service Education tutor and assist
teachers in developing projects related to literacy, the environment,
first aid, and substance abuse prevention. The AmeriCorps members have
recruited more than 340 parents and community volunteers to assist in
classrooms and other educational support activities.
The more than 200 AmeriCorps members of the United Youth Corps of
Maryland serve in three distinct youth corps. Members serving with the
Maryland Conservation Corps maintain and restore 15 state forests,
parks, and wildlife management areas, while members with Civic Works,
an urban youth corps, rehabilitate abandoned houses and construct
community parks and gardens in low-income Baltimore neighborhoods.
AmeriCorps members serving with Community Year tutor students with
special needs and serve as teachers' aids. In addition, the AmeriCorps
members develop an after-school program in which 160 middle school
students perform community service and participate in environmental
education activities.
In the RurAL Cap Alaska program, 25 AmeriCorps members have been
recruited from 15 of the state's most rural villages. These members
collaborate with tribal councils to identify critical needs related to
the tundra environment. Members mobilize the community to improve solid
waste disposal, initiate recycling projects, and conduct environmental
education in Head Start and elementary school programs.
Forty-two Idaho Trio AmeriCorps members are improving the academic
performance of 2,309 Head Start, K-12 and college students. The
majority of these students face challenges including physical
disabilities, disruptive home life, and poor English skills. Teachers
benefit from AmeriCorps members providing in-class support by giving
one on one and small group assistance to many students.
The Montana Conservation Corps supports 72 AmeriCorps members who
are constructing and maintaining 250 miles of trail and 36 parks. The
AmeriCorps members are also mentoring 450 youth whom they have engaged
in 210 service projects, and are improving the homes of 41 low income
senior citizens.
The Beyond Food program operated by the Congressional Hunger Center
is fighting hunger and under-nutrition in Vermont, Mississippi,
Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. In just six months, Beyond
Food provided more than 400 tons of food to low-income families, senior
citizens, and the homeless. Throughout Vermont, 41 AmeriCorps members
have recovered 7,100 pounds of food through food recovery and gleaning
activities. The AmeriCorps members also provided emergency food
assistance to those in need at local distribution sites by collecting,
sorting, preparing and distributing over 374,550 pounds of food. The
AmeriCorps members also served over 249,700 meals to those in need.
The National Association of Community Health Centers, a nonprofit
organization that provides professional support services for over 800
community health centers, administers the Community Health Corps
AmeriCorps program in which AmeriCorps members link individuals in
Aurora, Colorado, Eutaw, Alabama, San Francisco, California, and six
other cities with health centers through referral, education, and
follow-up programs. During the past two years, the ten AmeriCorps
members in Aurora have provided case management and referrals to 4,900
health center patients, reminded 780 parents about the importance of
having their children immunized, taught 360 patients education about
appropriate emergency room usage, and helped 4,800 patients find
housing, food, legal aid and other health services. The members also
provided translation services for at least 500 Spanish speaking
patients. Local partners include the City of Aurora, the Boys and Girls
Clubs of Denver, the Reach Out and Read Program, the Aurora Rotary
Club, the local school district, and the Colorado OB/GYN Society.
Through the California Conservation Corps in Klamath, California,
the AmeriCorps Backcountry Trails Program involves 80 young adults. The
AmeriCorps members have enhanced 1,000 miles of wilderness trail,
rebuilt sections of the Pacific Crest Trail in the spectacular
Evolution Basin in Kings Canyon National Park, repaired 67 miles of
storm-damaged trail in Yosemite National Park, repaired 15 erosion
channels on trails leading into the Klamath National Forest Marble
Mountain Wilderness, and installed a set of stone steps across a
hazardous rock section in the Stanislaus National Forest's Carson-
Iceberg Wilderness.
The New Jersey Community Development Corporation assigns AmeriCorps
members to a number of sites to provide direct care to vulnerable
individuals. Three members serve full time at the Mid-Bergen Mental
Health Center in Paramus supporting the needs of 60 men and women with
severe mental illness and helping them to live independently in the
community. Additionally, five members serve people with developmental
disabilities at two residences in Patterson.
Through outreach in 99 counties across Iowa, the 20 AmeriCorps
members supported by the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence work
to promote and make services accessible to battered women and their
children. During its four years of operation, AmeriCorps members have
made contact with 20,000 victims of domestic abuse. In the 1996-97
program year, the AmeriCorps members helped approximately 500 women and
4,000 children receive care through 29 domestic violence agencies or
projects. Similarly, AmeriCorps members serving with the West Virginia
Coalition Against Domestic Violence addressed the safety, shelter, and
basic food, clothing and resource referral needs of over 2,500 victims
of domestic violence across the state. Members provide life skills
training and mentoring to assist adults in moving out of violent
relationships. In the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, more than 200
volunteers participated with AmeriCorps members, providing assistance
from helping shelter residents find housing to leading a reading hour
for children living in shelters.
In the rural west Alabama counties of Greene and Sumter, where more
than 50 percent of the children are reported to live in poverty, 25
AmeriCorps members in the Rural AmeriCorps Student Project supported by
West Alabama Health Services tutor and mentor 400 students in grades K-
6. In the first two grading periods of the 1997-98 school year, 52
percent of the students served showed improvement in their grades,
attendance, and attitude toward school. In addition, the 20 members of
AmeriCorps Instructional Support Team in Butler County, Alabama provide
tutoring and other academic enrichment services to 300 rural students
in grades K-3 who are at risk of school failure. Four of the six
schools in this system are on academic caution, and the State
Department of Education ranks Butler County in the lowest cluster of
school systems. To date in the 1997-98 school year, there has been an
improvement in attendance among 17 percent of the students served; at
least one letter grade of improvement in an academic subjects among 62
percent of the children served; and improvements in behavior/conduct
grades among 37 percent of the students served.
Learn and Serve America
Another way to ``get things done'' is through the Learn and Serve
America program--which builds an ethic of service among young people
and students at all levels by making service an integral part of their
education and life experiences.
The Learn and Serve America fiscal year 1999 appropriation request
reflects an increase of $7 million over the fiscal year 1998 budget.
The additional funds are targeted for the America Reads Challenge.
Learn and Serve America will increase the number of participants and
programs engaged in America Reads service-learning activities at the
elementary, secondary and postsecondary levels by approximately 16
percent.
Last year, Learn and Serve programs made a difference in K-12
schools and institutions of higher education across the country. For
example, the Miami-Dade Community College has created the Center for
Community Involvement and Civic Literacy which links service-learning
efforts, America Reads, and the community service mandate of Federal
Work Study. Over 300 Miami-Dade students are America Reads tutors
throughout Miami. Also, students in computer science classes lend their
expertise to elementary school teachers to help them gain computer
proficiency, students taking a women's leadership class are undertaking
projects ranging from helping teen mothers to assisting soon-to-be
paroled female prisoners, and students learning about the environment
present the ``Enviro-Cops'' program to local schools.
AmeriCorps Program Demographics
AmeriCorps members reflect the diversity of the communities in
which they serve. In the 1996-97 program year, approximately one in two
AmeriCorps members was white, slightly less than one in three was
African American, and one in six was Hispanic. Approximately three
percent of these AmeriCorps members were of Native American, Asian, or
Pacific Islander heritage.
Forty-four percent of AmeriCorps members supported through
AmeriCorps*State and National grants in the 1996-97 program year had
already earned a bachelor's degree, spent some time in graduate school,
or earned a graduate degree. AmeriCorps members continue to come from
the broad Middle Class. Forty percent of these AmeriCorps members came
from households with an annual income of less than $30,000, 64 percent
came from households with an annual income of less than $50,000, and a
total of 77 percent came from households with an annual income of less
than $70,000. Additional demographic information about AmeriCorps
members is included in Charts 1-4 (attached).
iii. other key issues
The Government Performance and Results Act
The Corporation is complying with the requirement of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). We have met, and are meeting, all
of the requirements of GPRA. Our strategic plan was submitted on time
and in full compliance with the Act. We have distributed copies of the
plan widely, throughout the national service community, and it is
available on our Internet website at www.nationalservice.org. Our
fiscal 1999 performance plan was sent to the Congress on February 20
and soon it will be available through the Internet.
The strategic plan and the performance plan lay out in clear terms
our vision and goals, and the practical steps we will follow to get
there.
In addition, standards of program quality will be set for every
area of national service. We will be creating indexes that can be used
to rate objectively the quality of our programs. These indexes will
combine data from many sources, including customer satisfaction and
community impact ratings, into an overall assessment of quality. Every
program area will be subject to what we call community impact ratings.
In a national survey, we will be asking key community representatives,
who are expected to have first-hand knowledge of national service
programs, to rate the impact and quality of the services provided by
our programs.
Every program area sponsored by the Corporation will have some form
of customer satisfaction survey. We intend to know and report how well
national service participants are addressing the unmet needs of the
American people.
To implement the plan and measure our performance against its
goals, we have in place, or are in the process of establishing, the
systems needed to get the job done. We are on schedule to implement
fully the data collection and analysis plans needed so that we can
report to the Congress and the public in March of 2000 how well we have
done in meeting our goals.
Reauthorization
After two years of work with national service sponsors, partners
and participants, as well as Governors, Mayors, and other local elected
officials, the Corporation for National Service's reauthorization
proposal is ready for transmittal by the President to the Congress. The
bill, entitled the ``National and Community Service Amendments Act of
1998,'' will be transmitted very soon and introduced with bipartisan
co-sponsorship. The legislation proposes significant steps to improve
national service, based on the lessons learned over the last several
years and the careful analysis the programs have received from within
and outside of the Corporation. Specifically, the proposed legislation:
--Strengthens partnerships with traditional volunteer organizations;
--Codifies agreements with Congress and others to reduce costs and
streamline national service;
--Provides states additional flexibility to administer national
service programs; and
--Expands opportunities for Americans to serve.
I want to emphasize that the Administration proposal is a starting
point for--not the end of--discussions on what a reauthorization bill
should include. I look forward to working with the Members of the
Subcommittee on this important matter.
additional management challenges
The Corporation faces additional management challenges, directly
related to auditability. If we are to achieve full auditability and
improve our financial management, we must address these as well. The
Corporation requests the Subcommittee's assistance in addressing the
following four issues which are discussed in more detail below: Full
funding of Program Administration, the flexibility to transfer funds
between activities, the fifth AmeriCorps*NCCC campus, and the cap on
AmeriCorps National Direct grants.
Full Funding of Program Administration
Mr. Chairman, the Corporation faces important challenges in
achieving the most effective management for an extraordinarily
decentralized system. We have detailed above the actions we have taken
and the milestones we have set for ourselves in these matters.
Because by statute 40 cents of every administrative dollar goes
directly to the Governor-appointed State Commissions, the Corporation
realized only a $1.2 million increase in Program Administration for
fiscal year 1998. From that, the Corporation must continue to pay
statutory pay increases and meet increasing workloads. For example,
with funds appropriated in 1996, the Corporation enrolled approximately
23,000 AmeriCorps members in the National Service Trust. With funds
appropriated in 1998, the Corporation will enroll approximately 48,000
members in the Trust. Each enrollment can represent up to 15 individual
transactions for a qualified AmeriCorps member. Members who earn
education awards must continue to receive service from the Trust
throughout the seven years in which they have to use their awards.
While productivity improvements have been made in improving that
service, we need the full amount requested in the President's budget.
Flexibility to Transfer Funds Between Activities
The section of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill covering national service is written as a series of caps which add
up to the total appropriated amount. Both the Congress and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) have determined that the structure of
the bill precludes transfers from one line item to another. Thus, we
are precluded by law from moving funds from one area to another to
address critical needs. For example, we need the flexibility to deploy
significant resources on a one-time basis to clear up a backlog of
trust documentation problems, develop a Management Information System
(MIS), and close out old grants. We are asking for additional
flexibility in this regard. I hope you will help us with this problem
this year.
The Fifth AmeriCorps*NCCC Campus
The National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) is a full-time
residential national service program that provides a 24-hour a day
ready response to national or natural disasters--and a range of other
services. Corps members--age 18-24--receive extensive training in areas
such a leadership development, CPR, first aid, family assistance,
damage assessment, carpentry/building skills, public safety, mobilizing
volunteers, tutoring, and trail building. All service projects
conducted by AmeriCorps*NCCC members are planned and implemented in
partnership with local and national organizations.
Lieutenant General Andrew P. Chambers (Retired) joined the
Corporation for National Service last May as National Director of
AmeriCorps*NCCC.
Last year Corps members assisted families and communities
devastated by fires in California and South Carolina; floods,
hurricanes, and tornadoes in South Carolina, Georgia, Puerto Rico,
Massachusetts, California, Arkansas, West Virginia, Ohio, Baltimore,
and North Dakota; and snow and ice in Nebraska. Corps members are
presently deployed to Northern California, Delaware, and Arkansas to
provide disaster relief to communities affected by floods. In fiscal
year 1997, AmeriCorps*NCCC extended the term of service for 24 corps
members to provide year round availability in the event of a disaster.
In fiscal year 1997, AmeriCorps*NCCC members performed over 400
service projects in local communities in 46 states. AmeriCorps*NCCC
increased the emphasis on developing national partnerships with
organizations that have local affiliates who address compelling needs
such as Habitat for Humanity (including the Houses the Congress built
initiative), Boys & Girls Clubs, and Y.M.C.A.
In the past year, the NCCC established a new campus in the Capital
Region, with 100 members based on the former site of DC Village SW in
Washington, DC. The Capital Region campus serves the District of
Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Other
regions are the Western Region, based in San Diego, California, the
Central Region based in Denver, Colorado, the Southeast Region based in
Charleston, South Carolina, and the Northeast Region based at the VA
Medical Center in Perry Point, Maryland.
AmeriCorps*NCCC has functioned with flat funding of $18,000,000 for
the past three years. To achieve the expansion of a new campus in the
District of Columbia in fiscal year 1998, it was necessary to make
extensive cutbacks throughout the program including terminating staff.
The proposed $21,000,000 will enable AmeriCorps*NCCC to continue to
operate five campuses, including one in the Capital Region.
The Cap on AmeriCorps National Direct Grants
Under the Corporation's authorizing statute, roughly one-third of
the AmeriCorps grants funds are allocated for National Direct
programs--including the Enterprise Foundation, the Arc of the United
States, Habitat for Humanity, Jumpstart for Children, I Have A Dream
Foundation, the American National Red Cross, and City Year. For fiscal
year 1998, the Conference Committee imposed a cap of $40 million; an
amount some $36 million below the level anticipated by the authorizing
statute. Because of this cap, national nonprofits were unable to
utilize the resources of over 2,600 potential AmeriCorps members to
address local community needs for fiscal year 1998. (National Direct
grantees sponsor more than 12,700 AmeriCorps members who last year
recruited 72,332 non-stipended volunteers who served 784,826 hours.)
AmeriCorps National Direct grantees are not even able to keep up with
inflation, much less see any growth in promising new or proven older
programs. We hope that this Subcommittee--and the Conference
Committee--will eliminate the cap on National Direct for fiscal year
1999.
I look forward to working with you to make national service a
program in which we can all take pride.
Chart 1.--Race/Ethnicity of AmeriCorps*State/National Members: 1996
Percent
White............................................................. 48
African-American.................................................. 28
Hispanic.......................................................... 16
Asian............................................................. 3
NatAm............................................................. 2
Other............................................................. 4
CHART 2--GENDER OF AMERICORPS*NCCC AND STATE/NATIONAL MEMBERS: 1996
[Program]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Female
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCCC.................................................... 35 65
State/National.......................................... 32 68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 3.--Educational Attainment by AmeriCorps*State/National Members:
1996
[Highest degree achieved]
Less than high school............................................. 9
High school diploma............................................... 19
AA degree/same college............................................ 25
Bachelor's degree/some graduate school............................ 25
Graduate school................................................... 19
Family Household Income of AmeriCorps*State/National Members: 1996 \1\
[Income range]
$5,000 or less.................................................... 6
$5,001 to $10,000................................................. 7
$10,001 to $20,000................................................ 13
$20,001 to $30,000................................................ 14
$30,001 to $40,000................................................ 14
$40,001 to $50,000................................................ 10
$50,001 to $60,000................................................ 9
$60,001 to $70,000................................................ 5
Over $70,000...................................................... 23
\1\ Members 30 years or younger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
progress in achieving auditability
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Wofford. I
appreciate your addressing the efficiencies in the financial
systems and management controls. That has been a plaque on the
whole operation. It has been a significant impediment to the
credibility of our efforts and it makes it far more difficult
for us to support funding and obtain broad-scale support for
it.
I congratulate you on the progress that has been made. In
summary, I understand that, of the 99 findings identified by
Arthur Anderson, 72 were resolved by October 1 of last year. I
understand from your testimony that you have now addressed 10
of the 21 remaining material weaknesses. I congratulate you on
that.
What steps are left and when will those deficiencies be
corrected?
Mr. Wofford. Senator Bond, the plan that we will be
presenting to you on March 18 will track every one of the
remaining material weaknesses and important steps for us to
take, including the steps related to the trust. It will be a
timetable that will show when each of them can be achieved.
I look forward to working with you and your staff when that
plan has been presented to you. I outlined some of the dates in
my oral testimony just now.
Senator Bond. Fine. I appreciate that. I think it is very
important that the inspector general be included in that. Has
the National Service inspector general been participating in
the development of the plan?
Mr. Wofford. She will be very much involved as soon as OMB
is ready for us to give it to her, which should be in just a
very few days. That is why we are setting March 18.
Senator Bond. Well, we will look to her and to the General
Accounting Office to give us a review of how the plan is
working. It is vitally important. I cannot emphasize too much
that we have to be able to tell our colleagues and the American
people that the financial controls are in place, that we know
how the money is being spent, and that it is being spent in
compliance with the authorizing legislation and appropriation.
So I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Wofford. I fully agree with you. We are not going to
let you down.
evaluation and effective practices
Senator Bond. Senator Wofford, the Corporation's 1999
budget justification has a broad mission statement: To address
the Nation's education, human and public safety, and
environmental needs to achieve direct and demonstrable results
and foster civic responsibility, strengthen the ties that bind
us together as a people, and provide educational opportunity
for those who make a substantial commitment to service.
How do you measure and verify the goals to meet those
requirements?
Mr. Wofford. We have this very year added investment and
emphasis on doing just that by the formation of a Department of
Evaluation and Effective Practices with an outstanding leader,
the former executive director of the Florida State Commission,
who has proven his record in achieving high quality programs at
the State level.
We have a comprehensive set of evaluations that have been
submitted and are ready for your review. I would like to submit
for the record the list of perhaps 50 studies here that we have
provided you on occasion. I would like you to review that list.
[The information follows:]
COMPLETED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Contractor Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Grandparent Program Westat............ December 1997.
Evaluation.
Measuring AmeriCorps*VISTA's Westat............ December 1997.
Impacts on the Communities and
Organizations It Serves.
Description of Current Macro............. November 1997.
Corporation Leaders Programs,
Options for Corporation Leaders
Programs, and Recommendations
for a Unified Leaders Program.
Study of Race, Class, and Macro............. November 1997.
Ethnicity--Final Report.
Practical Applications: Macro............. November 1997.
Strategies for Supporting a
Diverse Corps.
1997 Customer Satisfaction Macro............. November 1997.
Survey.
Description and Evaluation of Macro............. October 1997.
the Summer Reads Initiative.
The Sustainability of PeopleWorks....... August 1, 1997.
AmeriCorps*VISTA Programs and
Activities.
AmeriCorps*State/National Aguirre........... June 12, 1997.
Programs Impact Evaluation:
First Year Report.
National Evaluation of Learn and Abt/Brandeis...... April 1997.
Serve America School and
Community-Based Programs--
Interim Report and Appendices.
Evaluation Report Year Three Macro............. April 1997.
AmeriCorps Leaders Program
(ACLP).
1996 AmeriCorps*VISTA Westat............ April 1997.
Accomplishments Summary of
Findings.
Retired and Senior Volunteer Westat............ March 1997.
Program RSVP Final Report.
Findings from the 1996 Survey of Westat............ February 28, 1997.
AmeriCorps Members.
Review of Cluster Team Leader/ Westat............ December 1996.
Field Management Team System.
AmeriCorps*NCCC: Analysis of Westat............ December 1996.
Responses to the Class Two Exit
Survey--Final Report.
Executive Summary--AmeriCorps Macro............. October 1996.
Team for the Games Host
Organization.
Evaluation Report Year Two Macro............. September 1996.
AmeriCorps Leaders Program
(ACLP).
A Practical Guide to Continuous Macro............. July 1996.
Improvement.
Impacts of Service: Final Report Abt............... June 11, 1996.
on the Evaluation of American
Conservation and Youth Service
Corps Draft.
Evaluation of Learn and Serve RAND.............. May 1996.
America, Higher Education:
First Year Report, Volumes I
and II (Technical Appendices).
Final Report: Impacts of the Abt............... February 6, 1996.
Higher Education Innovative
Projects (Subtitle B2).
Defense Conversion Assistance Abt............... January 5, 1996.
Program (DCAP) Memorandum on
Community Impacts and
Participant Outcomes--Draft.
AmeriCorps Leaders Program Year Linda Camino, Ph.D January 2, 1996.
One Evaluation: Areas to
Strengthen and Recommendations.
Final Report: National Abt/Brandeis December 21, 1995.
Evaluation of Serve-America University.
(Subtitle B1).
Serving America: Program Design Abt/Brandeis December 21, 1995.
and Implementation Lessons from University.
the Serve-America Program
(Draft).
AmeriCorps*VISTA 1994 Westat............ December 1995.
Accomplishments Survey.
Support for Local Organizations Westat............ December 1995.
and Their Communities--Report
from the AmeriCorps*VISTA 1994
accomplishments Survey.
Overview: National Evaluation of Abt/Brandeis October 20, 1995.
Serve-America (Subtitle B1). University.
An Evaluation of the Corporation Linda A. Camino, September 19,
for National Service's Ph.D. 1995.
Earthquake Relief Projects in
Los Angeles, California.
Lessons from the Field: Program Westat............ September 1995.
Start-Up 1994-1995.
Final Report: National Service Abt............... July 17, 1995.
Demonstration Programs
(Subtitle D).
Demographics of AmeriCorps Macro............. July 1995.
Members and the Areas Where
They Serve.
Catalogue of Program Objectives Macro............. June 1, 1995.
AmeriCorps Programs (Fiscal
Year 1995).
Final Report: Impacts of Service- Abt............... April 20, 1995.
America (Subtitle B1) Draft.
Educational Impacts of Summer Abt............... April 13, 1995.
1993 Washington Service Teams
(Draft).
Effect of Living Allowances and Westat............ April 7, 1995.
Educational Awards on
AmeriCorps Members' Ability to
Serve and on Fostering Socio-
Economic Diversity (Draft Final
Report).
Defense Conversion Assistance Abt............... January 31, 1995.
Program Report on the First
Year of Implementation.
Defense Conversion Assistance Abt............... October 19, 1994.
Program Report on the First
Year of Implementation.
Defense Conversion Proposed Abt............... July 28, 1994.
Phase 2 Evaluation Design.
Interim Draft Report: Lessons Abt............... July 22, 1994.
Learned from the Experience of
Subtitle D Programs.
Interim Report: Lessons Learned Abt............... July 22, 1994.
from the Experience of Subtitle
D Programs.
Evaluation of National and Abt............... March 4, 1994.
Community Service Programs
Lessons from the Experiences of
Two Corps Providing Disaster
Relief.
Serving America The First Year Abt............... March 1994.
of Programs Funded by the
Commission on National and
Community Service.
Final Report--Evaluation of the Abt............... October 25, 1993.
Summer of Service Program.
Case Studies of Selected Summer Abt............... Summer 1993.
Youth Corps Programs Report 1
of 2.
Evaluation of National and Abt............... March 15, 1993.
Community Service Programs
First Annual Report--Program
Profiles Draft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
further evaluations
Mr. Wofford. We now have in our performance plan for the
Government Performance and Results Act a set of new commitments
for indepth evaluation. We are proud of the progress we have
made. And yet, I agree with you that in a decentralized system
such as this, which with our new education awards is even more
decentralized, the Education Only Awards that Senator Grassley
encouraged that we have had such a great growth in this year--
some 14,000 positions in that category--developing a system
that can help this decentralized system keep to the high
standards that the State commissions and nonprofit
organizations are committed to is a very high priority for the
Corporation.
correction to the record
Senator Bond. I think it is vitally important that we have
objective standards and criteria by which we can measure
success. We have heard some claims of success based on
anecdote, which is nice but I do not find it an adequate
measure of performance and achievement.
Let me just cite you one example. The fiscal year 1999
budget justification for National Service identifies a program
called Summerbridge. The budget claims, ``AmeriCorps members
provided support to 3,544 students and improved student testing
scores in mathematics, language, arts, science, and literature
at all sites, 16 cities, by 63 percent to 97 percent.''
Now that sounds wonderful, especially as a 1-year
achievement. But I really don't know what it means.
Does that mean that school testing scores are so low that
you can improve scores essentially by 100 percent? Is the
school system that bad that you can make a 63-percent increase
by a volunteer effort?
What is going on there?
Mr. Wofford. Mr. Chairman, that statement in that budget
submission document is a mistake. It is a result of the
Summerbridge report having been written in a way that was
misunderstood by us.
We have checked back with Summerbridge. The 60-percent plus
is the impact on the individuals that were in the program. It
is a misstatement.
Summerbridge itself is a program that has had various
outside evaluations of its work over the years. It is
considered a very outstanding program, and they are very
embarrassed, and we are embarrassed, that that was misstated in
the record.
Senator Bond. Well, I was going to say that that was
certainly an accomplishment and could it be increased. That
does bring into question some of the standards.
What did they mean by 60 percent? What did that 63 percent
mean?
Mr. Wofford. I think I am going to ask to correct it for
the record.
Senator Bond. Why don't we do that for the record because
it is quite confusing.
Mr. Wofford. There are two things, what they meant
originally and what was said.
[The information follows:]
Summerbridge National AmeriCorps
The information provided for the Corporation for National Service's
Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Estimate for Activities Authorized by the
National and Community Service Trust Act was based on the end-of-term
progress report submitted by the Summerbridge National AmeriCorps for
the 1995-96 program year.
The 1995-96 end-of-term progress report states that the AmeriCorps
members in the program:
--provided tutorial support to 827 students;
--provided teaching support to 1,261 students;
--prepared eighth grade students at all sites for high school
entrance;
--mentored 696 students and actively managed 760 individual student
cases;
--conducted 83 home visits to provide parents with feedback and to
discuss their child's successes and challenges;
--recruited 547 high school and college-aged tutors to work with
middle school students during school-year programs; and
--generated 654 volunteers that contributed 66,090 hours of service.
The Budget Estimate stated that AmeriCorps members ``improved
student testing scores in mathematics, language arts, science, and
literature at all sites by 63 percent to 97 percent.'' Further review
indicates that part of this information was communicated incorrectly.
Summerbridge National reports that its AmeriCorps Teaching Program
Sites ``realized dramatic academic results among their student
populations.'' Some of the highlighted indicate:
--66 percent of students at Lehigh Valley Summerbridge improved their
scores in mathematics and 63 percent improved their scores in
language arts.
--90 percent of students at Making Waves Summerbridge improved their
scores on language arts skill tests, which focus on parts of
speech, grammar, reading comprehension, and paragraph writing.
--71 percent of students at Making Waves Summerbridge improved their
scores on math skills tests, which focus on fractions,
decimals, percents, word problems, and algebra.
--86.5 percent of students at Making Waves Summerbridge indicated
significant improvements in writing and 78.3 percent indicated
significant improvements in literature skills.
--Student attendance at Summerbridge Sacramento improve to 97 percent
and 100 percent of the students reported academic gains in the
areas of algebra, fractions, and general organization.
monitoring of national service programs
Mr. Wofford. I would like just to add, Mr. Chairman, that
some of the facts have come from the progress reports that
projects submit. But most of the facts that are in the
document--that is, in my written testimony--are drawn from our
outside evaluators, not from the projects themselves.
Mr. Aguirre, President Ford's Commissioner of Education,
and his outfit personally have done the largest evaluation.
Senator Bond. That kinds of leads me to the next question
that I was going to ask. How do you ensure that the AmeriCorps
programs are conforming to the agreed program requirements,
matching requirements and participation requirements?
Do you have your own audit staff? Do you rely on outside
evaluators? How do you make sure when money goes to a program
that everything that is supposed to happen does happen?
Mr. Wofford. We do this in several ways.
In the first place, the larger projects are required to
have their own audits.
Second, two-thirds of the AmeriCorps grants go through and
are selected either in whole or initially by the Governor-
appointed State commissions. They, under the act, are the first
line of supervising and evaluating and monitoring of the
projects in those States.
We have done a lot to help those State commissions develop
the capacity to do that and we provide very active assistance.
We have our own program officers who do site visits. We are
trying to increase the range of those site visits.
Some of our procedures on auditability are related to the
intensifying of the efforts that will go on when we make our
own site visits. The inspector general has a system of auditing
these and intends in the future to spend more time auditing the
programs in the field. She already has a long record of audits
that are very important to us.
Mr. Chairman, Chief Operating Officer Louis Caldera was
just reminding me that the grant reporting system from the
projects is a vital part of this. We are strengthening and
tightening that in responding to the auditability issues, too.
Senator Bond. Tell me, what happens when the Corporation
finds a program that fails to meet the requirements? What do
you do?
Mr. Wofford. These are competitive grants. They come up for
renewal. There are a number of grants that have not been
renewed for reasons of performance.
programs not renewed
Senator Bond. How many have been defunded or barred from
future participation?
Mr. Wofford. The facts I was just given are related to how
many. I think it is pertinent to know that in the original
selection process, for example, for the State competitive
grants, 316 applications were received and 163 were funded.
That includes a lot of renewal applications.
Mr. Wofford. The first place that I can give you the
response is in how many of the applications that come up to us
are not accepted. But the first line of that competitive system
for most grants, the overwhelming majority, are the State
commissions. They do not submit to us their proposals until
they have in a competitive process decided that these are the
best.
I will have to let you know for the record the precise
answer to your question.
[The information follows:]
The data from the most recent grant review (fiscal year 1997) is as
follows for State competitive programs that were recompeting for
funding, as well as the Tribal and National Direct proposals. State
formula programs are not included since they are not required to
provide this information.
Decisions made by the Corporation:
--AmeriCorps State competitive: 121 recompeting applications
received, 12 or 10 percent failed in competition
--AmeriCorps National Direct: 27 recompeting applications received; 2
or 7 percent failed in competition
--AmeriCorps Tribal programs: 5 recompeting applications received; 1
or 20 percent failed in competition.
Decisions made by State Commissions or sub-grantee:
--AmeriCorps State competitive: 12 recompeting programs were not
forwarded or did not reapply
--AmeriCorps National Direct : 3 recompeting programs did not reapply
--AmeriCorps Tribal programs: 1 did not reapply
Aggregating the data yields the following results:
--AmeriCorps State competitive: 24 or 18 percent of recompeting
programs were not funded
--AmeriCorps National Direct : 5 or 17 percent of eligible
recompeting programs were not funded
--AmeriCorps Tribal programs: 2 or 33 percent of eligible recompeting
programs were not funded
Programs, even if defunded, are not legally barred from future
participation. Clearly, their past performance would be considered in
reviewing any new application. It is, however, extremely rare that
programs, once they no longer receive funding from AmeriCorps, re-
apply.
devolution to states
Senator Bond. Now that is important. But I am interested in
the followup, the auditing, the monitoring. What is the role of
the States in monitoring to make sure that the program is doing
what it is supposed to be doing? I am a great believer in local
control of programs. But I also have seen in my own State quite
a few responsible local officials who are now residents of the
corrections system because they chose not to exercise
responsible stewardship over their funds. This is not to say
that that ever happens in the National Service Corporation. But
there needs to be a way to make sure that those are caught.
What are the roles of the States?
Mr. Wofford. The bipartisan State commissions are appointed
by the Governors and are responsible to the Governors. They now
have for the whole formula grant system the full authority to
make those formula grants.
They report them, they submit them, we review them. If
their processes--those of the State commissions--meet standards
of proper peer review, if the commission is operating under the
standards set by Congress on the nature of the commission, we
have devolved that authority over the grants--the formula
grants--to them.
We will, therefore, pay even more emphasis to whether those
commissions are strong and are able to operate effectively.
They have the primary monitoring responsibilities.
We have the help of the inspector general. When the
inspector general finds that something has gone wrong, we are
not going to be immune from seeing that there are going to be
some prosecutions if there are any examples such as you
described.
Senator Bond. I think as the program gets straightened out
and we get more controls in place, is it possible to rely more
on the State commissions? Are they, in fact, capable of
administering the program and assuring that the program
requirements are met?
Mr. Wofford. The Chief Operating Officer, Louis Caldera,
and I are particularly looking at whether we need to invest
more in assistance to the State commissions than we have yet
done.
Senator Bond. I would think that devolving more
responsibility if the States show they are willing and able to
handle that responsibility would make some sense because they
would be in a better position to control it. So we will look
forward to an ongoing discussion following what is happening in
those areas where you are able to devolve that to the States
and which responsibilities can effectively be administered at
the State level.
Mr. Wofford. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support that policy.
It has been a major emphasis of ours in the last 2 years and
may be so even more in the future.
america reads and literacy
Senator Bond. Literacy is a very, very important priority
of mine. I have been involved in many different types of
literacy activities.
Last year, we funded America Reads at $25 million,
specifically identifying America Reads. But it seems to me that
tutoring and mentoring has always been considered a part of
national service. The President's budget for fiscal year 1999
asks for $93.33 million.
What is the basic model or construct? What are you going to
be doing with these specific America Reads volunteers? What is
their job?
Mr. Wofford. Mr. Chairman, I know there is discussion and
debate on what the role of the Education Department should be
in promoting children's literacy and the goal of all children
reading by the end of grade 3. I know that is a commitment to
Federal participation and that is a major commitment in the
budget agreement.
Our participation in children's literacy began at the very
start of the Corporation. One of the statutory purposes given
by Congress is education, using AmeriCorps members to assist
education and early childhood education, after school programs,
Saturday programs, summer programs. Tutoring reading,
mathematics and other vital subjects was a priority of the
Corporation before there was anything called America Reads.
So we have some 83 programs around the country today that
are in children's literacy. We have an attachment for the
record of one literacy program for each State, though we have
more than one. I would ask one of my colleagues to send it up
to you. We will put it in the record.
Senator Bond. Great.
[The information follows:]
Examples of the Corporation for National Service America Reads
Activities \1\
alabama
Alabama Association of RSVP Directors, 217 Pearson Street, Troy, AL
36081, Telephone: (334) 566-6158, Contact: Jennifer Lindsay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One project per State is highlighted in this document.
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Volunteers.. 10
Program Summary.--RSVP volunteers have recruited more than 434
community volunteers to work in 107 Title I schools in first through
third grade classrooms, helping more than 1,093 students learn to read.
The volunteers have partnered with Rolling Readers, Learn and Serve
America projects, and community coalitions. The community volunteers
include RSVP volunteers, federal work-study students, Learn and Serve
America students, and the general public. Some local banks have agreed
to give employees time off to volunteer in schools. This program has
recruited volunteers through TV appearances, ads in a free local ad
paper, flyers and recruitment parties, bookstores, church bulletins and
tenant meetings.
alaska
Nine Star Enterprises Inc., AmAK Literacy Project, 125 West 5th
Avenue, Anchorage, AK, Telephone: (907) 279-7827, Contact: David
Alexander.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 10
Program Summary.--This literacy program provides literacy training
to children in kindergarten through third grade as well as their
parents and families. The members serve in Anchorage and small towns
with several community-based organizations.
arizona
Southeastern Arizona Human Resources Council, RSVP of Willcox, PO
Box 399, Willcox, AZ 85643, Telephone: (520) 384-0665, Fax: (520) 384-
0038, Contact: Gloria Cota.
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers.. 15
Program Summary.--This tutoring program uses bilingual volunteers
and addresses the needs of many farmworkers and their children. They
held an open house at Willcox Elementary School and had an RSVP booth
to recruit for tutoring and reading help. In addition to working with
the elementary school children, the RSVP volunteers also work with Head
Start children.
arkansas
Southeast Foster Grandparent Program, 1022 Scogin Drive,
Monticello, AR 71655, Telephone: (870) 367-6848, Contact: Shirley
Martin.
Number of Foster Grandparents (FGP)............................... 16
Program Summary.--Four elementary schools in southeast Arkansas
began participating in an America Reads initiative utilizing Foster
Grandparents as tutors the fall of 1997. Teachers from each of the four
schools referred children whose total reading scores were in the bottom
of the lowest 25 percent on the Stanford 9, a national norm-based test.
The sixty-four lowest-scoring children were assigned to 16 Foster
Grandparents. All Foster Grandparents have been trained in caregiving,
reading and helping children to stay on task. According to teacher
evaluations collected in January 1998, all students are reading with
more confidence after just a few months with a Foster Grandparent, and
77 percent of the teachers reported that the children were making
excellent progress.
california
Building Individual and Community Self-Sufficiency Through Service,
1107 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, Telephone: (916) 323-0453, Fax:
(916) 327-8232, Contact: Edward Connolly.
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 616
Program Summary.--The Chancellor's Office for the California
Community Colleges and fifteen local community colleges developed this
program, recruiting 616 AmeriCorps members and also 16 AmeriCorps*VISTA
members. The AmeriCorps members receive Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (formerly AFDC recipients) and are enrolled in college early
childhood education and literacy classes. Members provide 15 hours per
week of literacy services to children from pre-school through third
grade. A total of 4,960 low-income and limited English speaking
children who are reading and writing below their age/grade appropriate
levels will be served. Members serve seven to nine kids for two to
three hours each day, five days each week using a standardized literacy
training curriculum.
colorado
Colorado Commission on National and Community Service, Community
Action on Reading and Education Network (CARENET), Commerce City, CO
80022, Telephone: (303) 853-3242, Fax: (303) 289-4097, Contact: Ron
Cabrera.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 4
Program Summary.--Members serve as literacy instructors and tutors
for children in first, second, third, sixth and ninth grade. Members
have also launched a family literacy program, and have provided
instruction and tutoring to out-of-school youth. The goals of the
program are to improve test scores in literacy and academic achievement
skills for 350 children; to improve test scores of the children's
parents in parenting and literacy skills; and to improve literacy,
employment and lifelong learning skills of out-of-school youth and
adults. This program provides team-based services in an urban
community.
connecticut
Connecticut Commission on National and Community Service
Leadership, Education and Athletics in Partnership (L.E.A.P), 254
College Street, New Haven, CT 06510, Telephone: (203) 773-0770, Fax:
(203) 773-1695, Contact: Henry Fernandez.
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 230
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members tutor and mentor 900 inner-
city children ages 7 through 14 in after-school programs. During the
summer months members live in the housing developments where the
children reside and provide structured activities throughout the day.
The intensive tutoring and mentoring provided by the members is
designed to result in improved reading skills, increased self-esteem,
and better social behavior of the participating school-aged children.
In addition, members have organized 300 community service activities
for the children and their families and neighbors during the program
year.
delaware
RSVP of Kent County, Modern Maturity Center, 1121 Forrest Avenue,
Dover, DE 19904, Telephone: (302) 734-1200, Contact: Dwight Hackett.
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers.. 20
Program Summary.--RSVP volunteers joined other community volunteers
in tutoring thirty-two students in first, second and third grade who
were reading below grade level. Volunteers were trained by the YMCA
Resource Center, which also provided a grant for the program.
Volunteers were then matched with specific students, and individual
work plans were established. The RSVP volunteers provided the students
with thirty minutes of one-to-one tutoring four times a week over a
seven month period.
district of columbia
DC Reads, Communities in Schools of Washington, D.C., 820 First
Street, NE, Suite 480, Washington, D.C., 20002, Telephone: (202) 289-
4314, Fax: (202) 289-7325, Contact: Alan Chambers.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 33
Number of RSVP volunteers......................................... 85
Number of Foster Grandparents (FGP)............................... 35
Program Summary.--DC Reads will increase literacy among children
and families throughout Washington, DC. Through the involvement of DC
Public Schools, six local colleges and universities, businesses, and
other public and private organizations, DC Reads is supporting the
national goal to ensure that all children can read well and
independently by the end of the third grade. This year, the following
activities are being implemented in 16 schools identified as DC Reads
sites: ``Book Partners:'' First-graders are paired with the community
volunteers and federal work-study students for an hour-long session
held two to three times each week. Two AmeriCorps*VISTA members re
serving with Communities in Schools in each of the 16 sites to recruit
and coordinate volunteers and manage communication among parents,
teachers, tutors, and students. In addition, Foster Grandparents and
RSVP volunteers serve as tutors. ``Saturday Academy:'' Second and third
graders participate in a Saturday tutoring program to increase students
reading proficiency.
florida
Mid-Florida Community Services, 1127 N. Boulevard East, Leesburg,
FL 34748, Telephone: (352) 589-4545, Contact: John Fuller.
Number of National Senior Service Corps volunteers receiving a
stipend....................................................... 12
Number of other senior volunteers................................. 6
Program Summary.--Mid-Florida Community Services of Leesburg, an
RSVP Program, will apply its experience in reading achievements for
young children to the ``Seniors for Schools'' Initiative. ``Seniors for
Schools'' will operate as a ``reading coach'' model, with senior
volunteer tutors who primarily work one-on-one with children for
fifteen to twenty hours each week. Four schools will participate, and
an estimated 150 children, identified by teachers as reading one or
more grade levels behind, will receive needed assistance with reading.
Teachers and the senior volunteers will work in close partnership to
plan activities and goals for the children. A coalition involving other
community groups and the Partners for Success AmeriCorps project will
provide technical assistance.
georgia
Georgia Commission on National and Community Service, Hands On
Atlanta AmeriCorps, 931 Monroe Drive, Suite 208, Atlanta, GA 30308,
Telephone: (404) 872-2252, ext. 19, Fax: (404) 872-2251, Contact:
Michelle Nunn.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 131
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 40
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members provide tutoring, service-
learning, mentoring, and life skills programming for students in
seventeen Atlanta elementary, middle, and high schools to increase the
academic and general school success of nearly 6,000 students. Five
initiatives, TEACH, READ, SERVE, LEAD, and CITIZEN SUMMER, will be
implemented. These programs include one-to-one and small group tutorial
assistance; management and coordination of volunteer reading mentors;
integration of service-learning into curricula; development of projects
to engage students in direct service to the community; leadership
development training; and engaging high school students as tutors in
elementary school programs. Members serve in teams of four to ten in
schools where a majority of students are eligible for free or reduced
lunch and where student scores on standardized tests are below the
fiftieth percentile.
hawaii
Hawaii Reads, University of Hawaii--Manoa, 2600 Campus Road,
Honolulu, HI 96822, Telephone: (808) 956-4641, Fax: (808) 541-3603,
Contact person: Atina Pascua.
Number of Learn and Serve America students........................ 36
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers.. 28
Program Summary.--Learn and Serve America students were recruited
specifically for the America Reads initiative to provide tutoring to
110 low-achieving students in kindergarten through fifth grade to
improve reading comprehension by two levels. The volunteers will
provide 2,200 hours of service throughout the school year. This project
began October 1, 1997.
The RSVP volunteers will work with eighty-four second grade
students for one hour per week. They will provide one-on-one
individualized tutoring to students identified as needing assistance
with reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. RSVP
volunteers will provide 3,000 hours of service during the school year.
idaho
Idaho Commission for National and Community Service, Idaho TRIO
AmeriCorps (ITAC) Program, 500 8th Avenue, Lewiston, ID 83501,
Telephone: (208) 799-2084, Fax: (208) 799-2058, Contact: Jeannie
Harvey.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 16
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 14
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members provide tutoring and mentoring
to at-risk students from Head Start through high school in order to
increase students' reading levels, assist students with their homework,
and help individuals obtain GED's. Small teams consisting of one to
four members, are placed in four regions of the state. These areas are
nearly all isolated, rural communities. In addition, they will provide
career information and educational needs assessments, and develop job
shadowing opportunities for high school students.
illinois
IL Department on Aging, Illinois Reads, 421 East Capitol Ave., #
100 Springfield, IL 62701-1789, Telephone: (217) 785-3355, Fax: (217)
785-5880, Contact: Mary Selinski.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 6
Program Summary.--The Illinois R.E.A.D.S. (Retirees Educating and
Assisting in the Development of Students) is an intergenerational
initiative that has been operating in Illinois since 1991. R.E.A.D.S.'
mission is to find Seniors willing to tutor young people and to place
them with young children with specific reading needs. This project has
a governor's level of six volunteers and a potential of growing to ten.
This state-wide project, also collaborates closely with the twenty-
three RSVP projects in Illinois.
indiana
Indiana Governor's Commission on Community Service and
Volunteerism, Indiana Reading Corps, 620 Union Drive, Room 618,
Indianapolis, IN 46202, Telephone: (317) 274-8285, Fax: (317) 274-8744,
Contact: Pamela McKeough.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 11
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Number of part-time Education Award Only members.................. 36
Program Summary.--The Indiana Reading Corps builds on local efforts
to create literacy programs for children in kindergarten through sixth
grade both during the school day and after school. Members serve as
literacy tutors, create and improve children's literacy programs and
recruit and train community volunteers. The full-time members will be
single placements at eleven colleges and universities, and the part-
time members will serve in teams at three universities. This program
serves both rural and urban youth.
kansas
Wichita/Sedgwick County Communities in Schools, Inc., 412-418 South
Main, Suite 50, Wichita, KS 67202, Telephone: (316) 833-5110, Contact:
Vicky Roper.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 4
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps*VISTA members are implementing a
literacy project for seventy-five families. Adults and children are
tutored, while parents are taught how to reinforce reading and math
skills at home. Members are also developing a summer school program to
serve thirty-five additional families. Members are working to
collaborate with four other organizations to provide effective school-
based programs. Currently, 100 parents and their children are being
served at four sites by sixty recruited volunteers. One site has added
a family literacy component to their program. The classes are also
serving a new immigrant population that has not been reached in the
past.
kentucky
Kentucky Commission on Community Volunteerism and Service,
AmeriCorps Student Service Consortium, Eastern Kentucky University,
College of Education, 423 Bert Combs Building, Richmond, KY 40475,
Telephone: (606) 622-6543, Fax: (606) 622-6526, Contact: Nancy Thames.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 41
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members in the Student Service
Consortium facilitate, coordinate, and implement America Reads
literacy/tutoring programs and service-learning programs in
kindergarten through the postsecondary level. Reads member coordinators
train parent and community volunteer tutors, establish and implement
curricular and extra-curricular reading clubs, strengthen at-home
reading activities, and establish after-school, weekend, and summer
tutoring programs. Member coordinators also prepare students for
service-learning, facilitate service-learning projects, and lead
students in project reflection. Members serve individually or in pairs
at one of the Consortium's twenty-two school districts, three
institutions of higher education, or three community service
organizations.
louisiana
Youth Volunteer Corps of America, YVCA AmeriCorps, 6310 Lamar
Avenue, Suite 125, Overland, KS 66202, Telephone (913) 432-9822, Fax:
(913) 432-3313, Contact: Veronica Knight.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 42
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 48
Program Summary.--Youth Volunteer Corps of America (YVCA) creates
and increases volunteer opportunities to enrich America's youth,
addresses community needs, and develops a lifetime commitment to
service. There are currently Youth Volunteer Corps programs in over 50
communities in the United States. AmeriCorps members act as service-
learning coordinators, recruiting and training school-age youth to
recognize and address community problems, and provide tutoring,
mentoring, and reading support. Members also recruit, lead, and
supervise volunteers in youth-generated service projects while
encouraging each volunteer to commit to a lifetime of service.
Other operating sites: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and
Washington.
maine
Maine Campus Compact Rural Service-Learning Initiative, 215 College
Street, Lewiston, ME 04240, Telephone: (207) 786-8217, Fax: (207) 786-
6170, Contact: Liz McCabe Park.
Program Summary.--The Maine Campus Compact will support twelve
projects through its consortium and the partnership with the NH Campus
Compact and provide training and technical assistance activities to
create models of excellence in rural service-learning and deepen
institutionalization efforts on campuses in Maine and NH. Projects will
encourage the development of rural, project based service-learning
dealing with youth oriented issues, community defined projects, or
projects that address innovation in transportation. Over half of the
projects are focused on America Reads activities. Training and
technical assistance efforts involve: professional development for
faculty and staff as well as students and community partners.
maryland
Maryland Governor's Commission on Service, Enhancing Neighborhood
Action By Local Empowerment (ENABLE), 511 West Lombard Street, 5th
Floor, Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone: (410) 706-3559, Fax: (410) 706-
6630, Contact: Sheila Curry.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 33
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 128
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members conduct health assessments and
monitor clinical symptoms for persons with chronic illnesses, and
provide the HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters)
and other pre-school readiness programs. In addition, members provide
after-school literacy tutoring for 500 second and third grade students.
Members serve in teams organized around the four separate initiatives:
Community Health, Early Childhood Development, Reading Edge, and
Healthy Environment.
massachusetts
MAGIC ME/Boston, Inc., 21 Temple Place, Boston, MA 02111,
Telephone: (617) 423-6633, Contact: Melissa Gartenberg.
Number of National Senior Service Corps volunteers receiving a
stipend....................................................... 6
Number of other senior volunteers................................. 36
Program Summary.--MAGIC ME/Boston, Inc. implemented its ``Seniors
for Schools'' Initiative as the ``Leaps in Literacy Program'' and
derives its achievement model from the successful SLICE Corps in
Kentucky. Five elementary schools are targeted as operating sites, with
an estimated 464 kindergarten through third grade children involved.
MAGIC ME is applying its successful intergenerational ``reading coach''
model to ``Seniors for Schools.'' The volunteers will work in the
classroom, and follow a regular schedule. This enables the reading
coaches to receive ongoing encouragement and suggestions directly from
the teachers, who will work in partnership with the volunteers. The
senior volunteers will collaborate with other Corporation projects in
the Boston area, primarily Brockton City Pride AmeriCorps and the
Mayflower RSVP. The intensive service volunteers are serving as
``reading coaches,'' an approach that supplements classroom teaching
through one-on-one reading and discussion of children's literature.
Currently, the program serves 71 children.
michigan
Michigan Community Service Commission, Detroit's Academic Success
Project, 1212 Griswold, Detroit, MI 48226, Telephone: (313) 226-9433,
Fax: (313) 226-9490, Contact: Octavia Vaughn-Wilson.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 25
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members provide in-school and after-
school tutoring to low-achieving students in five elementary schools in
empowerment zones. Students will increase their reading comprehension
and academic achievement. The members will also develop community-wide
service-learning projects to promote civic responsibility.
minnesota
Senior Resources, Inc., 2021 E. Hennepin, Suite 130, Minneapolis,
MN 55413-2723, Telephone: (612) 617-7807, Contact: Tanya Prindle.
Number of National Senior Service Corps volunteers................ 80
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA........................................ 4
Program Summary.--Senior Resources, Inc. of Minneapolis, will
implement ``Seniors for Schools'' in four elementary schools. A total
of eighty senior volunteers--forty intensive--will work as teams to
help 300 children increase their reading achievement. Senior Resources,
Inc. hopes to further develop an integrated program that relies on the
skills of the senior volunteers, partnerships with public schools, and
participation by the community, including more parents. Four Ameri-
Corps*VISTA members will serve as the school coordinators for each of
the operating sites and will track measurable outcomes, develop
resources, recruit and train volunteers, and involve interested
community members in the initiative. Anticipated outcomes for the
children include improved reading skills as a direct result of the
volunteer effort; improved appreciation of older persons as caring,
valuable tutors and coaches; and improved academic performance in core
areas as identified by teachers.
mississippi
Mississippi Commission for Volunteer Service, Campus Link, 3825
Ridgewood Road, Jackson, MS 39211, Telephone: (601) 982-6489, Fax:
(601) 982-6790, Contact: Thomas Layzell.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 40
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members tutor 500 under-achieving
elementary school students in order to increase their reading
comprehension levels, increase the students' self-esteem, and increase
the students'self-motivated reading. Members serve in pairs on ten
university campuses throughout Mississippi through existing or newly
established Campus Service Centers. Volunteerism is a key component of
this program--500 volunteers contribute 50,000 hours of tutoring
through this program.
missouri
YMCA of Greater Kansas City, 3100 Broadway, Suite 93, Kansas City,
MO 64111, Telephone: (816) 561-9622, Contact: Kimberly Jordan.
Number of National Senior Service Corps........................... 26
Program Summary.--YMCA of Greater Kansas City received one of the
Corporation's first demonstration grants to operate its AmeriCorps
program, ``Bridges Across the Heartland.'' YMCA is capitalizing on its
success by interjecting ``Seniors for Schools'' into the overall
initiative as a unique component. A total of fifty senior volunteers
will be recruited; thirty of the recruits will serve as the ``central
corps'' and work intensively in two schools for at least fifteen hours
each week. An anticipated 276 children will receive extra tutoring and
assistance due to the direct service of the volunteers. The senior
volunteers will work with AmeriCorps members in specific ``classroom-
focused'' activities as intergenerational partners. An individual
tutoring model will be the foundation, which will be supplemented by
small group work with the children, reading circles, read aloud time,
and practice sessions. Specific volunteers will work with assigned
children and teachers over each school year, thus creating an ongoing
presence and relationship to help reinforce the children's learning.
Teachers and senior volunteers will work collaboratively to develop
reading plans for each child. Senior volunteers will also work in the
community to engage more parents in school conferences and reading time
with their children. Currently a total of 80 children are being served.
montana
Montana Community Services Advisory Council, Missoula Aging
Services, Inc., 227 West Front Street, Missoula, MT 59802, Telephone:
(406) 728-7682, Fax: (406) 728-7687, Contact: James Harris.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 10
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members develop school-based service
learning and tutoring programs and recruit community volunteers to
sustain them. Members serve in a mixture of urban and rural school
districts.
nebraska
Eastern Nebraska Foster Grandparent Program, 100 Centennial Mall
North, Room 156, Lincoln, NE 68508, Telephone: (402) 437-5493, Fax:
(402) 437-5495.
Number of Foster Grandparents (FGP)............................... 18
Program Summary.--Eighteen of the seventy Foster Grandparents of
the Eastern Nebraska Office on Aging serve children in nine schools of
the Omaha and Fremont Public School system. Over 300 children per week
benefit from the knowledge, patience, and understanding the Foster
Grandparents give in an effort to maximize the learning potential of
each individual child. Foster Grandparents work one-on-one with
children in the schools to provide the extra attention needed to learn
the fundamentals of reading, writing, and math.
nevada
Community Chest, The Pinon Service Project Coalition, PO Drawer
980, 991 South ``C'' Street, Virginia City, NV 89440, Telephone: (702)
847-9311, Contact: Deborah Loesch-Griffin.
Program Summary.--The Pinon Service Project Coalition will recruit
twelve part time and two full time corps members from the University of
Nevada-Reno's College of Education and College of Human and Community
Sciences to serve as service-learning coordinators in one of eight
kindergarten through twelfth grade partner schools and/or in community
based organizations or in one of four UNR colleges or departments to
work with faculty. Corps members will work with student volunteers in
the development and implementation of direct service projects involving
youth services, educational programs and after school latchkey
programs. Whenever possible, service-learning coordinators will be
placed at existing School to Work and Learn and Serve sites, resulting
in an integrative educational reform strategy that provides
opportunities for students to learn in their communities by serving and
working while applying their classroom-based academic learning.
new hampshire
New Hampshire National & Community Service Executive Board, New
Hampshire Reads, 2 Industrial Park Drive, Concord, NH 03301, Telephone:
(603) 225-3295, Contact: Brian Hoffman.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 35
Program Summary.--This program is a coalition of service providers
that meet the needs of young children. AmeriCorps members will work
with coalition agencies to recruit volunteers to provide literacy
services and tutoring for children from infancy through third grade.
AmeriCorps members will also run a camp to help at-risk children
maintain their academic achievement levels during the summer, when
skills tend to ``drop off'' during school vacation. Members are placed
with agencies across the state and will facilitate the improvement of
school readiness and reading skills of 2,700 children and their
families.
new jersey
New Jersey Commission on National & Community Service, A+ for Kids
Mercer County Reads Project, 2 Village Blvd., 2nd Floor Forrestal
Village, Princeton, NJ 08540, Telephone: (609) 951-0332, Fax: (609)
951-0644, Contact: Joyce Kersey.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Program Summary.--Mercer County Reads participates in the America
Reads initiative by having twenty AmeriCorps members provide literacy
tutoring to 190 students at the district's most troubled school. They
also offer after-school homework assistance and run a summer reading
lab. Members also focus on tutoring and mentoring service for children
and parents in transitional housing, with an emphasis on employable
skills for parents.
new mexico
Santa Fe Boys & Girls Club, P.O. Box 2403, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
Telephone: (505) 983-6632. Contact: Chris Cavazos.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 2
Program Summary.--The AmeriCorps*VISTA members with the Santa Fe
Boys & Girls Club have been tremendously successful in developing the
educational infrastructure of the public housing community. The
members, in collaboration with the Santa Fe Community College
AmeriCorps program, have recruited five volunteers to deliver
educational services on a daily basis to the 250 Club members. The
educational services include tutoring and peer reading. The
AmeriCorps*VISTA members have also organized a read-a-thon, which will
reward children with gift certificates from local restaurants upon the
completion of reading and writing descriptions of approximately 20
books. Currently a member is developing a family literacy program and
organizing community college adult basic education classes to be held
at the Boys & Girls Club. Santa Fe AmeriCorps*VISTA members are working
to strengthen the educational infrastructure of low-income communities
so all people will have the opportunity to develop their capacity.
new york
Jumpstart AmeriCorps Program, 93 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110,
Telephone: (617) 542-5867, Fax: (617) 542-2557, Contact: Dianne
Morales.
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 120
Number of federal work study students............................. 99
Program Summary.--Jumpstart is a nonprofit geared to school
readiness activities for children and their families, while providing
young people (who are mostly college students) with a training program
that results in early childhood certification. Jumpstart engages young
people in service to their communities by preparing pre-school age
children to enter school.
Members are paired with a preschool-age child, engaging the child
and his or her family in school readiness activities, particularly
around early childhood literacy. Members garner community interest and
support through an annual ``Children Across the City'' day, where
parents, their children, and other community members are introduced to
a variety of learning activities for preschool age children.
north carolina
Student Coalition for Action in Literacy Education (SCALE),
National Clearinghouse, 140\1/2\ E. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC
27599, Telephone: (919) 962-1542, Fax: (919) 962-6020, Contact: Ed
Chaney.
Program Summary.--SCALE is a National Clearinghouse for campus
volunteer and service-learning literacy programs, and America Reads
work study programs receive training and support from SCALE staff.
SCALE provides regional training, individual site visits, and a
national conference. SCALE also supports networking opportunities
through training, conference, newsletters, and Internet technologies.
SCALE also provides campuses with written materials, phone support, and
resource referrals. SCALE is providing national leadership in the
development of high-quality federal work study America Reads programs.
north dakota
South/North Dakota Reads, Corporation for National Service, South/
North Dakota State Office, 225 South Pierre Street, Room 225, Pierre,
South Dakota 57501, Telephone: (605) 224-5996, Fax: (605) 224-9201,
Contact: John Pohlman.
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers.. 64
Program Summary.--In Bismarck, twenty-five RSVP volunteers are
involved with the Pairing Adults with Students (PAW's) program, which
works with twenty-five students in first through third grade.
Volunteers mentor and provide help with homework assignments that
include reading.
ohio
RSVP of Greater Cleveland, Inc., 2611 Church Avenue, Cleveland, OH
44113, Telephone: (216) 566-9192, Contact: Joy Banish.
1Number of National Senior Service Corps.......................... 18
Program Summary.--The Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of
Greater Cleveland, Inc. is collaborating with four other national
service partners to implement ``Seniors for Schools'' in for elementary
schools. A total of fifty-two senior volunteers will participate, with
thirty-two providing intensive service of more than fifteen hours
weekly. Twenty additional senior volunteers will work in after-school
programs or parental involvement efforts. A total of 200 children will
benefit from the services of the senior volunteers. The high poverty
rates in the communities targeted by ``Seniors for Schools'' have
severe implications for reading resources available in the community,
and the initiative will also increase the number of kindergarten
through grade three books available in lending libraries by 200 books
during the 24-month grant period. Working collaboratively with
teachers, a learning specialist, and team members, the senior
volunteers will primarily provide one-on-one tutoring to the children.
This initiative will also develop systems to increase parental and
community involvement. Currently, 380 children are being reached.
oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Libraries, 200 NE 18th Street, Oklahoma
City, OK 73105, Telephone: (405) 521-2502, Contact: Robert Clark.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 11
Program Summary.--The Oklahoma Department of Libraries, a statewide
AmeriCorp*VISTA literacy project, has successfully raised $75,000 in
financial contributions and has received approximately 50,000 books by
mobilizing community volunteers to organize 10K races, book bank
drives, PSA's through local media, and letter writing campaigns. The
books were donated to rural public libraries throughout the state of
Oklahoma. In Tulsa, the AmeriCorp*VISTA members successfully
implemented a campaign with the help of Southwestern Bell telephone
company. Community volunteers picked up book donations and dropped them
off at a local bookstore. Southwestern Bell then picked up the books
and delivered them to community centers. In partnership with the
Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, two members are coordinating
the First Book project. The project promotes literacy and a love of
reading by getting books into the hands of children. By targeting those
living at or below the poverty level, members hope to reach children
who may not own any books. Two thousand books were distributed during
the first three months of the project.
oregon
Metropolitan Family Services, 2200 NE 24th Street, Portland, OR
97212, Telephone: (503) 331-5924, Contact: Shirley McCormack.
Number of National Senior Service Corps volunteers................ 11
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 2
Program Summary.--Metropolitan Family Services of Portland has
sponsored a Foster Grandparent Program site since 1965. In 1995, the
agency received an Experience Corps Demonstration grant, to use senior
volunteers as resources to children in schools operating
intergenerational projects, and successfully recruiting and retaining
seniors to provide significant services. Through the ``Seniors for
Schools'' Initiative, 300 kindergarten through third grade children in
three Portland elementary schools are receiving extensive assistance in
reading and literacy. An intensive corps of seniors are trained in
``Success for All,'' a comprehensive reading program to help at-risk
children read at or above grade level. Senior volunteer tutors work
one-on-one with selected students on a regular basis. The Learn and
Serve America project of Portland State University provides a series of
training sessions that utilize the talents of the university students,
while two AmeriCorps*VISTA members serve as liaisons, coordinators, and
capacity-builders. AmeriCorps*VISTA may also take on special projects
to increase resources for the initiative, involve the community, and
form strategic partnerships to sustain the project. The Northwest
Service Academy provides an AmeriCorps member who will also work in the
program.
pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Literacy Corps, Henry Avenue and School House Lane,
Philadelphia, PA 19144, Telephone: (215) 951-0343, Fax: (215) 951-0345,
Contact: Harry Silcox.
Program Summary.--Service learning participants receive credit for
English by tutoring second through fifth graders at neighboring
elementary schools--one-on-one for three days each week. Over the 32-
week course, 92,000 hours of service are performed for the community.
The High School Literacy Corps is centered around the practice of peer/
peer tutoring of elementary students by high school students three days
per week. A High School Literacy Corps is composed of thirty students
assigned to one teacher in an English classroom. Students are also
required to complete one service project under the supervision of the
teacher. Experienced program coordinators are hired to oversee and
coordinate the program in each state. In all, the coordinator will work
with twenty-three teachers and 760 tutors. The tutors will tutor 3,200
elementary children to improve reading skills. Each school receives
specialized literacy materials, training of teachers, grants, and
intensive training. In Pennsylvania, the concept of a literacy corps
within a school has been developed in ten sites and is hoping to expand
to an expected fifty elementary schools.
rhode island
Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI), 1762 Louisquisset Pike,
Lincoln, RI 02865, Telephone: (401) 333-7159 or (401) 333-7043,
Contact: Dean Becky Yount.
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 2
Program Summary.--Two AmeriCorps*VISTA members were placed with the
Community College of Rhode Island which has campuses in Warwick,
Lincoln, and Providence as well as satellite campuses. The members will
develop an America Reads program for all campuses as well as a service-
learning program at the Providence campus. Initial school districts to
be targeted include Providence, West Warwick, Woonsocket, East
Providence, and Warwick. These efforts will also be coordinated with
the expanded federal work study program. At least 60 students in
kindergarten through third grade will receive tutoring and mentoring;
at least five CCRI faculty will implement America Reads activities as
part of the service-learning component of their courses; and a
volunteer fair will be held, involving at least 10 agencies seeking
volunteers in which at least 50 students will participate.
south carolina
South Carolina Commission on National & Community Service, Lander
University & Upper Savannah Consortium for Child & Family Advancement,
303 Willson Street, Greenwood, SC 29649, Telephone: (864) 388-8110,
Fax: (864) 388-8812, Contact: Kellye Vittone.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Number of part-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members tutor and mentor over 200
students ages 4 to 14 who are at high risk of school failure due to
academic, self-esteem, and attitude challenges. Members also tutor 300
students ages 6 to 14 to help them achieve state standards in reading,
math, and written language skills. An additional forty students ages 4
and 5 who are not ready to learn are tutored to achieve appropriate age
level skills. Members also recruit additional volunteers, engage
students in service-learning activities, and encourage and support
parents and community members to utilize university resources. Members
serve in one of eleven sites.
south dakota
South/North Dakota Reads, Corporation for National Service, South/
North Dakota State Office, 225 South Pierre Street, Room 225, Pierre,
South Dakota 57501, Telephone: (605) 224-5996, Fax: (605) 224-9201,
Contact: John Pohlman.
Number of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) members..... 64
Program Summary.--In Webster, eleven RSVP members are placed in
five schools helping students get up to their appropriate grade level
in reading. In Sturgis, eight RSVP members are placed in Sturgis
Elementary School addressing the reading difficulties of students using
the EDMARK reading/phonics program. In Pierre, twenty RSVP members are
placed in elementary schools, Head Start centers and latchkey programs.
This past summer, the Reading Buddy Program matched RSVP volunteers
with children in grades one to three, who helped them with their
reading once a week.
tennessee
Tennessee Commission on National & Community Service, Nashville
READ, Inc., 421 Great Circle Road, Suite 104, Nashville, TN 37228,
Telephone: (615) 255-4982, Fax: (615) 255-4783, Contact: Carol Thigpin.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 20
Program Summary.--AmeriCorps members tutor 240 reluctant readers in
grades one to three to increase reading comprehension; teach parents of
1,800 children how to assist their children in reading; and create book
instructional aids for 1,800 parents to use at home. Members serve at
one of twenty sites in Nashville. A total of 120 volunteers are
utilized in service activities.
texas
Houston READ Commission, 5330 Griggs Road, # 75, Houston, TX 77021,
Telephone: (713) 228-1801, Contact: Jeanette Manazero.
Number of full-time AmeriCorps members............................ 60
Number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members................................ 9
Program Summary.--The Houston READ Commission and the Houston
Community College have partnered to allow federal work-study students
to work as reading tutors for children at community-based and
elementary school programs in their support of America Reads. The
effort supports 60 full-time AmeriCorps members at 34 different sites,
as well as federal work study students and VISTA's in partnerships with
schools, recreation departments, congregations, libraries, and Girl
Scout groups to match learners with reading partners using the
Department of Education's READ*WRITE*NOW program materials. The
AmeriCorps*VISTA members are recruiting, training, and tracking
participants to ensure sustainability and to measure progress.
utah
Salt Lake County Government Center, Edison Elementary School, 2001
S. State Street, Suite 32100, Salt Lake City, UT 84190-2710, Telephone:
(801) 481-4846, Contact: Marsha Kellogg.
Number of federal work-study students............................. 10
Number of AmeriCorps members...................................... 5
Program Summary.--Edison School is an inner-city school in which 97
percent of the students are at poverty level, nineteen languages are
spoken, and twenty-two cultures are represented. Students at Edison
typically fall behind a half grade level each year. Through the efforts
of AmeriCorps members, Senior Corps volunteers, and other community
volunteers trained in the Reading One to One Program, students receive
up to 100 tutoring sessions per year.
vermont
Literacy in the Kingdom, 1 Vail Hill, Lyndon State College,
Lyndonville, VT 05851, Telephone: (802) 626-6357, Fax: (802) 626-9770,
Contact: Anne Brown.
Number of reduced part-time AmeriCorps members.................... 20
Program Summary.--Twenty AmeriCorps members and numerous community
volunteers are working in ten schools, libraries, and agencies to
increase the literacy of children in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont
in kindergarten through third grade. The program is sponsored by Lyndon
State College and is modeled after the New Zealand design of ``PM
Readers.'' The first goal of the program is to help children in
Kindergarten through the third grade attain an ability to read and
write at or above grade level. The second goal--which targets welfare
recipients and under-employed and unemployed citizens--is to enhance
adult literacy and problem solving skills.
virginia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 202 Major
Williams (0168), Blacksburg, VA 24061, Telephone: (540) 231-6947, Fax:
(540) 231-6367, Contact: Michele James-Deramo.
Program Summary.--While continuing to place students at local non-
profit agencies, schools, and organizations to meet identified
community needs, the Service-Learning Center at Virginia Tech this year
will foster faculty and student leadership through Faculty Innovation
Grants, a Service Scholars program and a publication of faculty essays
on the integration of technology and service-learning instruction. The
Center's mentoring program will reach 300 youth in kindergarten through
eighth grade using interactive technologies with the goal of improving
the students' basic skill areas such as reading and writing.
washington
Washington Commission on National and Community Service, Washington
Reading Corps, 515 15th Avenue, SE, Mail Stop 43134, Olympia, WA 98504-
3134, Telephone: (360) 902-0663, Contact: Bill Basl.
Program Summary.--Governor Locke has proposed a Washington Reading
Corps that will mobilize 25,000 volunteers who will provide reading
tutoring for 82,000 students under the direction of 5,500 teachers.
Governor Locke has provided $23.8 million from the state budget for
this effort. Tutoring will be provided before and after school, on
Saturdays, and during the summer with each student receiving a minimum
of 80 hours of instruction. Tutor and teacher training will be provided
by the Superintendent of Public Instructions and the Educational
Service Districts. Statewide plans to include AmeriCorps*VISTA,
AmeriCorps*State and National, and the National Senior Service Corps in
the America Reads effort have been developed and are in the process of
being implemented.
west virginia
West Virginia Commission for National and Community Service, Energy
Express AmeriCorps, West Virginia University Extension Service, 702
Knapp Hall, P.O. Box 6031, Morgantown, WV 26506-6031, Telephone: (304)
293-2694, Fax: (304) 293-7599, Contact: Ruthellen Phillips, Ed. D.
Number of part-time AmeriCorps Members............................ 326
Program Summary.--Through an innovative summer program in fifty-
five sites across the state, over 300 AmeriCorps members promote summer
reading and writing skills & nutritional well-being for 3,000 low-
income/rural school-age children, lead student community service
projects, and ensure that all children obtain two nutritional meals a
day throughout the summer months. Members also involve parents and
community members as summer volunteers. In 1996, 71 percent of all
children served increased in reading comprehension and more than 14,000
volunteer hours were contributed statewide.
wisconsin
University of Wisconsin-River Falls, RDI Building, 410 South 3rd
Street, River Falls, WI 54022, Telephone: (715) 425-0608, Fax: (715)
425-4479, Contact: Florence Monsour.
Program Summary.--This consortium of six campuses in the University
of Wisconsin system will advance service-learning across the state by
partnering with a two year college and a kindergarten through twelfth
grade school district. The program goal is to assist the partner
institutions in developing service-learning programs which are
accessible to all students and are jointly supported by Academic
Affairs, Student Affairs, and Student Government. Each institution will
submit a plan for implementing service-learning into teacher education
and selected portions of their curriculum, and incorporating student
affairs and student government into the service-learning efforts on
their campus. During the first year, the project will provide training
to teacher education faculty, additional faculty, student affairs staff
and student government on how to implement service-learning and
integrate it into the curriculum. During the second year, training will
broaden to include partner two year institutions, and kindergarten
through twelfth grade school districts will be added in year three.
Many of the projects initiated and addresses will focus on literacy
skills.
wyoming
NOWCAP Foster Grandparent Program, 319 South 6th Street,
Thermopolis, WY, 82003, Contact: Ilene Johnson.
Number of Foster Grandparents (FGP)............................... 12
Program Summary.--Students in the Lander Public Schools have shown
a major improvement in reading from the 1995-96 to the 1996-97 school
year. This is in part due to the work of the twelve Foster Grandparents
working with children in an innovative approach called Pegasus, a
reading and language arts program in which grandparents help children
in a one-on-one approach. Sixty first graders were tutored by twelve
Foster Grandparents serving twenty hours per week for nine months.
puerto rico
Consejo de Salud de la Comunidad de la Playa de Ponce, Inc., Foster
Grandparent Program, P.O.Box 254, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731, Contact
Person: Ana A. Martinez.
Number of Foster Grandparents (FGP)............................... 3
Program Summary.--In Ponce, more than 90 percent of those enrolled
in public schools are at or below poverty level. Twenty-seven first
through third grade students in Andres Grillasca Salas Elementary
School were tutored by three Foster Grandparents in basic reading. The
Foster Grandparents provided twenty minutes daily with their assigned
student, for a total of nine students each.
examples of national service programs addressing literacy
Mr. Wofford. I would say, from my own point of view, the
various programs in children's education and literacy are the
proudest parts, ranking right now next to the disaster relief,
alongside of the disaster relief work of AmeriCorps members.
Two-thirds of our AmeriCorps assignments, approximately,
are in the broad field of education, and before the Presidents'
Summit in Philadelphia, the Corporation set the goal of
effective education and literacy for every child. Before
President Clinton proclaimed the idea of America Reads, our
Board had concluded that this should be a priority of the
Corporation.
Senator Bond. Do these AmeriCorps volunteers spend their
time reading to children in the afternoons? What is their
function? What is it that they do?
Mr. Wofford. I have to convey to you the array of different
approaches because we do not organize these. These are
competitive grants based on applications from local literacy
programs.
The grants go to those literacy programs. They might be a
university literacy program working with the school system. In
some cases, it is a school system that applies. They have a
great diversity in what they do.
Senator Nunn's daughter runs Hands On Atlanta, which has an
outstanding record of more than 100 AmeriCorps members who run
what has been awarded the highest recognitions around Atlanta
for intense afterschool tutoring programs.
In some places, there is direct teaching. The Alliance for
Catholic Education, run by Notre Dame in cooperation with the
United States Catholic Conference, and the University of
Portland have some 120 teachers, outstanding college graduates,
who commit themselves to teach for 2 years on AmeriCorps terms
of about $8,000 a year in living allowance in the hardest
pressed Catholic schools of 9 Southern States.
They actually teach. They are not all in elementary
schools, but the teachers in elementary schools, after training
at Notre Dame and as part of earning a Master's in teaching,
are doing direct, intense teaching of reading in hard-pressed
minority-serving schools.
Senator Bond. While that is very important, it would seem
to me that we will never be able to get enough AmeriCorps
volunteers to read to all the children that need to be read to,
that need to be tutored. I would expect that a program like
this would utilize volunteers to organize much broader
activities and to do community outreach.
I have spent a good bit of time traveling around my State
to various school districts to read to children not for the
purpose of my teaching a child to read but to emphasize to
every adult in the community, whether it is a parent, a
grandparent, an aunt, an uncle, a neighbor, or a day care
provider, the importance of it. There just are not enough
AmeriCorps volunteers to go around.
It would seem to me that utilization of these resources in
an effort to expand community reading programs bringing in more
participants from the community would have a much broader
impact than attempting to use an AmeriCorps volunteer one on
one.
It may be very good for the particular child or children
who get the help, but we don't have that many AmeriCorps
volunteers.
Mr. Wofford. Mr. Chairman, you stated the strategy and the
purpose of the extra funds given last year and this year being
requested for assistance to children's literacy through
AmeriCorps.
All of the VISTA increase in the other committee is in the
form of AmeriCorps*VISTA members who almost entirely do the
organizing of programs, the recruiting of unpaid volunteers,
exactly what you said. The Philadelphia Reads was launched
yesterday by Mayor Rendell with an outstanding literacy leader
of the Nation who is going to be running it. Her key people are
two AmeriCorps*VISTA members. So all of the increase in VISTA
is in that form.
Most of the assignments that AmeriCorps members will have
is the organizing of the volunteer tutors as the top priority.
They may be work study or other college volunteer tutors. They
may be volunteers from corporations. But the AmeriCorps members
will be a cadre of leaders and organizers. It is the volunteer
generator model that we are committed to in all parts of
AmeriCorps, but especially in the reading initiative.
Senator Bond. That makes the most sense to me.
reducing costs and the education-award-only program
I have one last question for you. The appropriations bill
last year required the Corporation to reduce the total Federal
costs per participant in all programs. What affirmative steps
have you taken to reduce the Federal cost per participant in
the program?
Mr. Wofford. We also had the agreement of a 1\1/2\ years,
going on 2 years ago, with Senator Grassley that we will bring
down the average budgeted cost per AmeriCorps member from what
was $18,000 approximately to $15,000 per member by fiscal year
1999.
We are completely on track on that, Mr. Chairman. We are at
about $16,000 per member this year. We have achieved that by,
first, setting for our own National Direct grants a cap that
brings it down to that level. That includes, Mr. Chairman, the
nearly $5,000 educational award in the $15,000, and the $10,000
covers the approximately $8,000 living allowance.
So it is a very lean system. It is getting very close to
the VISTA model and the Peace Corps model of just supplying the
people power and not additional, substantial additional
support, except to startup programs.
We also have made a major breakthrough this year toward
cost reduction by running with the ball that Senator Grassley
threw to us of the model of not providing the living allowances
from the Corporation or the Federal Government at all, but to
leave the support of the AmeriCorps members to organizations
that can sustain it and organize it. The Corporation
contributes the education award of about $5,000. We started
this on a larger scale shortly after Senator Grassley and I
agreed to run with it. We had a pilot program which he knew
about in urging us to move on that model. It had reached maybe
the level of 1,500 in that form.
The President at the Presidents' Summit in Philadelphia
challenged faith-based organizations and nonprofits, great
nonprofits, to respond. We have now 14,000 of the AmeriCorps
members who are going to be in that model, going on 15,000.
So if you see Senator Grassley before I do, you should tell
him how grateful we are that he urged us on to what I think is
one of the most promising tracks, the religious organizations.
About 1,000 or more of these AmeriCorps positions are with the
Methodists, and 1,000 with the Catholics, and so on. All told,
more than 5,000 Education-Award-Only AmeriCorps members serve
with faith-based organizations.
Senator Bond. I would ask you to submit that for the
record, we can dispense with the listing.
Mr. Wofford. Yes; I would like to do so very much.
[The information follows:]
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States
1997-98 Placement of AmeriCorps members
The National Council of Churches anticipates that the following
member communions and related faith-based community outreach programs
will utilize the following numbers:
United Methodist.................................................. 1,100
Catholic Church................................................... 1,000
Mennonite Church.................................................. 450
Church of the Brethren............................................ 275
Black Denominations (e.g., African Methodist Episcopal Church).... 1,000
United Church of Christ........................................... 270
Other smaller communions and faith-based communions............... 1,325
Smaller communions and faith-based communions include:
American Baptist Churches
Lutheran Church
Reformed Church of America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Episcopal Church
Christian Church (Disciples)
Quakers (Society of Friends)
Note: All information is based on National Council of Churches'
projections of placing 5,420 AmeriCorps members through their faith-
based member communions.
The National Council of Churches does enroll from all its member
communions and continues to encourage all their involvement in the
program. Those communions are:
Member Communions of the National Council of Churches
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
American Baptist Churches in the USA
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Armenian Church of America
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of the Brethren
Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Friends United Meeting
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America (General Assembly of the)
Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India
Moravian Church in America
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Polish National Catholic Church of America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Reformed Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
The Swedenborgian Church
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
United Church of Christ
The United Methodist Church
questions for the inspector general
Senator Bond. I appreciate your answers. I would like now
to invite Ms. Luise Jordan to come forward to answer a few
questions now as the inspector general.
Welcome, Ms. Jordan. I thought I would ask you to comment
since we have been talking about the reforms that are
necessary. I understand the Corporation has made additional
progress toward balancing its books and straightening them out.
I would like to know your analysis of the Corporation's
current status with regard to financial management and what
steps still need to be addressed.
Ms. Jordan. In 5 minutes or less?
Senator Bond. We will give you the opportunity to submit
the full answer for the record. But I would appreciate just for
the purpose of this discussion your summation of the areas
where you think, overall, the progress has occurred. Has the
progress been good? If not, what is lacking? What needs to be
done.
Ms. Jordan. The progress has been slow. I am not so sure
that I would characterize it as always good. Progress has been
made, but often I believe progress has been the result of
external forces. There is a commitment that has been ongoing
for the last 3 or 4 months to improve not only financial
management but the management of the Corporation overall.
As far as the new plan is concerned, auditability is a good
goal and a clean opinion is an admirable goal. But I would not
advocate that alone. I would advocate good financial management
overall; and, as a result of good financial management,
auditability and clean opinions on the Corporation's financial
statements would automatically come.
Overall management in other areas--in my semiannual report,
I have talked about the need for better oversight of the
grants, I have talked about the need for better audit followup,
and I still believe that these are other issues the Corporation
needs to address. They are addressing them. But the progress
has been slow.
Senator Bond. We will want your continued assessment. We
have a process here that I hope will provide progress that is
no longer slow and that is more frequently good.
So this is a challenge to Senator Wofford and his staff,
and we need your continuing oversight to give us an idea on how
effective the reforms and the plan is.
Mr. Wofford. We need her assessment and help as she has
been giving it actively. We will be working very closely with
the inspector general.
We will get it done, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. We will count on you doing that.
I think that the rest of the questions can be handled by
submission. On behalf of all of my colleagues--there are many
other things going on today--I will tell you that we will leave
the record open to allow them to submit questions.
Obviously, there are certain things that we asked today
that may require a fuller explanation and we would welcome that
from you, Senator Wofford, and from you, Ms. Jordan.
subcommittee recess
Thank you very much.
The hearing is recessed.
Mr. Wofford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Thursday, March 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:36 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Burns, Craig, Mikulski, and
Lautenberg.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF ANDREW CUOMO, SECRETARY
OPENING Statement OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. The Senate VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing will come to order.
My good friend and ranking member, Senator Mikulski, has
fallen victim to the heavy Washington traffic this morning and
suggested that we get started.
I want to welcome Secretary Cuomo and our other guests for
being with us this morning. Secretary Cuomo will be testifying
on the President's fiscal year budget request for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, followed by Under
Secretary John Hawke, Department of the Treasury, and Ms. Ellen
Lazar, Director of the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund, who will be testifying on the fiscal year
1999 budget for the Community Development Financial
Institutions program.
president's budget request
The President's budget request for HUD proposes a budget of
$25 billion for HUD which is an increase of some $900 million
over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $24.1 billion. As
always, these budget numbers tell only part of the story.
Despite a number of questionable assumptions in the President's
budget request, this subcommittee is confronted with the very
difficult task of complying with the discretionary budget caps
established in last year's budget agreement which provide for
no real growth in nondefense discretionary spending.
In particular, this subcommittee will need to meet the
increased EPA costs, including calls for increased funding for
Superfund cleanup, to meet escalating costs for the
international space station, to fund fully veterans medical and
benefit needs, to fund adequately elderly and disabled housing,
which is never provided adequately for in the President's
budget, and to provide the funding necessary to pay for both
the expanding costs of FEMA disaster relief, as well as the
exploding costs associated with the renewal of expiring section
8 contracts.
2020 management reform program
First, Mr. Secretary, I want to compliment you on the
progress that you are making in implementing HUD's 2020
management reform plan which is designed to rebuild public
trust in the Department through management and program reform,
in conjunction with downsizing the Department from 13,000 staff
in 1992 to 7,500 staff in 2002.
We have discussed the need to maintain adequate staffing to
ensure there is quality in the delivery of HUD program services
during this transition, and I know you share my concerns that
the success of each program must remain the primary concern and
focus of the Department as you continue to implement the
administration's staff downsizing requirements.
I see a number of our friends from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development here. I would like you all to
stand up and be recognized. Would everybody from HUD stand up?
How many have we got here? Well, thank you all very much for
being here. Obviously, we have not downsized too much.
[Laughter.]
But I want to express to all of you through the Secretary
our appreciation for the heavy workload that you are carrying
and for the difficult tasks ahead. With downsizing comes added
responsibility on the men and women of HUD. Please know that
while we are looking very carefully at your work, we do
appreciate your hard work and we look forward to working with
you to achieve the goals that we all share.
There is much to be done. HUD is responsible for over 240
programs and activities, including such important programs as
the public housing program, the section 8 program, the
Community Development Block Grant program, the HOME program,
the McKinney Homeless Assistance programs, the section 202 and
811 programs, and the FHA mortgage insurance programs.
Some liken HUD to the tragic sinking of the Titanic. Only
here we have the ship of HUD with a cargo of important housing
and community development programs that is steaming toward a
better world. Instead of making port, this ship of HUD is torn
apart by structural weaknesses and deficiencies in HUD's
housing and community development programs, as well as an
overload of activities and programs. The question for you, Mr.
Secretary, is whether you as captain of the ship of HUD can
correct the damage and change the course in time to save the
ship.
We do not know yet, but I am reminded, however, that HUD
has had many captains and course corrections over the last few
years and there are still problems with the ship. Further, I am
reminded that HUD continues to be designated by GAO as a high-
risk area vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,
and both the HUD inspector general, whom we are delighted to
have with us, and the National Academy of Public Administration
have identified substantial concerns with HUD's ability to
administer its programs and meet its statutory requirements.
These concerns must be resolved.
largest financial institution
As a matter of fiscal responsibility, HUD is one of the
Nation's largest financial institutions with sizable
commitments, obligations, and exposure. HUD is responsible for
managing more than $400 billion worth of insured mortgages,
$485 billion in outstanding mortgage-backed securities, and
some $180 billion in prior year's budget authority for which it
has future financial commitments.
Moreover, there are a number of obvious program and
management deficiencies that currently threaten HUD like the
iceberg threatened the Titanic, some above the surface and some
below the surface. For example, I commend your leadership, Mr.
Secretary, for HUD's diligent efforts to identify and reserve
all excess section 8 contract reserves. Last year HUD made a
surprise announcement of finding $5.8 billion in excess section
8 contract reserves held by public housing authorities. This
year the HUD fiscal year 1999 budget recommends using the
remaining $3.7 billion in excess section 8 reserves to help
fund the $10.9 billion needed to fund all expiring section 8
contracts in fiscal year 1999. That is responsible budgeting
and I appreciate what you are doing.
market-to-market legislation
In addition, I worked with you, as well as a number of
other members of this subcommittee, particularly Senator
Mikulski, and the Banking Committee with Senator D'Amato,
Senator Mack, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Kerry, to pass
successfully the section 8 Mark-to-Market legislation that will
restructure the funding of section 8 project-based multifamily
housing to reduce the costs of housing and preserve this
housing for low-income families, especially the elderly. That
is another important achievement.
Nevertheless, within the next 10 years we will have the
financial reality that it will require more than $20 billion a
year to renew all expiring section 8 contracts. This cost is
without any new incremental section 8 contracts. However,
despite this cost and concern, I am now to understand that
HUD's mismanagement of the section 8 voucher program has
resulted in unauthorized and likely illegal use of a
substantial number of section 8 vouchers in a number of areas.
For example, I understand, at a cost of some $90 million
per year, some 13,000 vouchers, out of 77,000 vouchers, in New
York City were illegally issued and are currently in use. I
also understand that it is possible that there are as many as
50,000 illegally authorized section 8 vouchers currently in
use, and a financial obligation of this subcommittee?
On top of this, HUD is now coming in and asking for an
additional 100,000 new incremental vouchers. I think it is
clear that we first need to understand how many legal and
illegal vouchers are currently in use before we start talking
about funding new incremental vouchers.
mc kinney homeless continuum of care programs
Second, there is The McKinney Homeless Continuum of Care
programs that I support. Nevertheless, these programs appear to
be in substantial financial distress. Last year because of
apparent mismanagement at HUD, HUD ended up issuing three
separate notices of funding availability, or NOFA's, with
separate requirements to award the same fiscal year 1997
homeless assistance funds. This confusion has left a number of
local homeless assistance programs in disarray with the result
that I have heard complaints from around the country about good
programs being rejected for the renewal of McKinney homeless
assistance funding without cause.
For example in Missouri, a major concern, the Kitchens
program in Springfield, MO, was rejected for the renewal of its
homeless assistance grant despite its longstanding and
successful participation in HUD's homeless assistance programs.
It is a program of consistent high quality and there is a
demonstrated need in the community. Without these funds,
Kitchens as the available food supply and feeding program for
the homeless may have to close its doors. That is a serious
problem and a tragedy. Certainly, we know of other failures by
HUD to fund what appear to be successful and important homeless
assistance programs, but Kitchens I know works well and the
failure by HUD to fund this program is a grave concern to me.
fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental
Finally, a new red flag on the horizon, as if we did not
have enough. The fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental, as
you will recall, provided HUD with $500 million in emergency
CDBG funding intended to complement the funding of disaster
relief under FEMA and other disaster relief programs. This $500
million was an unprecedented amount of emergency CDBG funding
and HUD's implementation of this program continues to raise
significant issues regarding the use of objective criteria and
questions of accountability. I expected and my staff has
requested on a number of occasions a full accounting by HUD on
the procedures and process for allocating these funds, as well
as a specific accounting of all grant amounts, activities,
grantees, and beneficiaries. We have received only minimal
information at best and certainly not the amount or quality of
information needed to evaluate the use of these CDBG funds.
Accountability is critical, especially since Congress
currently is considering a fiscal year 1998 emergency
supplemental in which disaster relief is a prominent component.
This subcommittee especially needs information on this program,
as on all other programs, in order to evaluate their worth and
value.
To be quite frank, Mr. Secretary, I think we have a common
interest in making HUD's housing and community development
programs both work well and be financially responsible. We can
only do this with your cooperation and help. We look forward to
working with you and we appreciate the cooperative attitude
that you and your top management have had. I understand, that
is why I recognized the members of HUD, that we have a very
difficult task that we have to pursue and we will only succeed
by working together.
Finally, I emphasize the continued need of the Department
to redirect the responsibility for HUD programs and activities
from the Federal Government to State and local decisionmaking.
Programs like CDBG and HOME work well because of local control
and decisionmaking where HUD is, at most, the junior partner in
directing the use of block grant funds.
This is critical. No longer can or should the Federal
Government do it all. We cannot do it all. The future of
successful housing and community development resides at the
State and local level where other State, local, private, and
nonprofit resources can be leveraged to expand the availability
of affordable housing and to create new economic development
initiatives. Most important, State and local decisions respond
best to State and local needs.
We look forward to hearing your comments, but first it is
my pleasure to turn to my distinguished ranking member, Senator
Mikulski. Welcome, Senator.
Statement OF BARBARA MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me begin
by welcoming the Secretary of HUD, Mr. Andrew Cuomo, for his
second hearing before this subcommittee and a welcome to his
entire team, the Budget Officer and others who operate HUD, and
also to the inspector general, Ms. Gaffney, whose valuable
advice has been enormously helpful to both me and this
subcommittee.
I also want to extend my welcome to the new Director of the
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Ellen Lazar.
Ms. Lazar is a constituent of mine from Maryland who worked
several years for the Maryland-based Enterprise Foundation
which was really founded by the great visionary for urban
economic development Jim Rouse. We look forward to hearing from
her and John Hawke, the Under Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, both HUD and CDFI are agencies with a mission
to help improve the conditions of local communities. Ultimately
this is a job of a Federal agency to help local communities be
able to help themselves and provide opportunity structures that
help people who practice self-help.
I have worked with four Secretaries at HUD and I want to
ensure that we will continue to work with Mr. Cuomo to make
sure that HUD fulfills its mission and that there are financial
and human resources available to do so.
First, I want to commend the Secretary and his new staff
team for producing and submitting the HUD budget to the
committee on time this year, which was a major breakthrough.
I also want to commend him for submitting a budget that
shows a strong commitment to several programs that I think are
important to local economic development, but also to take
important steps in management reform while streamlining the
work force. That is not always an easy job, and we want to
thank him for the important first steps and additional steps
that he has taken under the HUD stewardship. So, we look
forward to working with him on this.
issues important to economic development
There are several issues which I think are important to
economic development that emerged over the last few years: the
HOPE VI Program which is vital to rebuilding urban communities
with a new approach to public housing, the Brownfields Program
which could be a significant tool to older communities both
urban and rural, and then, of course, the lead abatement
program which is very much important for public health.
I know, Mr. Secretary, that you are working hard to try to
make HUD more effective and efficient. So, we will look forward
to hearing from you about your reforms.
implementing the fair housing act
But let me tell you my yellow flashing lights. Part of
HUD's fulfilling its mission to help people have safe and
decent housing is to assist in efforts to eliminate illegal and
despicable housing discrimination. That is why we look forward
to how the Fair Housing Act is being implemented, but I also
want to be sure that in implementing the Fair Housing Act we do
not ultimately end up in a situation whereby the way it is
being implemented denies opportunity to the very people we want
to help.
I want to focus on the disabled housing program because I
do not believe--and look forward to hearing from you what clear
guidance has been provided to State and local entities and
particularly the builders of housing that will house not only
the special subsidized programs for the disabled but the
private market and to be sure that they have clear guidelines,
consistent regulations, and a reliable way of enforcing so that
the supply is available while we guarantee removing the
barriers of access, both architectural and attitudinal.
Second, we also want to be clear that we are concerned
about the issue around the 202 elderly housing program. I am
concerned about the proposed cut of nearly $500 million to the
202 program. We have an increasing population of elderly
Americans who are aging in place and we are deeply concerned
about the cut.
But also I do not think they have come up with any new
ideas for housing for the elderly. I think giving them the
money, they will build, and they will come. So, we want to be
sure that there is new thinking as well as adequate resources.
In my own community, a faith-based organization Catholic
Charities is trying to see how they could, for people with very
modest incomes, provide the same kind of continuing retirement
community that the more well healed have, that the services are
there, that there is the social service coordinator.
Across the street from my former home in Fells Point were
faith-based units that were built called Lemco. When people
moved in, they were 60. They did not move out. They are now 80.
The building is getting old. The people are getting old and so
are our ideas. I think we need to make sure that our ideas on
housing for the elderly do not age in place the way the seniors
are themselves.
I also want to make sure that the vision and mission of
HOPE VI does not get lost and diminished. As you know, there
have been accusations that these projects are expensive, that
they are lavish, that it is costing $300,000 to build a
townhouse. This does not seem like what HOPE VI is, and we
would like clarification on that and look forward to hearing
what your management suggestions are to improve accountability
in HOPE VI so we can continue the program as a new tool.
Also we look forward to hearing about the brownfields. I
know that Senator Lautenberg has been a tremendous leader in
the Superfund sites, but it is the brownfields that offer us
the most tools to recover land and to be able to move on.
Those are the kinds of questions that I would like to raise
with you in this hearing. Questions related to CDFI I will save
for a later time. But I think you have got a real momentum
going on at HUD both in terms of mission, management, and
stewardship over the money. If we could deal with some of these
yellow flashing lights, I think it will even be able to move us
more forward in the same vigorous way that you have brought to
the program. You have really brought a vigor that I appreciate.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
Now, following the early bird rule, our next early bird was
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Mikulski. The early bird special.
Senator Bond. Yes; we hand out worms to late early birds.
[Laughter.]
Statement OF FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski.
I appreciate the opportunity to register some comments on HUD's
fiscal year 1999 budget request, and I want to welcome
Secretary Cuomo to this hearing.
The administration has worked hard under his diligent
guidance to restore accountability and credibility at HUD, and
we have talked about things many times, Mr. Secretary, and I
congratulate you on your efforts.
Although the task is not yet completed, it is safe to say
the atmosphere at HUD is far different today than it was just a
few years ago. The chairman was very specific as he outlined
some of the problems that we have to deal with. I sense, Mr.
Chairman, that the Secretary is prepared to take on these
assignments, as a matter of fact, with some vigor and some
gusto, if we can use the expression, to straighten things out.
We want the agency to function as it should. It is a very
important place in our society.
unsubsidized housing
But as we sort through the HUD funding for the coming year,
I want to ask my colleagues to keep a few housing statistics in
mind. From a 1997 study at Harvard, we found that two of three
extremely low-income households now live in unsubsidized
housing. Eighty percent of those households pay more than one-
half of their income for housing or live in structurally
inadequate housing. At least 4 million families nationwide are
on public housing waiting lists. Roughly 10 million households
are eligible for housing assistance but do not get it. For
every family in public housing, there are seven that qualify
but do not receive assistance.
It is fair to say these numbers speak for themselves. They
clearly illustrate that we must do more to improve housing
opportunities for Americans whose basic housing needs are not
being met.
I am pleased that HUD's fiscal year 1999 budget request
works toward this goal. It requests the largest level of
funding ever for homeless assistance. It proposes new vouchers
to help people find affordable housing and seeks to help more
Americans become homeowners.
economic development needs
I am also pleased that HUD's budget request emphasizes our
Nation's economic development needs. In my discussions with New
Jersey's mayors, the conversation always turns to the
following: How can our cities increase economic development
opportunities and produce more jobs so that we can get more
ratables and establish a more stable urban life?
HUD's budget request tackles this question head on. The
administration has proposed several innovative ideas to meet
these challenges such as vouchers to help people move from
welfare to work, the community empowerment fund to provide
businesses with startup capital in the urban centers to create
jobs, a second round of empowerment zones, and increased
funding for brownfields. Senator Mikulski highlighted the value
of brownfield restorations. We want to get these sites
converted to go from contaminated sites to usable, income
producing, job producing sites.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and
Senator Mikulski throughout this appropriations season, and I
thank Secretary Cuomo once again for these initiatives, hard
work, and results that we have seen thus far.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening comments. I
am here to listen and I have several questions to ask when we
get there. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Well, thank you very much.
With that, Mr. Secretary, let us turn to you for your
statement.
statement of andrew cuomo
Secretary Cuomo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking
member, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Craig.
First, let me take this opportunity to first thank the
committee for all the good work that we have been able to do
together. I think the reflections of the committee are correct.
We have made significant progress this past year, and I think
that is because of the relationship and the cooperation that we
have enjoyed both on a principal level and a staff level. I am
excited about what we have done. I am more excited about what
we can do together.
mark-to-market legislation
The Mark-to-Market legislation that we passed last year,
Mr. Chairman, was an historic piece of legislation. We were
trying to get that done for 4 years. It was the first major
piece of housing legislation in 5 years, and it was probably
one of the thorniest issues that we faced as a Department. It
was a very controversial issue. If we could address the so-
called Mark-to-Market problem, we can address anything
together.
You pointed out that we have the whole HUD team here. I
wanted to bring them because many of them are new members and I
wanted to give the committee an opportunity to put a face with
a name. I also wanted them to hear the sentiments of this
committee so when we go back and do our work, they have heard
firsthand your points and your concerns.
I have a quick presentation for the committee that gives
you a brief outline of what we are talking about. The committee
has made it clear to keep the presentation relatively short
because we have a limited amount of time, and I will go through
that at this time.
But, as a general comment on the opening statements that
the committee made, I think both points are fair. We have made
real progress. This is a fundamentally different Department
than it was just 1 year ago, but there are also yellow lights,
to use the ranking member's expression, icebergs ahead, to use
the chairman's expression, but I think what is important is we
see them. The iceberg in and of itself is not life-threatening
unless you do not see it. We see them. We see the yellow lights
and I believe we have altered our course to go around them. I
think you will start to get that sense in this presentation.
necessary reforms
In 1997 when I came before you for the appropriations
hearing, your mandate was clear. You said, Mr. Chairman, at
that time, ``We challenge you to make the necessary
administrative, management, and fiscal reforms that will
justify Congress' continued support of the agency.'' Ranking
member Senator Mikulski said, ``This is what we are looking
for, which is to stick to the mission. Let us make sure we make
wise use of the money and really pursue those management
priorities that I know you have in mind.''
We heard that message. We internalized it. We acted upon
it. We had a two-step process. Step one, clean HUD's own house.
Before we can get back into the housing business, we said we
had to clean our own house. Then, step two was get back to the
business of housing.
cleaning up the department
As far as step one is concerned, cleaning up the
Department, we have embarked on our management reform which we
religiously performed for the past year. HUD today is leaner
and stronger than it was 1 year ago. We are now down to about
9,200 employees. We have a plan that gets us to 7,500 by the
year 2002 with program consolidations as well as legislation
which would be necessary from this committee. But the HUD today
is a much different HUD, a much stronger HUD.
We have cracked down on waste, fraud, and abuse. There has
been a 325-percent increase in what we call debarments, which
are actions against the bad landlords, bad actors, that we have
been dealing with for a long period of time. We basically
kicked them out of the program. That is a debarment. That is up
325 percent.
We have in place for the first time a national evaluation
of our portfolio: What do we have out there, what does it look
like, how it is run--public housing, multifamily. We could not
tell you 1 year ago. We cannot tell you comprehensively today.
This time next year, we will with the first national physical
evaluation of our portfolio and financial assessment.
fiscal year 1999 budget
As you mentioned, this is the first year we had our budget
in on time. OMB said we were the first Federal Department to
have our budget in on time, not always an honor that we were
able to claim. We have done a lot of work on the financial
side. We have moved from 89 systems to 1 integrated system, so
the numbers add up at HUD.
We are changing the focus to client responsibility. We have
a new community builder which is a customer relations
acknowledgement, and we are doing a lot with new technology. We
won the Harvard Kennedy School of Government Award for use of
technology--Innovations in Government Award--which is the first
such award that HUD has ever won.
excellent vision for a new hud
We brought in Booz Allen. There were a lot of opinions on
how the management was going depending on your perspective and
your stance and your outlook in life. We brought in Booz Allen
to get a definitive view of how the Department is doing in
terms of management reform. They will be issuing a report
shortly. We have the draft inhouse. And the sum-up quote is,
``HUD appears to have an excellent vision for the new HUD and
in early 1998 appears to have made excellent progress toward
achieving the management reforms that are critical to making
the Department perform effectively.'' And that is Booz Allen
who, when it comes to this, most people would say are an
authoritative source.
Step two then--what you start to see in this budget--and it
is a budget that we are excited about--says we have started the
management reforms. We have made good progress on the
management reforms. We are not saying we are done with the
management reforms. We have a lot more to do, but now we can
start to get to step two which is getting back into the
business that the Department was meant to. Two steps. One, get
back into the housing business. Step two, putting the UD back
in HUD, the ranking member's point. HUD at one time did a lot
in economic development, urban development. We lost that
capacity over the past decade. We want to reenergize that.
As far as the urban development, the economic development,
Senator Mikulski's point, this economy is going great guns.
Fifteen million new jobs, signs of economic progress
everywhere, but when you look at where those jobs are being
created, they are not being created in central cities. Only 13
percent of the jobs are in central cities. So, the economy is
going very well. It is not doing especially well in cities. Put
on top of that the demands for welfare reform. It will make a
bad situation worse.
For example, the city of Philadelphia has an excellent
mayor--Mayor Ed Rendell. Over the past 2 years, with the
strongest economy in history, Philadelphia lost 600 jobs. Great
mayor, best economy in history. They lost 600 jobs. How many do
they need for welfare reform over the next 5 years? Fifty
thousand jobs.
In Detroit, they are 75,000 jobs short just to meet the
needs of the people coming off welfare.
In St. Louis, they are 7,000 jobs short just for the people
coming off welfare, and that is with the strongest economy.
Cities are often at a competitive disadvantage today in
competing for businesses and jobs. We are saying let us work
with the cities the way we did at one time to get those jobs
back in the cities, and we have some ideas to do that.
housing
Getting back into the housing business, the housing picture
is very clear. Fiscal year 1996 is the first year since they
started keeping numbers that the production of affordable
housing in this Nation went below zero. Fiscal year 1996 was
the first time since they started keeping numbers. In every
other year, we have produced more units than we lost. We
produced at one time 300,000 units per year, 200,000 units per
year in the 1970's and the 1980's. In 1996, we went to a net
negative, first time in history, with the strongest economy.
When we had slower economies, when we were in recession, we
were building more affordable housing than we are building
today.
Well, maybe we do not have the same need, one could query.
Actually we have the highest need that we have ever had in
history. So, you have two facts coincident: the lowest
production of affordable housing and the highest need in
history. That is the story of housing as we stand here today
with the Department whose first name is housing.
reserve account
On some of the points that were raised, if I could just
touch on them quickly, and I understand, Mr. Chairman, that
time is limited, but the chairman made a point on the section 8
program, which is a major piece in our budget.
The section 8 program operates with a reserve account. The
reserve account was the subject of much scrutiny last year, as
the chairman pointed out, that it was hard to define how much
remains in reserves. We went back to the reserve account. We
worked on the reserve account. We came up with the specific
number, and that number in the reserve account was eligible for
housing authorities to lease section 8 units against. That was
the Department's policy. In other words, the housing authority
had a reserve account. They could use that reserve account to
issue section 8's.
no leasing against reserve account
When we worked together last year to clean up the reserve
accounts, one of the things the committee said was we do not
want them using those reserves to lease against anymore. We
said fine. We put out a new notice that said no longer lease
against the reserve account. That practice must stop. We put
out that notice.
Several weeks ago, there was a very strong response from
housing authorities against that notice because they said you
would actually be displacing people. We got significant concern
from certain Senators saying you would be displacing people,
and that was not the intention.
So, as an administrative reform, we said you could no
longer lease against that reserve account. The response was we
would be displacing people, and the position the Department
took last week was those units that you have already leased you
can keep, but you cannot lease any more units. We thought that
was the best compromise position without actually displacing
people.
The 50,000 vouchers, section 8's, that you referred to are
against those leased reserve account. The reason we know about
it is because we fixed it subject to our work from last year.
The 50,000 are on a base of 1.4 million that are issued.
When you use the word illegal, Mr. Chairman, the committee
does not authorize a number of units under section 8. It
authorizes a dollar amount, and these units were all authorized
within that dollar amount, so they did not exceed the dollar
amount.
I just wanted to clarify that and I will conclude quickly.
home ownership
We think in the housing agenda, one of our main thrusts is
home ownership. Home ownership is at a record high in this
Nation at 66 percent. At the same time, there is significant
disparity when you look at who does own homes. Home ownership
in the suburbs is at 73 percent. In the cities, it is at 49
percent. Whites are very high at 71 percent. Women are lower at
51 percent. African Americans are lower still at 43 percent.
Hispanics are lower still at 41 percent. The FHA loan limit
increase would start to get at that.
highlights of budget
I have further highlights of our budget, and I will
conclude.
Homeless assistance had a record increase at $372 million
because that is a program that is working. We want to invest in
that.
Public housing. We would go to 100 percent of operating
expenses for the first time.
The HOME program, which is a program that is working well,
we're requesting a $50 million increase, and then start
something called the HOME Bank which would allow us to loan
money to a local jurisdiction up to five times of their HOME
allocation. We are doing this with the CDBG program and section
108. It works extremely well.
We would raise the FHA loan limits which will get more
people housing and actually make money at $225 million.
And we would increase the Fair Housing budget because home
ownership is going up and the home ownership rate is a great
American story as long as it works for everyone.
On the economic development side, the Community Empowerment
Fund which is the economic development aspect of the
Department, we request $400 million.
We are requesting 50,000 welfare to work vouchers. Again,
Mr. Chairman, I believe the issue for the cities is going to be
welfare and whether it works or not. How do you get people from
welfare to jobs? And 50,000 welfare to work vouchers, where we
could give a person a voucher and let them actually move to an
area closer to work, would be a significant tool.
CDBG, which is a program that works well, we're asking for
a $238 million increase.
Brownfields is the No. 1 concern of the Conference of
Mayors.
And we have $100 million for regionalism awards. Every
academic, all the best practices will say we have to move to
regional approaches, getting cities to work with the outlying
counties, and we as the Department want to start to articulate
that principle and move forward on that.
These are the highlights of the budget. It is the best
budget from our point of view that has been proposed in a
decade. We believe we can find the money within our sphere, and
we understand, Mr. Chairman, the overall constraints on the
committee. We are trying to work just within the sphere that we
control, and we think we can find the numbers to make this
budget work within our own domain.
But again, let me thank the committee for all their good
work, for the cooperation and partnership. We look forward to
the same productive year going forward this coming year that we
had last year. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Andrew Cuomo
Chairman Bond, Ranking Member Mikulski, members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for inviting me here this morning to share with
you HUD's 1999 budget proposal. If it pleases the Subcommittee, I would
like to enter my testimony for the record. Thank you.
HUD's 1999 budget proposal represents the second step of a two step
process we're undertaking to restore the Department's capacity to
fulfill its mission of empowering communities across the country. The
first step of that process was carried out last year and is still
underway. HUD is focusing its energy on reform, reinvention, and
renewal. In 1997 and now in 1998, the Department is devoting itself to
reorganizing its functions, streamlining its workforce, and cracking
down on waste, fraud, and abuse of HUD programs.
This 1999 budget proposal--the smartest and strongest budget in 10
years--builds on the progress HUD has made over the last year and a
half in proving competence and restoring public trust in the agency.
The budget reflects the President's belief that HUD today is smaller,
faster, and more efficient than it was a year ago. We have requested
some $1.8 billion in funding for program activities directed toward two
fundamental goals: producing jobs and economic opportunity and
expanding housing opportunities for low and moderate income families.
The budget increase will not, however, support new programs. It
will not support new bureaucracies. It will not be wasted on programs
that are fundamentally flawed or blatantly abused. This new funding
will support only those programs that have proven successful and those
programs that have been improved or enhanced by design changes. In
other words, HUD will put the new funding only where it works best to
fulfill our mission.
All told, the 1999 HUD budget represents not just a shift in
policy, but a shift in philosophy. This budget seeks to change HUD's
role from Washington director to community empowerment. Not with
federal mandates, but with a federal menu of opportunity. Not with
solutions driven from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Not with a
one-size-fits-all mentality, but with action plans written by and
tailored to local communities. HUD's goal is not to tell communities
what to do, but to help communities do what they want to do. In the
process, it takes partnership to a new level--by setting aside part of
the CDBG program to encourage cities and counties to work together on a
regional level to solve problems.
management reforms lay the groundwork for budget increases
Before I outline our funding requests, let me explain in a little
more detail the foundation of reforms on which we built this budget
proposal. President Clinton's second-term urban agenda recognized that
the mission of HUD was as vital as ever, but the Department itself
faced a competence gap that compromised its ability to fulfill that
mission. Decades of neglect left HUD with the dubious distinction of
being the only federal agency designated as ``high risk'' by the
General Accounting Office (GAO). What's more, HUD's main rent subsidy
program for the poor, Section 8, was on the brink of becoming the next
savings and loan scandal, with grave consequences for more than four
million low-income Americans who depended on the program for a place to
live.
At the President's direction, and with the Vice President's
guidance, we didn't set out to defend the problems, we set out to fix
them. Our efforts have focused on closing the competence gap by
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. We are partnering with the Justice
Department to crack down on bad landlords. We partnered with the FBI to
create a new Enforcement Center. We are creating an Assessment Center
that will inspect all HUD properties nationwide for the first time.
And, drawing on the lessons of the private sector, we consulted
with reinvention experts James Champy and David Osborne to implement
the most sweeping reform plan in HUD's history. In conjunction with our
unions, we enacted a plan that clarifies HUD's mission, streamlines its
operations, improves customer service, harnesses new technology, and
infuses a new generation of talent called ``community builders.''
Most importantly, this plan is moving from the drawing boards to
reality. HUD has undertaken exhaustive consultations with affected
stakeholders, including public housing authorities and resident groups,
multifamily project owners and lenders, HUD's Inspector General and
Members of Congress and their staffs. HUD has overcome tremendous
institutional inertia and built a momentum for change that will carry
the implementation of the Plan forward. I am happy to report
significant progress has already been achieved.
--Through unprecedented employee personnel actions such as buy-outs
and personnel reorganization, HUD has been able to streamline
staffing and reorganize operations. HUD's workforce (funded by
the Salaries and Expenses account) is now approximately 9,000,
down from 10,500 at the end of 1996. To date, HUD has posted
and filled 1,100 positions and hired 90 percent of new managers
for the new organizational structure, while executing 1,000
buyouts to downsize the agency. The Department also negotiated
an historic agreement with the employee unions to staff the new
streamlined HUD with no layoffs before 2002.
--Four FHA Single Family Homeownership Centers are already
operational. By April 1, all 18 FHA Multifamily Program Hub
offices will be operational.
--Public and Indian Housing already has 27 Program Hubs and 16
Program Centers operational. By August, 1998, the Public
Housing Grants Management Center and Troubled Agency Recovery
Centers will also be operational.
--The Assessment Center is currently using its new physical
inspection protocols and hand-held computers to inspect a
sample of public housing and multifamily properties.
--The Section 8 Financial Management Center will be fully operational
and handling 100 percent of the Section 8 financial processing
by October, 1998.
--The Enforcement Center has already begun working on cases. Four
Assistant U.S. Attorneys have been detailed to the Center.
--More than 300 Community Builders from existing HUD staff have
already been selected. Their training will has just begun and
the first training sessions at Harvard University's Kennedy
School of Government will take place in August 1998. Outside
hires of 230 Community Builders will also be completed by
August.
the best hud budget in a decade
HUD undertook management reforms to improve administrative
capacities, and with the realization that we must put our own house in
order before we can truly fulfill our mission. HUD has worked to
restore public confidence to win more resources to create jobs,
stimulate economic activity, house low and moderate income Americans
and end the plague of discrimination.
The Clinton Administration has taken note of the progress that HUD
has made in reforming itself. The result: the best HUD budget in a
decade. New funding for HUD is increased by $1.8 billion, a significant
increase for program activities. Consistent with the Government
Performance Reform Act (GPRA), new funding will be directed to achieve
objectives outlined in HUD's 1999 Performance Plan. Taken as a whole,
the budget reflects two very clear themes that reinforce the twin
missions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The first theme is jobs and economic opportunity. Nothing empowers
an individual, develops a community, or builds a stable tax base like a
job. The challenges of the global economy combined with the
implementation of welfare reform has placed new demands on communities
across America, and made HUD's economic development mission more vital
than ever. This budget reinvents several HUD programs to meet that
challenge in an innovative way, proposing vouchers to help people move
from welfare to work, a Community Empowerment Fund to get businesses
the start-up capital they need to create jobs, and funding for second
round of Empowerment Zones to bring opportunity back into the inner
city. It also builds on successful core programs, doubling funding to
convert old brownfields into thriving businesses, and streamlining the
Community Development Block Grant program to provide communities with
more resources and more flexibility to turn their plans into reality.
The second theme is housing and homeownership. Housing is the
foundation on which everything else is built. For the past two years,
tight budgets have reduced America's net increase of rental assistance
to virtually zero. The 1999 HUD budget gets America back into the
housing business, not by creating new programs but reinventing old
ones. It proposes new vouchers to help people find affordable housing,
a new ``bank'' to allow communities to leverage up to five times their
HOME allocations to build housing, and the largest level of funding
ever to end the tragedy of homelessness. It also makes clear that all
of HUD's separate housing roads should ultimately lead to one place:
homeownership. Our goal is to help more people become homeowners, and
this budget does so in innovative ways: by raising FHA loan limits to
help more middle class families buy homes, and by increasing HUD's
campaign to weed out housing discrimination once and for all.
The goal of HUD's fiscal year 1999 budget is to be a better partner
for communities to empower them to address their full array of needs.
To accomplish this goal, HUD has provided both more resources and
better tools for communities to tap.
Let me outline some of these initiatives in more detail.
jobs and economic opportunity
The biggest challenge for distressed communities in central cities,
suburbs and rural areas is creating jobs. In an increasingly globalized
economy, new jobs are more likely to be created in suburban areas, or
in developing nations than in the core of America's central cities.
While the nation has experienced unprecedented economic prosperity,
distressed communities, particularly central cities still face critical
challenges.
Poverty is disproportionately concentrated.--Between 1970 and 1990,
the proportion of city residents living in neighborhoods with poverty
rates of more than 40 percent doubled. By 1990, more than 10 percent of
all city residents lived in these high poverty neighborhoods.
Unemployment rates remain high.--While nationwide unemployment
rates have plummeted to 24-year lows, city unemployment rates remain
substantially higher than the nation as a whole and suburbs. In all
metro areas, central city unemployment rates are 5.1 percent, a full
one and a half points higher than their suburbs.
Most job creation is occurring in the suburbs.--While the economy
has generated more than 14 million new jobs since 1993, the vast
majority of those jobs are being created in suburban areas. In the
early 1990's, only 13 percent of new entry level jobs were created in
central cities.
Job creation is the foundation for economically and socially
healthy communities. Job creation will also be critical to make welfare
reform a success, particularly in light of concentration of welfare
recipients. Nationwide, recipients moving from welfare to work will
need an estimated one million jobs in the next several years. Our
fiscal year 1999 budget increases funding for economic development and
job creation by more than 15 percent over 1998 enacted levels, based on
a number of programmatic improvements.
Community Empowerment Fund and Economic Development Initiative
The centerpiece of HUD's job creation efforts is the Community
Empowerment Fund, an enhancement of HUD's existing Economic Development
Initiative and Section 108 Loan Guarantee program. The Community
Empowerment Fund (CEF) will provide resources for spurring private
investment in our nation's cities and increasing opportunities for
former welfare recipients to successfully move from welfare to work.
The 1999 request of $400 million will leverage an estimated $2 billion
in private sector loans over time and will support an estimated 280,000
jobs when projects are completed.
The Community Empowerment Fund is a creative financing tool that
combines local control, private sector capital and federal loan
guarantees to rebuild distressed urban and rural communities. The Fund
will finance a wide range of job-creation projects, from loans for new
small businesses to neighborhood commercial revitalization efforts.
HUD's fiscal year 1999 proposal will also incorporate substantial
innovation by providing strong incentives for standardization of
economic development lending. Unlike the housing finance system, where
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have established standard underwriting
criteria, economic development lending has no cookie-cutter deals.
Without such standardization and the evaluation of loan performance
using standard criteria, there can be no effective secondary market for
economic development loans.
EDI funds have been used to support a wide variety of innovative
community lending initiatives. The Community Empowerment Fund will
support more such innovative projects. Some successful EDI projects
include:
--Revolving Loan funds, such as Ohio's Mahoning Valley Economic
Development Fund that is aimed at helping communities retool
their economies in the wake of the steel industry's decline,
which had once been the backbone of the local economy.
--Inner-city shopping centers, such as the Good Hope Marketplace in
Washington DC's Anacostia neighborhood, which includes a full-
service 55,000 square foot Safeway Food and Drug Store.
--Welfare-to-Work efforts, such as Cessna Aircraft's Learning and
Work Complex in Wichita, Kansas, which provides daycare and job
training for former welfare recipients employed in the
company's adjacent industrial facility.
President Clinton said it best when he unveiled the Community
Empowerment Fund proposal earlier this year. The Community Empowerment
Fund, he said, ``will provide capital to businesses who recognize the
potential and the possibilities of the inner cities. This is the right
way to help our cities. It is not a handout. It will bring new credit,
new jobs, and new hope to the people.''
Welfare-to-Work Vouchers
HUD's budget provides a flexible new tool to help states and
communities meet the challenge of moving welfare recipients into jobs.
Specifically, HUD proposes to provide 50,000 new welfare-to-work
vouchers at a cost of $283 million, targeted to welfare recipients who
need housing assistance to get or keep a job. Families could use these
new vouchers to move closer to new jobs or to reduce long and
cumbersome commuting patterns.
In many parts of the country, jobs are being created far from where
many welfare recipients live. Three quarters of welfare recipients live
in cities or rural areas and the vast proportion of jobs are being
created in suburban areas. Few welfare recipients own cars. Even when
jobs are available, long commutes by public transit pose a substantial
barrier for welfare recipients finding and keeping jobs. For example,
45 percent of entry level jobs in the Cleveland metropolitan area are
accessible from Empowerment Zone neighborhoods within an 80-minute one-
way commute via public transportation; 55 percent are not public
transit accessible at all.
HUD has developed an innovative transportation solution to this
problem: the Bridges to Work demonstration is connecting inner-city
residents to suburban jobs in 5 cities. Based in part on this
demonstration, the Department of Transportation is proposing a $600
million Access to Jobs initiative to improve transportation connections
for welfare recipients.
But some welfare families will not be able to maintain long and
difficult commutes to keep their jobs. Our proposal goes one step
further: helping families move closer to available jobs. HUD's request
for these 50,000 additional portable housing vouchers will help
families making the transition from welfare to work. The additional
vouchers will be available on a competitive basis to local public
housing agencies (PHA's) who, in collaboration with their local welfare
and employment agencies, will develop plans to use the new vouchers to
support families transitioning from welfare to work.
We imagine these vouchers could be critically important in many
circumstances: in suburban counties like Anne Arundel County in
Maryland, where jobs are concentrated in a few areas but welfare
recipients are dispersed; and in central cities, where welfare
recipients living in isolated poverty neighborhoods must take several
buses to get to downtown jobs. Some central city residents will move
from central cities to suburbs, where most of the new entry level jobs
are located. Finally, some rural recipients could use portable housing
assistance to move from rural areas where there are simply no jobs to
metropolitan areas with better employment prospects.
The vouchers will be focused exclusively on families where housing
assistance is deemed essential to help families transition from welfare
to work--that is, where housing assistance is essential to getting or
keeping employment. Local agencies will have great flexibility to
design and operate the welfare-to-work voucher program within broad
national guidelines.
Empowerment Zones
In 1995, the Administration selected nine Empowerment Zones,
entitling them to receive federal tax incentives and direct funding for
physical improvements and social services. These communities fashioned
comprehensive revitalization strategies, with all local stakeholders--
residents, non-profits, businesses and government--at the table. The
early results have been extremely encouraging: they have leveraged
billions of dollars in private investment and new jobs and business
activity are expanding in many of these communities.
To build on this early success, the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act
created 20 new Empowerment Zones--15 new urban zones and 5 new rural
zones. Second Round Zones were provided with tax incentives to attract
new economic activity, but need the direct spending equivalent to the
assistance the successful first round zones received. The President's
Budget for 1999 requests $1.5 billion funded over 10 years in equal
$150 million amounts for the 15 new urban Zones. The legislation to
authorize the EZ program is being proposed under of Title XX of the
Social Security Act.
Following the model set forth in the first round, funding will be
made available for a broad range of job stimulation activities, with an
effort to link revitalization plans to welfare reform strategies.
Examples of eligible activities include: community policing, health
care, neighborhood development, brownfields cleanup and redevelopment,
economic development projects, work force development, and housing
assistance.
Community Development Block Grants
A total of $4.725 billion is requested for the major Community
Development Block Grant Program, an increase of more than $50 million
over the 1998 enacted level, and an all time high. Further, HUD has
substantially reduced the requested set-asides for other programs
within CDBG, from $479 million in fiscal year 1998 to $292 million in
fiscal year 1999. As a result, funding available for formula allocation
to state and local governments effectively increases by $238 million in
fiscal year 1999, a five percent increase.
In addition, the CDBG funds will support $1.3 billion in new loan
guarantees under the Section 108 program of the Housing and Community
Development Act. This is the same level enacted in 1998.
Regional Connections Initiative
In light of the long-term shift of jobs and people to the suburbs,
regions have become the building blocks of the larger national economy.
The challenge for local communities is to take full advantage of the
opportunities presented by the new regional economies.
At the same time, communities need to find ways to respond to some
of the acknowledged negative impacts of the metropolitan economy: a
growing job skills and training gap; the concentration of poverty in
central cities; the spatial mismatch of housing and jobs; a growing
disparity in local government fiscal capacity; schools at risk; rising
infrastructure costs; higher vehicle miles traveled; increasing
congestion; air and water pollution; and loss of prime farmland and
open space. A new challenge facing communities is to make welfare
reform work in the context of new regional economies.
This initiative is a $100 million set-aside within the CDBG
program. It will make funds available by competition to states and
localities to cooperate regionally to develop strategic plans that
address key regional issues facing the nation's metropolitan areas and
rural communities. The initiative will help communities adjust to the
significant demographic and economic shifts that are taking place in
metropolitan regions. It will encourage regional strategies that
emphasize coordinated metropolitan economic growth and regional
solutions to a range of environmental and social equity issues.
HUD will establish an Advisory Board of city and county officials,
distinguished urban planners, economists, and regional experts to
develop the competition, and expects to contract with a qualified
national organization to assist in managing the funding awards process.
This will limit the administrative burden on HUD.
Brownfields
The 1999 Budget proposes to double, from $25 million in 1998 to $50
million in 1999, the level of funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment
program. This will significantly accelerate the Administration's
commitment to provide $100 million toward brownfields redevelopment.
Brownfields are low-to-moderately contaminated sites, often on
former industrial sites in American cities. An estimated 450,000 sites
exist, and the vast majority of those are located in urban areas. None
of the sites has levels of contamination which would score high enough
to be placed on the National Priorities List under the Superfund
program. Without any cleanup mandate, these sites could go for years
without being restored to alternative and modern uses. Their clean-up
not only improves the environmental condition of the area, it provides
a unique opportunity to revitalize downtown areas that have been
essentially abandoned.
Each Brownfields dollar is highly leveraged. The $50 million being
proposed for 1999 will leverage $200 million in loans and loan
guarantees and the clean-up effort will generate 28,000 construction
and related jobs precisely where employment opportunities are most
needed.
The Administration has established a Brownfields National
Partnership among 15 agencies to turn contaminated Brownfields into
greenfields of economic opportunity.
homeownership and housing
Housing needs in America remain substantial. More than five million
very low income families pay more than half their limited incomes for
rent or live in substandard housing. Staggering numbers of families and
individuals have no homes at all: the best estimates suggest there are
600,000 homeless on any given night. While the nation has achieved
record homeownership rates, homeownership for minorities, for female-
headed households, and for residents of central cities remain 20 to 30
points below the national rate.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget reverses this course. The
President's 1999 budget gets HUD back into the housing business--not by
creating new programs, but by reinventing existing ones.
To expand homeownership opportunities, HUD proposes higher FHA loan
limits, additional Homeowership Zones, new Empowerment Homeownership
Vouchers and increased funding for housing counseling.
To expand affordable rental housing opportunities, HUD proposes
100,000 new vouchers to help welfare recipients, homeless individuals
and families and other targeted groups find affordable housing; a new
HOME Bank, which combines increased funding for the HOME program with a
new loan guarantee feature to help communities finance large-scale
multifamily and homeownership developments. HUD is also maintaining our
investment in HOPE VI and other public housing programs and renewing
all expiring Section 8 contracts. HUD continues to implement the
successful Continuum of Care strategy and the 1999 budget includes a
record level of funding to help end the tragedy of homelessness. In
addition, the Clinton Administration proposes to expand the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) by raising the per capita cap from $1.25 to
$1.75 to significantly compensate for the loss of the Credit's value
since 1986 and to finance a $30 million pilot program through the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. The LIHTC expansion will assist
an additional 180,000 Americans a year.
Continuing the Growth of Homeownership
Nothing manifests the American dream more than owning a home.
Nothing helps create stability and safety for families and communities
like homeownership. This administration has made a unique commitment to
homeownership: in June 1995, the President pledged to reach the goal of
67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. We have already reached the
nation's all-time highest rate of homeownership--66 percent.
But the job is not done. Homeownership in central cities and among
women, minorities, and lower income Americans hovers at or below 50
percent. In many parts of the country and in many neighborhoods even
middle class families have a hard time affording homeownership or
making the continued investments needed to project their most valuable
asset.
The budget includes a number of initiatives to allow more Americans
to make the dream of homeownership a reality.
FHA Loan Limits Increase
President Clinton's budget calls helping hundreds of thousands of
hard-working middle-class American families qualify as homeowners by
raising home mortgage insurance limits used by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA).
Despite record national homeownership rates, many Americans--
including young, first-time homebuyers, center-city residents, and
racial and ethnic minorities--are shut out of homeownership because
they have difficulty accessing mortgage credit. Raising the loan limits
will enable FHA to meet the mortgage credit needs of hundreds of
thousands of American households not presently served by the private
mortgage industry.
The Federal Housing Administration's single family mortgage program
has been one of the most successful public-private ventures ever
established by the Congress. FHA provides mortgage insurance that
enables homebuyers to secure mortgages from private lenders. Over the
past 60 years, FHA has made homeownership available to nearly 25
million families throughout the country.
Today, FHA has over 250 separate loan limits ranging from $86,317
in more than 2,000 low cost counties to $170,362 in 130 higher cost
counties. About 930 moderate cost counties have loan limits set at 95
percent of local median home sales price which fall between $86,317 and
$170,362.
HUD proposes to create a single, nationwide limit of $227,150,
which would simplify the current system and bring FHA back in line with
the limit used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest providers
of mortgage credit in the market place. Increasing the loan limits will
expand FHA's ability to reach underserved markets. Mortgage lending
information gathered by the Federal Reserve Board, as part of the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) requirements, show that in 1996, some
350,000 households--approximately one in eight applicants--were denied
credit in the conforming conventional market. These denials limit
homebuying opportunities for both minority and white households seeking
to live in urban and suburban communities.
Mortgage denial rates are particularly high for African-Americans
and Hispanic families who are nearly twice as likely to be denied home
loans as white applicants. In the aggregate though, white families
accounted for nearly two-thirds of the 350,000 households denied
credit. Raising the loan limits will enable FHA to meet the mortgage
credit needs of these American households who are not well-served by
the private mortgage industry.
The higher loan limits will also increase the capacity of families
to purchase and rehabilitate older homes, an important component of
neighborhood revitalization efforts. Overall, the average loan insured
under this initiative would be $145,000.
FHA-insured loans benefit homebuyers by: allowing down payments
under 5 percent, allowing homebuyers to borrow closing costs, allowing
more homebuyers to qualify for mortgages, and allowing homebuyers to
use gifts from family members and others to make their downpayments.
In addition to enhancing homeownership opportunities, raising FHA
loan limits is good for the federal budget. The insurance premiums and
fees associated with new mortgage business will provide FHA with an
increase in revenues of more than $225 million per year.
HOME Bank: Leveraging the Home Program
The budget proposes a substantial enhancement to the HOME Program,
which provides flexible grants to states and local governments. HOME is
the model of effective devolution. Our initiative would add a new loan
guarantee feature, enabling states and localities to leverage private
investment with current HOME grants for large-scale rental housing and
homeownership developments. This enhancement provides an effective new
tool to enhance housing production.
The HOME program request for 1999 is $1,883 million, which includes
$1.55 billion for the standard HOME program (with $25 million for
Housing Counseling assistance) and $333 million for Elderly and
Disabled housing. Funding HOME at $1.55 billion (a $50 million increase
from 1998) will provide 78,520 units of affordable housing for owners
and renters through construction, rehabilitation and acquisition
activities and 11,200 families would receive tenant-based rental
assistance.
HUD proposes $333 million for Housing for the Elderly and Disabled,
and would shift administration from HUD to state and local governments
through the HOME program. While maintaining the integrity of the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs, the shift of the program into
HOME will allow the Department to further consolidate its program
structure, and provide substantial opportunities for state and local
participating jurisdictions to leverage additional resources for
elderly and disabled housing. HUD intends to submit a legislative
proposal to accomplish this consolidation.
In addition, HUD's funding for the elderly includes an additional
8,800 new incremental vouchers. These vouchers replace direct grant
funding and allow HUD to serve a greater number of elderly households
with more limited resources. The overall funding proposed to support
the elderly and disabled in the fiscal year 1999 budget will serve more
households than were served by the fiscal year 1998 funding.
HOME Loan Guarantee Program. Building on HUD's recent success with
the Section 108 loan guarantee feature of the CDBG program, the fiscal
year 1999 budget proposes to provide a similar enhancement to the HOME
program: a new loan guarantee.
This legislative initiative will permit HOME participating
jurisdictions to finance large-scale development activities by
leveraging their future HOME allocations. The budget supports $100
million of new loan guarantees at an estimated credit subsidy cost of
$11 million in fiscal year 1999. Communities may borrow up to five
times their most recent HOME allocations.
The ability to borrow a large sum of money will encourage PJ's to
undertake broad-based neighborhood revitalization strategies and to
take advantage of economies of scale, producing or rehabilitating a
large number of rental or ownership units in a single undertaking
within a relatively short time frame.
Homeownership Zones
The Budget proposes $25 million in 1999 to enable cities to
undertake large-scale single family developments in inner city
neighborhoods.
Creating new concentrated homeownership developments as part of a
whole neighborhood strategy is central to redeeming blighted and
troubled neighborhoods. Homeownership would serve as a foundation for
additional investment in residential, commercial, and economic
development of the Homeownership Zone. HUD has funded six Homeownership
Zones with 1996 funding and will soon be announcing a new round of five
to seven designated zones in the near future.
With an infusion of low- and middle-income homeowners, these zones
are transforming their city neighborhoods. More than 2,000 units of
housing are being constructed or rehabilitated in Louisville,
Cleveland, Sacramento, Buffalo, Baltimore, and Philadelphia and are
having an enormous impact on the economies of these cities. Not only do
these zones attract homeowners, they create demand for other
neighborhood economic activities like grocery stores and dry cleaners.
While a majority of the newly constructed units are reserved for low-
and moderate-income families, the zones are also designed to attract
middle-income families in order to increase the long term stability of
a neighborhood. This program is expected to help solve one of the most
difficult problems faced by cities: retaining middle class families.
Housing Counseling
The Housing Counseling program, a set-aside in the HOME program, is
designed to provide pre- and post-purchase counseling assistance to
clients on housing issues. The request for counseling funds is
increased by 25 percent over the 1998 enacted level of $20 million to
$25 million in 1999.
Despite the success of the President's National Homeownership
Strategy, homeownership education and counseling is still in great
demand, providing both an opportunity and a challenge in raising the
homeownership rate. Recent ethnographic studies completed in 1997
examined the homebuying experience of minority and immigrant
households. These groups are the least likely to become homeowners, the
studies concluded, because of the lack of knowledge about the
homebuying process, the lack of credit histories to justify mortgage
applications and a lack of information about financing options.
Therefore, housing counseling remains an important feature of the
President's commitment to increase the country's homeownership rate.
Ending Discrimination in Housing
Under Secretary Cuomo's leadership, HUD has taken a prominent role
in the President's One America initiative, doubling its targeted number
of housing discrimination enforcement actions and partnering with 67
non-profit housing groups to reduce housing discrimination. HUD has
also entered into 113 best practice agreements with key lenders,
resulting in more fair lending practices and expanded opportunities for
low-income minority families.
At the President's direction, Secretary Cuomo launched efforts to
double the number of fair housing enforcement actions to crack down on
housing discrimination during the President's second term. These
efforts include HUD's new ``Make Em Pay'' initiative to take civil
action against people who commit housing-related hate crimes. During
1997, the compensation for persons alleging discrimination and hate
acts has increased dramatically, resulting in a 224 percent jump in
compensation to victims--$7.7 million for May-September 1997, compared
with $3.5 million for May-September 1996.
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes a 73 percent increase in
funding for fair housing activities to allow HUD to follow through on
the Secretary's commitment to protect the right of every American
family to live and raise their children in any neighborhood they can
afford. The 1999 Budget nearly doubles funding for the Fair Housing
Initiatives Program (FHIP)--from $15 million in 1998 to $29 million in
1999. The FHIP program provides funding to help private, non-profit
fair housing organizations carry out programs that enhance compliance
with fair housing laws.
There are three key components to the increase. First, the budget
proposes a $10 million housing discrimination audit, to assess
systematically the levels of housing discrimination in 20 communities
across the country. The audit findings and data will also be used as
evidence to enhance fair housing enforcement efforts. Second, fiscal
year 1999 resources will increase funding available to private non-
profit fair housing groups around the nation, so they can do more to
reduce housing discrimination. These groups use HUD assistance to help
pay for investigations and lawsuits. Third, funding will create a
national Fair Housing Rights Education Campaign to inform Americans
about their legal rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing
Act and to provide them with assistance when confronted by illegal
discrimination.
The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) program enables HUD to
certify State or local fair housing enforcement programs as
``substantially equivalent'' agencies. FHAP reimburses the agencies for
handling fair housing complaints filed in their jurisdictions. Funding
for FHAP is proposed at $23 million, up from $15 million in fiscal year
1998.
Affordable Housing
Not all Americans can afford the benefits for homeownership. In
fact, the need for affordable housing is at an all-time high. In 1995,
5.3 million low-income families had ``worst-case'' needs--that is,
spent more than half their income on rent or lived in severely
substandard housing. This 5.3 million does not even include the
Americans who are literally homeless, since these families and
individuals cannot be counted by the biannual survey of housing
conditions conducted by HUD and the Census Bureau. The best estimates
suggest that 600,000 individuals and families are homeless on any given
night.
This budget puts housing at the top of HUD's agenda, where it
rightfully belongs. Total funding for housing initiatives increases 10
percent over 1998 levels. The Administration proposes a comprehensive
agenda of new housing initiatives.
Expanding and Preserving Section 8 Assistance
A centerpiece of HUD's housing agenda is a proposal to provide
100,000 new incremental rental vouchers. Unlike previous years,
however, HUD is proposing to martial new housing resources for specific
strategic purposes: 50,000 for helping welfare recipients make the
transition to work; 34,000 for homeless persons and families who are
ready and able to make a transition into permanent housing in the
private rental market; and 16,000 for the elderly, family unification
and other targeted purposes.
To further increase the supply of tenant-based rental assistance,
HUD proposes to eliminate a provision that requires PHA's to delay for
3 months the re-issuance of existing tenant-based units at turnover.
This provision substantially reduces the number of families who can be
assisted tenant-based certificates and vouchers at any point in time.
In addition, HUD proposes to renew all expiring Section 8
contracts. Last year, HUD's budget described the crisis posed by
expiring Section 8 contracts. With HUD's vigorous support, Congress
included sufficient resources in the Balanced Budget Act to renew all
expiring contracts through 2002. In addition, Congress enacted landmark
legislation to restructure the contracts of private owners of Section
8-assisted housing. This legislation will stop paying landlords
excessive rents, while restructuring their mortgages.
The fiscal year 1999 budget requests $7.2 billion to renew Section
8 contracts covering 2 million units expiring in 1999. This continues
HUD's clear policy to continue to renew all contracts that expire in
the future. To reduce our request for new budget authority for renewing
Section 8 contracts in 1999, HUD will first use $3.7 billion in Section
8 reserves being held in the Section 8 Preservation Reserve Account.
Moreover, HUD has improved the Section 8 funding process by
identifying and taking back excess project reserves held by public
housing authorities who administer the tenant-based Section 8 program
and utilizing more accurate methods for estimating renewal costs. Some
PHA's simply held unused funds, while others used excess funds to
provide rental assistance to additional households. To monitor the use
of the funds, HUD is now requiring PHA's to report regularly on their
funding balances. As a result of the new reporting requirements, HUD's
future funding requests will reflect accurately both the availability
of and need for additional Section 8 budget authority.
Homeless Assistance Grants
Reducing homelessness is one of my top priorities. While I was
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD
initiated a new strategy for reducing homelessness, requiring
communities to establish ``Continuum of Care'' strategies. A Continuum
of Care strategy is a coordinated community approach that ensures that
homeless families and individuals can make the transition from
homelessness to permanent housing.
HUD's innovative Continuum of Care approach serves the specific
needs of all homeless persons, including those with mental illness,
those in need of substance abuse treatment, and those in need of job
skills. Continuum of Care strategies focus on filling existing gaps in
housing or other services within a community that are necessary to move
individuals and families from temporary shelters to permanent housing.
The Plan must, therefore, be inclusive of and utilize the services of
public, private and non-profit participants within a community.
The 1999 Budget requests a total of $1.15 billion, an increase of
almost 40 percent over the 1998 enacted level of $823 million. This
includes $958 million for homeless assistance grants and $192 million
for 34,000 vouchers. This is the highest level ever requested for this
program.
Moreover, any increase in funding, if enacted, combined with recent
policy changes will have a tremendous impact on the number of needy
individuals receiving assistance to help them achieve independent
lives. A recent Columbia University study concluded that the number of
individuals and families that have been assisted in moving to permanent
housing increased by 14 times between 1992 and 1995 while federal
funding only doubled.
When families and individuals are ready to graduate from emergency
and transitional homeless facilities to permanent housing, affordable
permanent housing is too often not available. Therefore, HUD proposes
the inclusion of $192 million for 34,000 additional incremental Section
8 vouchers intended for homeless individuals and families who would
otherwise have the most difficult time securing permanent housing, as
determined through the approved continuum of care strategy. The
vouchers will help ensure that when families and individuals are ready
to leave the Continuum of Care and enter private housing, affordability
will not be a barrier that inhibits this progress.
By assisting homeless individuals and families, including those
with disabilities, in moving to permanent housing, shelter and services
are freed up for other homeless persons to achieve self-sufficiency.
Also, while transitional assistance provides good progress--an average
stay is 9 months--some rental assistance with services is key to the
restoration of dignity and independence that is critical for children
and parents.
Maintaining HUD's Investments in Public Housing
Over the last 50 years, the Federal government has invested
billions of dollars into the construction and operation of the 1.4
million units of public housing. In most communities, it is well-
managed and provides decent quality affordable housing for poor
families who cannot afford private market housing. Public housing units
represent one-third of all housing that is affordable to families with
minimum-wage incomes.
But in too many communities, public housing is found at the heart
of urban communities plagued by deterioration, crime and drugs.
Critical mistakes were made in the design, construction and maintenance
of many of these public housing developments.
The Clinton Administration has worked for five years to implement a
physical and social transformation of public housing. At its heart,
this transformation requires the demolition of the worst public housing
developments. To replace these developments, HUD has created a new mold
for public housing: mixed-income, mixed-finance projects that blend
into their neighborhoods. HUD has sought and will continue to seek
enactment of comprehensive legislation that will provide responsible
deregulation of the public housing industry and new tenant rent rules
that encourage and assist tenants to move from welfare to work.
Finally, HUD is developing new real estate assessment and enforcement
capacities to fix the most troubled housing agencies and create
incentives for good performance.
HUD's fiscal year 1999 budget supports the continued transformation
of public housing while maintaining HUD's financial investment.
HOPE VI.--The Department is requesting $550 million for the
Revitalization of Severely Depressed Public Housing Program, commonly
referred to as HOPE VI. The Department has set a goal of approving the
demolition of 100,000 blighted or obsolete units by the year 2000, and
providing essential replacement housing in their place.
In 1999, the Department plans to approve an additional 15,000 units
for demolition. and will fund 14,000 replacement units, of which 4,000
are ``hard'' units and 10,000 are tenant based rental assistance. By
the year 2000, 99,670 replacement units will be funded. The hard
replacement units will be incorporated into economically diverse
communities to foster more stable communities. HUD is committed to
changing the patterns of social and economic isolation, high
concentrations of very low-income families and segregation.
Public Housing Capital Fund.--The 1999 Budget requests a total of
$2.55 billion for 1999, an increase of $50 million over the 1998
enacted levels. This increase will help reduce substantial backlogs of
PHA capital improvement needs. Capital funds may be used to upgrade
viable housing units, demolish obsolete worst units, provide continued
assistance to displaced families or build replacement units.
Public Housing Operating Fund.--HUD requests $2.818 billion for the
Public Housing Operating Fund in fiscal year 1999. When supplemented
with $113 million in anticipated carryover funding, available Operating
Fund resources will be $2.931 billion. This level represents a $31.6
million increase over fiscal year 1998 levels and will enable the
Department to meet its commitment to fund 100 percent of the amount
established by the Performance Funding System.
Drug Elimination Grants.--HUD proposes that $310 million be
appropriated for Drug Elimination Grants again in 1999 for anti-crime,
anti-drug and clearinghouse information services. Eligible activities
include the employment of security personnel, reimbursement of local
law enforcement agencies for protective services, enhanced security
through physical improvements and drug prevention, intervention and
treatment programs.
Funding also includes $20 million for Operation Safe Home.
Operation Safe Home is an effort to combat violent crime in public and
assisted housing and is administered by the Department's Office of
Inspector General in close coordination with local and federal law
enforcement authorities. The program establishes coalitions to
implement a coordinated fight against gang and other criminal activity.
Native American Housing Block Grant.--HUD requests $600 million for
the Native American Housing Block Grant. This funding level is critical
to maintain and expand affordable housing opportunities for Native
Americans. Funds can be used for a wide variety of activities that will
increase the availability of affordable housing stocks. The program
operates as a block grant to eligible Indian tribes or through their
Tribally Designated Housing Entities.
Federal aid plays a critical role in providing affordable housing
for Native American populations. Presently, almost 45 percent of all
low-income households in tribal areas are served by HUD assisted
housing units. Of the estimated 69,000 units assisted, 32 percent are
in the rental program. For the Native American Indian and Alaskan
Native areas, the 1990 census reported an unemployment rate of 20
percent and a poverty rate of 36 percent.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
The 1999 HUD Budget requests an increase of 10 percent or $21
million over the 1998 level of $204 million for Housing for Persons
with Aids (HOPWA). If enacted, the funds would support 41,500 units of
housing assistance and would provide related services to approximately
74,875 individuals.
The number of eligible jurisdictions has grown each year and that
trend is expected to continue. The Centers for Disease Control reported
69,101 new cases of AIDS in 1996 alone. An increase in funding is,
therefore, essential to keep pace with the need and the increase in
jurisdictions eligible for funding. Based on the current formula
allocation of HOPWA funds, the only alternative to increasing the
funding level would be to require that all jurisdictions take a
significant reduction in assistance.
Enhancing Tenant Mobility in the Section 8 Program
HUD is also requesting $20 million in new funding for Regional
Opportunity Counseling in the Housing Certificate Fund. This program is
targeted to reducing concentrations of poverty by helping at least
13,000 families in 10-20 metropolitan areas choose housing in low
poverty areas. Funds will be awarded by competition to collaboratives
of housing authorities and non-profit organizations.
These collaboratives will develop specific strategies to help move
individuals to areas with low poverty rates. Examples of eligible
activities include; landlord outreach, motivational counseling,
training in household budgets, direct search assistance, payments to
landlords, assistance with security and utilities deposits.
In addition, the Secretary is requesting a small set-aside within
the Housing Certificate Fund to reward public housing agencies that
successfully reduce the poverty concentration of families using
portable tenant-based assistance. Research suggests that families
moving from high poverty to lower poverty neighborhoods can access
better schools and jobs, and ultimately improve life outcomes for
children. The 1999 budget would set aside $8.75 million in Section 8
funding to increase the administrative fees paid to PHA's if agreed
upon targets are achieved. The program is modeled after a successful
pilot conducted in Chicago, where a private contractor is managing the
tenant-based Section 8 programs.
Property Disposition Reform
The proposed reforms to the single family property disposition
program would provide HUD with the flexibility to choose the most cost-
effective way of paying insurance claims and disposing of acquired
(defaulted) notes on insured homes. Current law requires HUD to pay
insurance benefits for defaulted single family mortgagees and details
the manner of calculating the amount of insurance benefits that must be
paid.
If enacted, HUD would be able to take assignment of the mortgage
notes (instead of taking properties into inventory) and then selling or
transferring the property to a third party for servicing, loss
mitigation, foreclosure and potentially disposition. It is expected
that savings of more that $525 million (on a present value basis) will
result from the higher return on sales and reduced interest payments to
lenders because properties will be disposed of much sooner than can be
accomplished under current law.
conclusion
In the end, this budget is the best in a decade not just because
HUD has closed its competence gap, but because America still has an
opportunity gap. Our nation has created more than 14 million new jobs,
but only 13 percent are in cities. We have more homeowners than ever,
but over five million Americans either live in substandard housing or
pay 50 percent or more of their income in rent. We have more
millionaires than any time in our history, but an estimated 600,000
Americans still sleep on our streets every night. That's why HUD's
mission is more vital than ever. We closed the competence gap so we
could close the opportunity gap. That is both our challenge and our
continuing commitment today. This budget says we can do it--but only if
we work together.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Let me
make just a few comments on the things that you have raised.
issuance by the PHA's
I would like to see you ask for a legal opinion on the
issuance by the PHA's of those 15,000 vouchers that you say are
not illegal. We have some questions about it. I think that is
something we need to pursue.
Also I question your comments about the declining number of
housing units. There may not be an expansion of HUD programs,
but the reason we have the HOME program, the CDBG program, HOPE
VI is to encourage the development and the provision of
affordable housing through these local government, private, and
not-for-profit partnerships. I would like to see the statistics
on the number of housing units developed there.
economic development
We also had a very good discussion about the importance of
economic development in the central city areas. Let me point
out that with total bipartisan support of another committee,
the Small Business Committee, and the unanimous support on the
floor of the Senate, we have passed and enacted into law
something called HUB zones, for historically underutilized
business zones, to make small business set-asides available to
small businesses that will set up operations in center cities
or in rural poverty areas where there is high unemployment and
there are high levels of poverty. This is a new tool that I
know many people in St. Louis were interested in using, and I
think this is one thing that HUD should be aware of as you work
with other committees.
With respect to those things, let me just ask one question.
Then I will try to get as many rounds as we can in with the
other members.
I am concerned that while we applaud you for reforming and
downsizing the Department, that you may not have adequate staff
resources to meet the needs and requirements that you have. You
still have 240 programs. HUD needs to trim down and slim down
and focus its activities.
What is the current status of your 2020 plan? What steps
have you taken to ensure that the delivery system of HUD
programs has not suffered through reorganization and
downsizing?
housing need and production
Secretary Cuomo. A couple of quick responses, if I might,
Mr. Chairman.
First of all, the numbers on the housing need and
production. These are from CBO. That is where we got those
numbers. On the net negative production, when we say we went
out of the housing business in 1996, that we got from CBO.
economic development
On the economic development, I agree with you 100 percent.
There are a number of economic development programs that are
working now. HUB Zones is a good work and I know that the
chairman was instrumental in that. We have Empowerment Zones
which is something that we are working on.
But I do not want to underestimate the extent of the
undertaking that this is. You look at some of those numbers in
the cities, the numbers of jobs they are going to need just for
the people coming off welfare--and this is all in an
environment where the economy cannot be going any better.
Hopefully this economy just keeps going like this ad infinitum,
but if this economy slows, one has to wonder what is going to
happen with welfare. So, I do not think we can do enough in
this regard, Mr. Chairman.
section 8 account
On the section 8 account, I do not belabor the point. I
will get you an Office of General Counsel opinion on the
vouchers, but I just want to make sure we are clear on the
context. This is us trying to fix a situation that we
discovered last year on the reserves.
[The information follows:]
Legality of ``Overleasing'' by PHA's Administering the Section 8
Certificate and Voucher Programs
In response to the concerns raised by Senator Bond, this opinion
analyzes the legality of so-called ``overleaping'' by PHA's that
administer the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Overleasing
is the practice of assisting more families than the number of units
``reserved'' for a PHA's certificate or voucher program in HUD program
information systems.
Overleasing is not prohibited by any statute or regulation. HUD
payments to a PHA may not exceed the amount of funds (budget authority)
reserved for the PHA from amounts appropriated by the Congress. The law
(successive annual appropriations) does not specify the number of units
or families that may be assisted with available appropriated funds.
During the history of the programs since 1976, HUD has changed
requirements that determine the number of families that may be assisted
by a PHA within available funding, the annual amount budgeted for
assistance, and the amount contracted by HUD for renewal of expiring
funding commitments under the PHA ACC. However, HUD procedures have
always been designed to assure that amounts budgeted and paid to a PHA
for support of its certificate or voucher program may never exceed the
funds appropriated by the Congress. Current program instructions
provide that a PHA may generally only lease the number of units which
can be supported within the annual contractual limitation on payments
for a PHA's certificate or voucher program from amounts available under
the PHA's ACC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice PIH 97-59, issued 11/26/97, Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarity in this discussion, we start with a brief review of
basic program concepts. Each fiscal year, Congressional appropriations
release ``budget authority'' for the certificate and voucher program.
The release of budget authority grants authority to incur financial
obligations that will result in outlays. When HUD awards new funding to
a PHA, HUD records show the amount of budget authority reserved for the
PHA from the Congressional appropriation. The HUD record also specifies
``contract authority''--the maximum annual payment by HUD against each
commitment of budget authority. Finally, the HUD record shows the
historical number of ``units'' reserved by HUD for each increment of
funding in the PHA's program. The number of units is set when HUD
approves the PHA's application for new funding and does not generally
change when HUD provides renewal funding to continue assistance after
expiration of the initial funding commitment.
The number of reserved units is initially used to determine the
amount of funding contracted for a new funding commitment in the
certificate or voucher program. The same historical unit number is also
used to determine the amount of funding contracted for renewal of the
initial commitment from time to time. In the certificate program (but
not the voucher program), the number of units reserved is also used to
calculate necessary ``amendment'' funding during the term of the ACC.
HUD provides additional certificate funding so that a PHA can continue
to provide assistance for the same number of assisted units during the
ACC term (for a particular funding increment).
The form of ACC lists successive increments of funding obligated by
HUD to support a PHA's certificate or voucher program.\2\ For each such
increment, the ACC specifies both the amount of appropriated budget
authority--the maximum amount that may be disbursed to the PHA over the
ACC term--and the amount of ``contract authority''--the annual limit on
payments during the contract term. Budget authority is a hard statutory
limit on aggregate payments to the PHA. Contract authority is now used
as an administrative control to limit the rate at which PHA's draw down
available budget authority over the ACC term.\3\ In any PHA fiscal
year, the amount available to support the PHA's certificate or voucher
program is the sum of the contract authority amounts for successive
funding increments under the ACC.\4\ In addition, if the aggregate
payment for a PHA's certificate or voucher program in any fiscal year
is less than the available contract authority (Annual Budget
Authority), HUD credits the excess to an unfunded reserve account \5\
that can be drawn for future program payments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See description of ACC funding structure in Sec. 982.151.
\3\ In the early years of the certificate program, the Congress
appropriated ``contract authority'' as an annual limitation on Section
8 outlays, without specifying the maximum outlay over the contract
term. The Congress subsequently shifted to appropriations that
specified both contract and budget authority.
For some years, however, Congress has only appropriated by
providing Section 8 budget authority, without any statutory limit on
the annual disbursement against the appropriated budget authority.
However, HUD has administratively retained ``contract authority'' as an
annual contractual and budgetary limit on HUD payments during the ACC
term.
\4\ The sum of available contract authority amounts is variously
referred to as ``Annual Budget Authority'' (ABA), Maximum ACC amount,
or Maxim Annual Contract Commitment.
\5\ The account is now called the ACC Reserve Account (previously
called project reserve). Because of extensive recaptures from these
program reserves in fiscal year 1997 by direction of the Congress,
available reserve funds are now very limited.
\6\ See HUD-52520 (11/93): Sec. 1 (definition); Sec. 7; Sec. 982.4
(definition); Sec. 982.154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning of the certificate program (in fiscal year 1976)
until 1994, the form of program ACC stated the number and unit
distribution of units reserved for a PHA's certificate program (number
of units by number of bedrooms). The ACC also provided that, to the
maximum extent feasible, the PHA must enter into HAP contracts in
accordance with the authorized unit distribution as stated in the
ACC.\7\ During this period, the PHA's were only permitted to lease
certificate program units in accordance with the authorized unit number
and distribution as specified in the ACC. Consequently, PHA's were
contractually required to admit families in accordance with the
authorized unit distribution originally approved and reserved for the
PHA certificate program. HUD approved PHA budgets to cover assistance
payments for units leased in accordance with the approved unit
distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ACC Part I, HUD 52520 B (5/76) Sec. 1.1(b) and Sec. 1.1(d); ACC
Part I, HUD 52520 B (12/84) Sec. 1.2(b); ACC Part I, HUD 52520 B (6/85)
Sec. 1.2.D; ACC Part I, HUD 52520 B (8/88) Sec. 1.2.B.
These ACC forms provide that the PHA may not substantially deviate
from the prescribed unit distribution without prior HUD approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the voucher program, PHA's have never been required to comply
with a prescribed unit distribution. Under the statutory design of the
voucher program, PHA's have authority to set ``payment standards''
which determine the amount of the subsidy for individual families, and
consequently the number of families that can be assisted from available
budget authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1994, HUD issued a new form of unified ACC for the Section 8
certificate and voucher programs. This new ACC and subsequent program
ACC's do not specify the number or unit size distribution of program
units for a PHA's certificate or voucher program.\9\ The PHA is no
longer required to lease units in accordance with an authorized unit
distribution. This change in the ACC prepared the way for regulatory
changes that essentially eliminate the ability of the PHA to control
the distribution of units by family size, and consequently the number
of units leased with available funds. In July 1994, HUD issued a new
rule (effective 10/18/94), that prohibits PHA's from selecting families
according to the unit size for which the family qualifies under the PHA
occupancy standards (called ``family unit size'').\10\ This regulatory
change was designed to give applicant families more equitable access to
available assistance resources. Before this change, PHA waiting lists
were maintained by unit size, and large families had to wait for
program openings in the appropriate unit size category. Under the
current system, however, PHA's select families from a unitary waiting
list regardless of the unit size needed by each family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Consolidated ACC (for certificate and voucher programs), HUD
52520 (11/93). Notice PIH 94-29 (5/26/94) provides instructions for use
of the new combined ACC for the certificate and voucher programs.
\10\ Sec. 982.204(d) (as amended at 59 Federal Register 36662,
36685 (7/18/94). See PIH Notice 94-50 (8/1/94), Sec. 3.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes in the ACC and regulation are described in PIH Notice
95-39 (6/15/95). The notice remarks that following these changes: `` *
* * the number of certificates and vouchers that can be issued by a
[PHA] will be determined by the amount of funding that is available.''
``Approval from HUD is no longer necessary for [PHA's] to deviate from
the number of certificate units and bedroom sizes reserved by HUD and
formerly designated in the certificate ACC.''
Following the 1994 changes in the rule and ACC through 1996, a PHA
was permitted to budget and provide assistance for the number of
certificate or voucher units that can be assisted from available
appropriated funds (budget authority) contracted under the ACC. For
this purpose, the amount available is the total of contract authority
(Annual Budget Authority) plus available amounts in the certificate or
voucher program reserve (undisbursed budget authority remaining in the
ACC Reserve Account). Under this system, the PHA was not restricted to
the number of units originally reserved for the PHA program, or the
unit size distribution as originally reserved.
In 1996 and 1997 HUD made changes in leasing policy so that PHA's
can continue to assist program families within amounts appropriated by
the Congress. In August 1996 and November 1997, HUD issued Notices that
prohibit PHA's from using program reserves (in addition to contract
authority) to support leasing of additional assisted units.\11\ Under
these Notices, a PHA may only lease up to the number of units that can
be supported by available contract authority.\12\ However, the PHA may
continue to lease more than the units originally reserved
(``overlease'') so long as the overleasing can be supported by
available contract authority under the ACC. (These notices also include
transition provisions to allow continued assistance for currently
assisted families.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ PIH Notice 96-68 (8/23/96) and PIH Notice 97-59 (11/26/97).
\12\ Plus ACC reserve funds used to support extension of original
funding commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding broadly describes HUD procedures for determining the
number of units budgeted and leased over the history of the certificate
and voucher programs. We find nothing in these procedures as described
that violates any statutory or regulatory requirement. At all times,
HUD procedures have been designed to assure that federal payments are
within the amounts provided by the Congress. While the original pre-
1994 certificate ACC required the PHA to lease units within the number
of units originally reserved, this was merely an administrative and
contractual requirement, not a statutory obligation.
Senator Bond. And I congratulate you on it. I know that
this may not have happened on your watch and HUD did find it
out, but it is a concern when we are being asked for
significantly new numbers of vouchers and then find out that,
as a practical matter, the vouchers have already been awarded.
Somebody just did not bother to go through the normal process.
That is where our concern is.
Secretary Cuomo. I understand, except this was the normal
process for the Department. The Department allowed leasing
against the reserves. We changed that last year and said you
can no longer lease against the reserves. That was the change.
But I will get the chairman the clarification on that.
2020 plan
And then on the 2020 plan, Mr. Chairman, this is a
situation where you get pulled from both ends. There is a
tremendous desire on behalf of this committee and our other
committees to get the Department down in size. We are doing
that. We have a glide path to 7,500. When you start to come
down in size, there is a criticism from the other side that
said, maybe you are getting too small. At one point we are
going to have to justify both demands.
What we say is this in our 2020 plan. We have at the size
that HUD is today, 9,000 people, the best HUD that has been
functioning and operating possibly since its creation. We did a
national overhaul. We aligned functions in personnel for the
first time. We did a merit staffing for the entire Department
nationwide. We have new systems, new technology, a new culture
with waste, fraud, and abuse. It is evident across the
Department. It is the best HUD we can get at this point. We are
not finished but we have made real progress.
We then say there is a second plan. If you want to get to
7,500, we are going to need real program consolidations to do
that. We cannot get to 7,500 without massive program
consolidation. And then we are going to have to have some very
tough choices, Mr. Chairman. Do you have a 202 program or do
you not? Do you have an 811 program or do you not? Do you put
CDBG and HOME together or do you not? We are going to need to
make those tough decisions to eliminate programs so you can run
it at 7,500. And we are not there yet.
We would love to work with the committee to make that
possible. But with the staffing we have today, we can operate
the Department well. To get to the 7,500, which was a shared
goal--and I know this committee felt very strongly about that--
we would need to work together to do significant program
consolidation.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
With just a few minutes left, let me turn now to our
ranking member, Senator Mikulski.
housing for the disabled
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Cuomo, I would like to go over my yellow flashing
lights, at least try to get through as many as we could. Let me
first start with some questions I have related to the
availability and nondiscrimination in housing for the disabled.
You know that I fought moving the implementation of Fair
Housing to Justice to keep it at HUD so that we would focus on
the housing issue and it would not get lost in a whole lot of
other issues at Justice.
Now, in terms of housing for the disabled, I have three
principles. No. 1, let us make sure we never have
discrimination. No. 2, there has to be access. Remove the
architectural barriers and the attitudinal barriers. And No. 3,
availability of supply, both publicly subsidized but also
private sector.
I am concerned that we are inadvertently sabotaging our
goals of availability and access by the lack of clear guidance
to the private sector. That would be a part of my question.
Clear guidance, how this is being done.
In meeting with home builders in my own State, they gave me
a manual that your agency published. It is very beautiful. It
is very attractive. It is very expensive. And at the beginning
of it, it says it was designed and developed by a nonprofit,
Barrier-Free Environment.
It goes on in a disclaimer that says, statements and
conclusions contained in this manual represent the nonprofit.
They do not represent the views of HUD but HUD paid for it and
published it. Some portions may even be in conflict with
current or former HUD regulations. However, because this
information contained in this manual is advisory, it must be
refined and developed before being implemented. No guarantee of
the accuracy or completeness of this information without da,
da, da, da, is implied.
In other words, then you go on to say even if you follow
this, Mr. Builder or Ms. Builder, you are on your own. We have
paid for this. We have printed it. We have distributed it, but
it does not mean a warm spit to make sure that you, if you
comply with what was given to us for recommendations will
ensure that you have met our test for eliminating barriers. And
this was signed by your predecessor.
Then we have a letter from Cisneros saying how terrific
this document is but it does not mean anything because it might
even be in conflict or contradiction with our own regs.
Now, I do not want to go over the document. I want to get
to the outcome. If you were a home builder or an apartment
builder, you are already disadvantaged in the tax code for
multiple family dwellings. No. 2, you now want to provide
access to the disabled, but you do not have clear and
consistent guidelines from HUD.
So, you see I think this then deals with the issues of
availability. It then sabotages our issues for access and
ultimately the handicapped.
What are you going to do in your Department to ensure that
there is clear and consistent guidance to both the public
sector ability and the private sector ability so that we can
make sure supply is out there?
Secretary Cuomo. Thank you very much, Senator.
First, I agree with the concern you raised and I might even
suggest that it is worse than the Senator articulates in some
ways because not only is there confusion with what complies
with the Federal Fair Housing laws, but there are multiple
local building codes, State regulations, et cetera that have
different interpretations State by State. So, it is a very
confusing circumstance.
I think the manual that the Senator pointed to was recently
removed from circulation.
Senator Mikulski. Oh, great. What a surprise. [Laughter.]
Secretary Cuomo. I just wanted you to see how quick the new
HUD is, Senator. [Laughter.]
That manual is out of circulation, and you are right. The
disclaimer----
Senator Mikulski. My yellow light is on. Could you tell me,
though, apart from what is in or not in this manual--it might
be a fantastic document, but what then can the private sector,
as well as mayors, those who then establish building codes look
for in saying these are what the rules of the game are going to
be?
Secretary Cuomo. We will have out within 30 days a manual,
guidelines, a definitive document that says these are the
Federal Fair Housing laws and regulations. If you do this, you
will be in compliance. Signed, Secretary Andrew Cuomo. And that
will be out in 30 days.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one
other question to ask about management?
Senator Bond. I would imagine so. [Laughter.]
Senator Mikulski. I know that we do have a vote but----
Senator Bond. I am sure that Senator Lautenberg and
Senators Craig and Burns will be most happy. Right?
Senator Lautenberg. I am afraid not to.
Senator Bond. Good thinking.
Senator Craig. Go for it, Barbara. [Laughter.]
hope vi
Senator Mikulski. HOPE VI. This is a program that seems to
be working in cities large and midsize around the country. You
have an able administrator in Ms. Bacon. But prior to her
coming, we now have reports, like in my own hometown, that
Lafayette Square would be listed as townhouses costing
$300,000. When this article was published, it raised eyebrows.
It really raised my concern because, as you know, I was one of
the founders of HOPE VI.
Could you tell us, is the spending of HOPE VI out of
control? Do townhouses really cost $300,000, and would it have
not been easier to give the poor $100,000 and let them go
anywhere they wanted in the Baltimore metropolitan area?
Secretary Cuomo. Two responses, Senator. First of all, the
HOPE VI program is a good program. The concept was right and it
is working well. What we need is some clarity and definition as
to what we are doing. When they say a $300,000 townhouse, it
sounds like you spent $300,000 to build a townhouse, and
somebody would say, why would we be doing that with taxpayer
money?
The HOPE VI program is actually three programs. It is a
housing program. It is also a community development program. It
is also a human services program. So, it is a little deceiving
when we say one number, one grant for one purpose.
We need clarity and definition. We have a regulation and a
rule at the Department that we are now going to process which
separates the cost into three separate categories and then
applies caps to each. We are also then going to go to a
secondary level of analysis where we look at the cost within
those costs: How much are the tenant groups getting, how much
are the attorneys getting, how much are the architects getting,
et cetera. You would have a finer level of cost control.
[The information follows:]
Office of Public and Indian Housing
total development cost (tdc) policy
TDC is calculated on the basis of R.S. Means ``Economy'' and
Marshall and Swift ``Fair'' housing quality, adjusted annually,
multiplied by 1.6 for elevator buildings and 1.75 for townhouse
construction.
HOPE VI funds are granted under three subgrants:
Housing Subgrant.--Cap HUD Funds, including Public Housing funds,
CDBG and HOME at R.S. Means ``Average'' and Marshall & Swift ``Good''
housing quality ($85,000 average 1997 cost for 3 bedroom townhouse),
adjusted annually for current costs, bedroom distribution and
geographic location.
Community Renewal Subgrant.--Cap Public Housing funds at TDC
(including Housing Subgrant) for routine site work, demolition and
remediation of replacement units, administration, community and
economic development facilities, etc. Outside TDC, for 1997 grants
only, cap demolition and remediation of on-site non-replacement units
and extraordinary site costs, at 110 percent of TDC, using Public
Housing Funds, verified by an independent cost estimate.
Human Services Subgrant.--Cap HOPE VI funds at $5,000 per family
for occupied units at the time of application plus the number of new
families projected to occupy units in the revitalized development for
community and supportive services. Cap relocation at $3,000 per
occupied unit at time of application.
No cap on non-Public Housing funds used for community renewal
purposes.
No cap on non-HUD funds controlled by the locality, State or
private sector.
Policy applies to 1997 grants forward.
For 1998 grants no exceptions over 100 percent of TDC.
For 1993-1996 grants, approve justifiable exceptions on a case-by-
case basis according to the policy which was in place at the time the
Revitalization Plan was approved.
Policy applies to other Public Housing Capital Program funds,
consistent with HOPE VI.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA12.001
hard cost tdc index
RS Means ``Economy''; Marshall & Swift ``Fair'' (1997--$60,000
average)
--2 story, 3 bedroom row house
--Minimum compliance to uniform building codes
--Minimum compliance to FHA and VA requirements
--Energy package for moderate climate
--Exterior brick veneer on front, T111 exterior on rear/plywood
material
--20-year asphalt shingle, factory warranty (25 year is market
standard)
--1,200 square feet, 3 bedrooms
--1\1/2\ baths with enameled steel tub and wall-mounted vanity sink
--Forced air with minimum output (no air conditioning)
--Rubber-backed carpeting 80 percent; asphalt tile 20 percent
--6 linear feet of economy grade kitchen cabinets, plastic laminate
countertops
--Slab on grade foundation (no basement)
--Appliances: 30 inch range and range hood, electric water heater,
refrigerator, incandescent lighting fixtures (no dishwasher,
washer, dryer and garbage disposal)
--Standard builder's general conditions, overhead and profit
--Davis-Bacon labor rates
TDC Hard Cost Indices Average $60,000 \1\
[For 3 bedroom rowhouse]
City Housing Hard
Cost Index
ATLANTA....................................................... $54,791
BALTIMORE..................................................... 59,165
BOSTON........................................................ 73,868
CAMDEN........................................................ 69,482
CHARLOTTE..................................................... 50,159
CHICAGO....................................................... 69,622
CLEVELAND..................................................... 67,540
COLUMBUS...................................................... 60,733
DALLAS........................................................ 56,329
DENVER........................................................ 61,100
DETROIT....................................................... 67,061
EL PASO....................................................... 52,073
HOUSTON....................................................... 56,215
INDIANAPOLIS.................................................. 61,470
KANSAS CITY................................................... 61,470
LOS ANGELES................................................... 70,261
LOUISVILLE.................................................... 57,926
MEMPHIS....................................................... 55,633
MIAMI......................................................... 54,159
MILWAUKEE..................................................... 62,932
NEW HAVEN..................................................... 66,687
NEW ORLEANS................................................... 55,130
NEW YORK...................................................... 85,682
NEWARK........................................................ 73,891
OAKLAND....................................................... 76,291
PHILADELPHIA.................................................. 70,827
PITTSBURGH.................................................... 65,716
PUERTO RICO................................................... 56,642
SAN ANTONIO................................................... 53,161
SAN FRANCISCO................................................. 78,467
SEATTLE....................................................... 66,654
SPRINGFIELD................................................... 63,657
ST. LOUIS..................................................... 64,405
WASHINGTON, DC................................................ 59,645
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Housing Hard Cost Cap Average........................... 59,847
\1\ 1997 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
housing hard cost cap
RS Means ``Average''; Marshall & Swift ``Good'' (1997--$85,000
average)
--2 story, 3 bedroom row house
--Exterior brick veneer on front
--Vinyl siding exterior on rear with wrapped aluminum fascia and
vinyl soffit
--1,200 square feet
--3 bedrooms
--1\1/2\ baths with ceramic tile
--HVAC/electric heat pump with air conditioning
--Wall-to-wall carpet with vinyl sheet goods in kitchen, bath and
laundry area
--12 linear feet of kitchen cabinetry, plastic laminate countertops
--Basement (slab on grade less approximately $5,000)
--Appliances: 30 inch range, electric water heater, dishwasher,
garbage disposal, 30 inch range hood, refrigerator
--Standard builder's general conditions, overhead and profit
--Davis-Bacon labor rates
Housing Hard Cost Cap Average $85,000 \1\
[For 3 bedroom rowhouse]
City Housing Hard
Cost Cap
ATLANTA....................................................... $72,818
BALTIMORE..................................................... 77,962
BOSTON........................................................ 98,248
CAMDEN........................................................ 91,635
CHARLOTTE..................................................... 66,550
CHICAGO....................................................... 91,256
CLEVELAND..................................................... 89,752
COLUMBUS...................................................... 80,316
DALLAS........................................................ 73,703
DENVER........................................................ 79,422
DETROIT....................................................... 88,811
EL PASO....................................................... 68,778
HOUSTON....................................................... 73,921
INDIANAPOLIS.................................................. 81,004
KANSAS CITY................................................... 81,004
LOS ANGELES................................................... 91,885
LOUISVILLE.................................................... 76,493
MEMPHIS....................................................... 76,646
MIAMI......................................................... 75,269
MILWAUKEE..................................................... 86,772
NEW HAVEN..................................................... 90,320
NEW ORLEANS................................................... 75,866
NEW YORK...................................................... 117,275
NEWARK........................................................ 100,847
OAKLAND....................................................... 103,083
PHILADELPHIA.................................................. 96,932
PITTSBURGH.................................................... 90,412
PUERTO RICO................................................... 75,557
SAN ANTONIO................................................... 3,295
SAN FRANCISCO................................................. 105,907
SEATTLE....................................................... 90,354
SPRINGFIELD................................................... 87,369
ST. LOUIS..................................................... 88,494
WASHINGTON, DC................................................ 82,008
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Housing Hard Cost Cap Average........................... 85,293
\1\ 1997 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
united states housing act of 1937, section 6(b)(2)
``The Secretary shall determine the total development cost by
multiplying the construction cost guideline for the project (which
shall be determined by averaging the current construction costs, as
listed by not less than 2 nationally recognized residential
construction cost indices, for publicly bid construction of a good and
sound quality) by--(A) in the case of elevator type structures, 1.6;
and (B) in the case of nonelevator type structures, 1.75.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA12.002
Senator Mikulski. But we have a rule and a regulation that
is about to go out, Senator, and I am going to give the
committee a copy today. I would urge you to consider this for
inclusion in legislation. Elinor Bacon, whom you know, has done
an extraordinary job over these months working with local
groups, consulting everyone, coming up with what we call total
development costs, the separate grants. I would urge you to put
it in the legislation, let everybody know what the costs are.
We have a very good sense of what they should be and what we
want done. We want a good program, but we do not want an
extravagant program. The best way to do it is legislatively.
Well, I think we would like to take a look at it. I want my
colleagues to have a chance. But what you're saying is that
$300,000 is the cost of the community center, the cost of all
the legal fees. Thank you.
Secretary Cuomo. Exactly.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things, Mr. Secretary, that I am concerned about
in the process of reform or consolidation is that we do not
lose the opportunity for some programs to be measured based on
their individual or their particular performance results.
public housing drug elimination program
A program that I authored in 1989, the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program, was first authorized at $8 million in
1989. Now we see a request for $310 million. I believe that the
program has stood on its own two feet. It is a meritorious
expansion of the spending for the program because it has helped
relieve these units of crime, gotten these citizens who live
there more involved in the management, and it has worked
effectively. I visit these places regularly and I see how
excited people are about the opportunity to imprint their own
views into the management of the facility. I just want to make
sure that we do not consolidate this program into something
else where there is a diversion of attention.
How has, in your judgment, Mr. Secretary, the Public
Housing Drug Elimination Program done thus far? What do you use
as the criteria for measuring it?
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, in general I think the program
has done extraordinarily well. Before we even get to a
discussion of performance measures, in terms of mission, I
think it is vital to the Department. We have proliferated law
enforcement programs to rid public housing from drugs. Local
police do it. State police do it. Federal police do it. The
Department of Justice does it. The FBI does it. HUD does it
under Operation Safe Home, and there is no doubt that there is
a place for law enforcement. Lock them up. We do that very well
as a Nation. We have more people in prisons than any country on
the globe. And HUD does that well.
The flip side is, do we have a positive course for people
to follow? Is there some job training? Is there a program to
get people off the street? The Drug Elimination Grant Program
is the program that is a possible solution for that, as well as
it can do, quote, hard law enforcement type activities,
unquote.
But we think it is a vital program. It is a program that is
working very, very well. I can get the Senator specific data on
how the program is doing, but everything I hear, as I go around
the country, is all positive.
Senator Lautenberg. Whatever you could furnish the
committee with, Mr. Chairman, about the progress because I am
excited about it not because I authored it, because when I talk
to the citizens who live in these places, they are really
enthusiastic and they plead, whatever you do, do not take that
away. They know what they have at stake is their quality of
life by the process of eliminating the drug influence there.
[The information follows:]
The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
The control and prevention of drug use, drug trafficking, and drug-
related crime in public housing communities must begin in the
neighborhoods themselves. Although law enforcement officers public
housing staff can make important contributions to the anti-drug
campaign, experience has shown that residents themselves, who are most
directly affected by drugs and drug-related crime, can have the most
long-lasting effect by uniting together to fight the problem. The
Public and Indian Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP), sponsored
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), awards grants
to empower residents to turn the tide against drugs and drug-related
crime in their own communities. Money from these grants is put to a
wide variety of uses, including the following:
--Employment of security personnel and investigators.
--Reimbursement of local law enforcement agencies for additional
security.
--Physical improvements to enhance security.
--Voluntary tenant patrols.
--Drug prevention, intervention, and treatment programs.
--Security and drug prevention programs operated by resident
management corporations, incorporated resident councils, and
resident organizations.
welfare reform
Housing authorities applying for PHDEP funds are strongly
encouraged to include in their comprehensive anti-crime strategies a
discussion of how the proposed PHDEP drug and crime-prevention
activities will be coordinated with larger Empowerment and Enterprise
Zone strategies, and Welfare Reform efforts, especially in the areas of
training and employment of PHA residents. The PHDEP application may
include specific opportunities for resident employment and training
with such activities as security guard personnel, housing authority
police or local municipal police department law enforcement officers,
and for referrals to employment and training opportunities in the
health, education, substance abuse prevention, intervention, or
treatment fields.
Many communities are already developing and providing such
services, and housing authorities are strongly encouraged to provide
community facility space to allow the provision of these services in
and around public and Indian housing authorities. HUD also encourages
applicants to implement collaborative efforts with local religious
organizations in developing substance abuse prevention, treatment, and
intervention strategies and programs.
proven effective approach
PHDEP's success is rooted in the fact that people respond better
and become more involved in something that they have helped to build.
Congress has shown its support for this approach by appropriating
additional funding each year from $8.2 million in fiscal year 1989 to
$290 million in fiscal year 1997. This significant increase in funding
has allowed HUD to award 3,473 grants totaling more than $1 billion
since 1989 to public and Indian housing agencies. Funding amounts vary
for individual housing authorities based on their size and need. Last
year, the smallest grant award was $25,000 and the largest was
$35,000,000.
selection criteria
All applications received are reviewed against four selection
criteria:
--Extent of drug-related problems in public or Indian housing
communities.
--Quality of the plan to address drug-related problems and the method
of evaluating the plan's success.
--Capability of the applicant to carry out the plan.
--Extent to which residents, the local government, and the local
community support and participate in designing and implementing
proposed activities.
for more information
To receive more information on the Public and Indian Housing Drug
Elimination Program, please write the Drug Information & Strategy
Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6424, Rockville, Maryland 20849, or call 1-800-
578-DISC (3472).
PHDEP Totals 1991-1997
National Analysis:
Number of Applicants................................ 6,037
Number of Awards.................................... 3,604
Funding Awarded..................................... $1,365,054,563
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Area Total
Funding by Area:
New England......................................... $75,178,761
New York/New Jersey................................. 296,546,507
Midatlantic......................................... 135,960,285
Southeast........................................... 350,562,327
Midwest............................................. 210,348,848
Southwest........................................... 131,828,132
Great Plains........................................ 26,213,701
Rocky Mountain...................................... 22,989,359
Pacific/Hawaii...................................... 84,376,151
Northwest/Alaska.................................... 31,050,492
Breakdown of Funded Programs by Eligible Expense
Category:
Law Enforcement..................................... 437,568,459
Security............................................ 198,527,855
Investigators....................................... 35,994,717
Tenant Patrols...................................... 19,340,185
Physical Improvements............................... 62,330,287
Prevention.......................................... 400,293,434
Intervention........................................ 154,263,528
Treatment........................................... 69,191,332
Other Costs......................................... 58,231,963
Awards By State:
Alabama (229)....................................... 53,395,126
Alaska (16)......................................... 2,383,077
Arizona (62)........................................ 13,602,071
Arkansas (60)....................................... 9,109,137
California (147).................................... 56,529,904
Colorado (11)....................................... 7,023,905
Connecticut (78).................................... 19,578,319
District of Columbia (6)............................ 14,818,089
Delaware (15)....................................... 4,472,259
Florida (180)....................................... 47,743,273
Georgia (244)....................................... 57,783,432
Guam (1)............................................ 250,000
Hawaii (6).......................................... 6,971,665
Idaho (1)........................................... 93,300
Illinois (135)...................................... 87,237,106
Indiana (52)........................................ 16,128,559
Iowa (18)........................................... 1,748,360
Kansas (25)......................................... 4,845,712
Kentucky (82)....................................... 19,956,325
Louisiana (142)..................................... 23,313,439
Maine (11).......................................... 2,059,112
Maryland (42)....................................... 26,091,238
Massachusetts (102)................................. 42,580,957
Michigan (75)....................................... 19,451,289
Minnesota (34)...................................... 15,623,025
Mississippi (91).................................... 15,167,608
Missouri (79)....................................... 20,260,917
Montana (32)........................................ 6,072,072
Nebraska (9)........................................ 4,204,424
Nevada (27)......................................... 7,022,511
New Hampshire (22).................................. 4,625,988
New Jersey (184).................................... 59,130,847
New Mexico (44)..................................... 5,675,904
New York (182)...................................... 237,415,660
North Carolina (262)................................ 54,911,316
North Dakota (12)................................... 3,206,257
Ohio (87)........................................... 58,261,015
Oklahoma (85)....................................... 24,242,294
Oregon (23)......................................... 6,981,464
Pennsylvania (112).................................. 54,866,251
Puerto Rico (4)..................................... 43,836,563
Rhode Island (22)................................... 8,293,497
South Carolina (61)................................. 12,757,172
South Dakota (17)................................... 3,782,742
Tennessee (89)...................................... 39,638,842
Texas (215)......................................... 64,641,646
Utah (14)........................................... 2,598,633
Vermont (2)......................................... 100,000
Virginia (88)....................................... 30,051,637
Virgin Islands, U.S. (5)............................ 5,372,670
Washington (63)..................................... 21,592,651
West Virginia (32).................................. 5,660,811
Wisconsin (8)....................................... 11,588,742
Wisconsin (2)....................................... 305,750
GRANT DATA BY YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Fiscal year grants Total funding Average amount
awarded awarded of grant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991......................... 496 $140,775,000 $283,821
1992......................... 426 140,550,000 329,930
1993......................... 439 145,525,000 331,494
1994......................... 520 228,884,574 440,162
1995......................... 526 250,335,189 475,922
1996......................... 665 259,000,487 264,827
1997......................... 532 205,633,418 386,529
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT DATA BY AREA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New England........................................... $7,635,809 $7,266,988 $7,596,913 $12,860,993 $14,823,972 $14,169,492 $12,785,694
New York/New Jersey................................... 25,495,134 28,564,286 29,543,028 55,227,952 57,426,264 52,418,990 47,870,853
Midatlantic........................................... 13,361,779 13,797,442 14,929,111 21,232,422 26,764,697 26,258,879 24,973,795
Southeast............................................. 37,764,501 34,315,956 35,745,573 59,075,794 62,786,396 73,365,528 43,278,457
Midwest............................................... 22,196,459 20,660,267 21,211,867 31,567,262 34,272,866 36,217,213 35,464,009
Southwest............................................. 14,418,860 13,969,920 13,495,402 18,538,821 19,333,715 18,984,654 15,554,695
Great Plains.......................................... 3,938,777 4,002,607 4,144,285 4,184,150 5,166,886 5,747,500 3,638,634
Rocky Mountain........................................ 1,018,910 1,373,601 1,253,514 1,640,850 1,444,685 2,317,034 1,657,480
Pacific/Hawaii........................................ 7,750,840 8,842,934 9,244,301 12,868,019 14,390,751 15,446,112 10,211,160
Northwest/Alaska...................................... 2,877,784 3,007,050 3,219,122 3,950,417 4,687,119 4,950,690 4,377,839
NONAP................................................. 4,436,147 4,650,584 5,141,884 7,737,894 9,237,838 9,097,395 5,820,801
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHDEP History--Total Dollars Awarded
[In millions of dollars]
1991.......................................................... $140.80
1992.......................................................... 140.50
1993.......................................................... 145.50
1994.......................................................... 228.90
1995.......................................................... 250.30
1996.......................................................... 259.00
1997.......................................................... 205.60
Average Grant Award
1991.......................................................... $283,821
1992.......................................................... 329,930
1993.......................................................... 331,494
1994.......................................................... 440,162
1995.......................................................... 475,922
1996.......................................................... 264,827
1997.......................................................... 386,529
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND FUNDED 1991-1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Funded Received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991.................................................. 496 751
1992.................................................. 426 903
1993.................................................. 439 849
1994.................................................. 520 828
1995.................................................. 526 839
1996.................................................. 665 978
1997.................................................. 532 889
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the arts effectively discourage drug use--the housing authority of the
county of marin, california
The Housing Authority of the County of Marin's (MCHA's) performing
arts program, which began as an eligible activity under the fiscal year
1995 Youth Sports Program (YSP) grant, had a significant effect on the
lives of young public housing residents. Historically, blatant drug
activity has been a prominent feature in Marin County's public housing
communities. However, MCHA's successful arts program has contributed to
a 29-percent decrease in drug-related crime in public housing from 1995
to 1996.
MCHA has contracted with the Performing Stars of Marin to bring its
services to youth in public housing. The program received $14,300 in
fiscal year 1997 PHDEP funding and $52,640 leveraged through
partnerships with the Marin County Foundation, the Marin Ballet,
Pacific Gas and Electric, Pacific Telesis, and the United Way's
African-American Community Trust grant. These partners donate services,
scholarships, and a variety of products, including uniforms and a van.
Performing Stars of Marin has also been successful in its fundraising
efforts.
Weekly classes in baton twirling, drill team, tap dance, music
theory, and theater arts are held at the local Manzanita Center,
various local schools, public housing facilities, and local childcare
centers. The program enrolls 200 children between 5 and 13 years of
age, 85 percent of whom are residents of public housing. Students who
are waiting for openings in the program enroll in preparatory classes
that help to assess and channel their individual talents and interests.
Field trips to cultural events are also included in program activities.
Monthly meetings that involve parents, grandparents, and other
guardians are held monthly to demonstrate family support and applaud
the children's efforts. Scholarships from the Marin Ballet are made
available to exceptionally gifted and hard-working students.
There are many benefits of this program. Self-expression in the
performing arts allows children to channel their aggression and
emotions into constructive, creative veins. The students are also
learning valuable life skills that will enable them to confront life's
obstacles head on and develop pride in their accomplishments, an
alternative to the instant gratification that drugs provide. Exposure
to new ideas, new people, and new possibilities for the future not only
helps the children combat the isolation that comes from living in
public housing and can result in drug use, but it stretches their
horizons.
For more information, contact: Housing Authority of the County of
Marin, P.O. Box 4282, San Rafael, CA 94913, (415) 491-2525, (800) 735-
2929 (TDD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------- Percent
1995 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidents of Drug-Related Crime.................. 157 111 -29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marin County PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Years 1991-1997
1991....................................................................
1992.......................................................... $250,000
1993.......................................................... 183,700
1994.......................................................... 89,309
1995.......................................................... 89,845
1996.......................................................... 244,170
1997.......................................................... 149,900
drug activity reduced by law enforcement programs--danbury housing
authority, connecticut
The Danbury Housing Authority's (DHA's) law enforcement programs
have made positive strides toward eradicating crime in targeted public
housing neighborhoods: Eden Drive, High Ridge Gardens, and Laurel
Gardens. Law enforcement programs at DHA sites received $84,000 in
PHDEP funding in fiscal year 1997 and another $5,000 contribution from
DHA. In addition to an increased police presence at targeted sites,
DHA's policing programs have contributed to an improvement in police
response time and problemsolving between residents and police. One
resident commented, ``It wasn't always such a safe place to live, but
with help from the police patrol, our neighborhood has been cleaned
up.'' These improvements in safety are quantifiable: Policing efforts
have resulted in a 74.7-percent decrease in drug activity at targeted
sites between 1995 and 1996.
To implement its Community Policing Program, DHA has an ongoing
contract with the Danbury Police Department. Uniformed police officers
patrol targeted sites on foot and perform various other policing
duties, including responding to calls for assistance. These officers
are developing mutually beneficial relationships with residents and
encourage partnership for implementation of Neighborhood Crime Watch
initiatives. To be more efficient in their services, officers' shifts
correspond with the times when criminal activity is highest as
determined by police incident reports. These reports continue to be
maintained and studied on a monthly basis and police shifts are
adjusted as needed.
DHA introduced its site-based police ministations, which are housed
in the neighborhood community resource centers, in November 1994. These
ministations have been particularly effective in increasing police
visibility by bringing officers directly into the targeted
neighborhoods. Foot patrol officers, special narcotics officers, and
beat officers work out of these ministations on a regular basis. Using
community policing strategies, the ministations augment existing
routing patrols and drug investigations. By allowing police to witness
drug activity in targeted communities on a regular basis, the
ministations also improve the process of identifying, investigating,
arresting, and evicting residents and visitors who sell drugs.
For more information, contact: Housing Authority of the City of
Danbury, P.O. Box 86, Danbury, CT 06813-0086, (203) 744-2500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------- Percent
1995 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Activity in Targeted Public Housing......... 87 22 -74.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danbury PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Years 1991-1997
1991....................................................................
1992....................................................................
1993....................................................................
1994.......................................................... $121,200
1995.......................................................... 201,000
1996.......................................................... 201,100
1997.......................................................... 125,100
teaching kids to live drug free--framingham housing authority,
massachusetts
The Framingham Housing Authority (FHA) has made available to its
resident youth a variety of programs that help them deal with the
pressures in life that can lead to substance abuse and other crimes. A
bond between Framingham police officers and FHA youth has been
effective in changing behaviors and, consequently, reducing crime.
Between 1994 and 1996, FHA has seen a 26-percent decrease in Part 1
crimes in its public housing areas.
A $25,000 COPS and KIDS program grant allows the Framingham Police
Department and FHA to occupy children with constructive activities
during the hours that they are not in school. Programs operate in two
public housing communities and at scattered sites within walking
distance of middle schools attended by resident youth. FHA transports
the students to the satellite sites. A mentoring program was
established in the Fall of 1997, bringing in and training volunteers
from the Framingham Police Department, FHA, the local courts and
probation department, Framingham Park and Recreation Department,
Framingham schools, the Framingham Fire Department, and local colleges.
FHA has implemented several COPS and KIDS youth programs, which are
focused on teaching kids how to channel their energies in constructive,
nonviolent ways, to seek alternatives to violence, to become leaders,
to counsel their peers, and to avoid drugs and alcohol. A computer
laboratory has been created and staffed with mentors to allow youth the
opportunity to learn while having fun. Youth learn leadership,
teambuilding, and conflict resolution skills. Sports activities include
mountain biking and the popular boys' and girls' boxing program, which
is an incentive for kids to stay out of trouble. A teen counseling
hotline has been established and both middle school students and high
school juniors and seniors are being trained to counsel and mentor
peers and younger teens. Other programs currently being offered to
youth are tutoring, ESOL, and drug education. In the Summer of 1998,
the program will include youth community service and neighborhood
beautification projects.
These programs have made a difference in the lives of community
youth. One resident, whose three children are involved in the drug,
alcohol, and violence prevention activities, explains, ``Our children
are our most important asset and teaching them while they are young
will really benefit them in adulthood.''
For more information, contact: Framingham Housing Authority, 1 John
J. Brady Drive, Framingham, MA 01702-2300, (508) 879-7562.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------- Percent
1994 1995 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 Crimes Framingham.................. 208 180 153 -26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Years 1991-1997
1991....................................................................
1992....................................................................
1993....................................................................
1994....................................................................
1995....................................................................
1996....................................................................
1997.......................................................... $70,500
education programs reduce violent crime--new bedford housing authority,
massachusetts
Attention to learning and personal growth characterizes the New
Bedford Housing Authority's (NBHA's) education programs. In a city that
was called the most violent city in New England in 1991, NBHA's
personal and educational enrichment programs have contributed to a 69-
percent reduction in violent crime in targeted NBHA developments
between 1994 and 1996.
NBHA's award-winning Family Learning Center (FLC) is located in the
convenient Mount Pleasant School and is currently funded by a $51,000
PHDEP grant. More than 100 students in grades 4 through 6 participate
in daytime and afterschool educational programs. On the average,
students' skills have improved 1.15 grade levels in vocabulary and 1.07
grade levels in reading comprehension. The 1996/97 school year brought
the addition of a special education class that has enjoyed similar
success.
Adult education classes are also offered at the FLC and include
English for speakers of other languages, (ESOL); General Equivalency
Diploma, (GED) preparation courses; and the Computerized Competencies
Program, which allows students to learn to use computers and software
in a self-directed atmosphere. More than 50 adults are enrolled. ESOL
students have, on the average, achieved a command of the English
language equivalent to the third grade level. Of the 26 adults who
attended GED classes regularly, 19 have received their GED's. Many
others are building career skills.
Several extracurricular activities, which are funded under the
single FLC sum, are giving more than 200 children the power of
knowledge and a safe haven while relieving parents' childcare burden.
The Smart Moves program, which received $14,560 in PHDEP funds in
fiscal year 1997, is sponsored by the Boys & Girls Club of Greater New
Bedford and educates youth about the risks of sexual activity and the
use of drugs and alcohol. Changing Lives Through Literature, which
received $2,400 in PHDEP funds in fiscal year 1997, emphasizes the joy
of reading and is cosponsored by NBHA, the Third District Court of
Bristol County, and the Mt. Pleasant School. The Purple Bus, an
artmobile from the New Bedford Art Museum, received $5,200 in PHDEP
funds in fiscal year 1997 and brings art classes to children in NBHA's
public housing developments. Other activities draw from a wealth of
community resources and have also been effective in the overall drug-
prevention effort.
For more information, contact: New Bedford Housing Authority, P.O.
Box 2081, New Bedford, MA 02741, (508) 9974800, (508) 997-5338 (TDD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------- Percent
1994 1995 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate of Violent Crime New Bedford......... 88 74 27 -69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Years 1991-1997
1991....................................................................
1992.......................................................... $250,000
1993.......................................................... 316,696
1994.......................................................... 412,500
1995.......................................................... 412,500
1996.......................................................... 401,750
1997.......................................................... 428,220
employment assistance effectively combats drugs--newport news
redevelopment and housing authority
The Newport News Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NNRHA) takes
a multifaceted approach to support residents both in their transition
from welfare to the workplace and independence and in avoiding the
temptation to use drugs. NNRHA has forged ties with several area
government, public service and religious organizations, and other
community partners. The success of this program is evident in the 32-
percent decrease in violent crime between 1995 and 1996.
Virginia's Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW) began on
October 1, 1997, and a large portion of those enrolled in the program
are residents of NNRHA neighborhoods. In support of this program, NNRHA
assigned a caseworker to involve residents in welfare-to-work
initiatives and assorted NNRHA-sponsored programs. NNRHA has also
assigned a courier to provide transportation for residents enrolled in
job-readiness programs.
Funded by a $554,750 PHDEP grant in fiscal year 1995 and a 3-year,
$770,700 Economic Development and Supportive Services (EDSS) grant in
1996, the Job Training/Computer Education Program is intended to
discourage drug use and its associated behaviors by teaching
constructive training in alternative living habits and eventual self-
suffficiency. Program offerings include computer skills, life skills,
job readiness, personal development, communication and conflict
resolution, parenting, stress management, financial management, home
management, understanding welfare form, and job-search skills. Several
of these programs are housed in the Family Investment Center (FIC),
which opened its doors in 1997 and is funded by a 5-year, $1 million
HUD Family Investment Center Grant. Located beside the local Head Start
facility, FIC also provides space for childcare.
NNRHA gives residents an incentive to utilize FIC programs; when
they complete 80 hours of education and/or training and secure a job,
they are awarded an 18-month rent freeze. Between 1995 and 1997, 79
participants completed training and 48 of those have found work. One
resident said, Computer and education classes are teaching me to be
self-sufficient and a positive influence for my neighbors and family.
Since this program costs nothing to attend, it allows me to get top-
rate skills and lessens the pressures of finances in order for me to
attend computer classes. I am now a confident and highly motivated
person.''
For more information, contact: Newport News Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, P.O. Box 77, Newport News, VA 23607-0077, (757) 247-
9701, (757) 247-6535 (TDD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate of Violent Crime..................................... 131 89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport News PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Year 1991-1997
1991....................................................................
1992.......................................................... $453,800
1993.......................................................... 457,800
1994.......................................................... 554,750
1995.......................................................... 554,750
1996.......................................................... 509,750
1997.......................................................... 556,140
jobs prove successful alternative to drugs--housing authority of the
city of oakland, california
The Housing Authority of the City of Oakland (OHA) is giving its
residents a reason to stay off drugs: It is giving them jobs. Its
resident employment programs have had a drastic impact on crime in the
community, with a 59-percent drop in narcotics arrests between 1995 and
1996.
OHA started its resident employment program, in response to
residents' need for job training and placement assistance. Now
beginning its third year, the program receives $80,000 in comprehensive
grant funds. OHA has united with the following HOPE VI partners to
provide job training for residents: the Private Industry Council, the
East Bay Conservation Corps, the Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation,
East Bay Small Business Development, the Spanish Speaking Unity
Council, and the East Oakland Youth Development Center. Assorted
building contractors and architects also contract to work for OHA.
OHA maintains the Job Skills Databank, which keeps the records of
residents' skills so that they can be referred to employers and job-
training programs suitable to their skill level. The Resident
Internship Program, which in its second year employed several residents
who were registered with the databank, gives residents the opportunity
to learn and accumulate a year of on-the-job training and experience
working at OHA. The success of the program in its first year allowed it
to add several new positions in its second year. One first-year intern
is now employed full-time with OHA's finance department and the other
is working full-time with a private company.
Two other employment programs are making a difference in the lives
of residents. A 3-year, $250,000 HUD Apprenticeship Demonstration
Program grant and a partnership with the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied
Trades have given young public housing residents valuable trade
training. Sixteen residents, ages 17 to 25, are currently receiving
training in carpentry and construction while reviewing basic reading
and math skills. As part of its fiscal year 1997 plan, OHA's community
policing program, which is funded by a combination of PHDEP and
comprehensive grant funds and money from OHA's operating budget, is
hiring two residents, to work as public safety aides. These residents
will assist PHDEP security officers with a variety of tasks and have
access to information and guidance should they show interest in a law
enforcement career.
For more information, contact: Housing Authority of the City of
Oakland, 1619 Harrison Street, Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 874-1500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
1995 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narcotics........................................ \1\ 4 \1\ 2 -59
9 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per 1,000 people.
Oakland PHDEP Funding History: Fiscal Year 1991-1997
1991.......................................................... $620,000
1992.......................................................... 661,158
1993.......................................................... 660,098
1994.......................................................... 824,756
1995.......................................................... 824,987
1996.......................................................... 824,961
1997.......................................................... 858,000
reforming the public housing authorities
Senator Lautenberg. In search of reform, do you have a
general view of what is happening in public housing authorities
across the country with whom HUD works? We have seen scandal
after scandal over the years in my State and other States
across the country. Is there a change in the audit or
examination procedures now that gives you a degree of comfort
in terms of the reliability of the performance, the management
of these facilities that are under the public housing
administrations that gives you a chance to intervene when
things start to go awry there?
Secretary Cuomo. Today, Senator, frankly no. In the next
several months, I believe the answer will be different. We do
not have at this time, in my opinion, an adequate assessment
system of public housing in this Nation. Now keeping in mind
the overall context which is there are 3,400 public housing
authorities, and the vast majority of them are working very
well and the troubled are a small relative number. But I am not
confident in the system that we now have as an assessment
system.
We are moving to a new system which will be the first
national evaluation of our portfolio. Physical inspection of
all the properties by an independent party. Real estate
management is fairly simple. What does the building look like
and what do the finances look like? I cannot tell you that
today. We do not have an independent physical evaluation of all
the public housing projects. We will. We do not have an
independent assessment of the finances of all the public
housing authorities. We will, and we will then put those two
elements together. We will be able to rank the portfolio and
then focus on the troubled ones and give some flexibility to
the high performers, which is what we are trying to get at
here. Get the high performers, give them some flexibility. If
they are working well, God bless them. Give them the tools. Let
them do the job. If they are troubled or if there is fraud or
if there is waste, let us get in there aggressively. We have to
be able to tell the two apart to do that, and I do not think
the system that we have today does that adequately.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Craig.
emergency supplemental provided hud
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, let me come to an issue that is of great
concern of mine, and you and I have had some conversation on it
over the last several weeks. Now I find out that it is not just
my concern. It has spread here in the committee. The clerk of
the committee has requested information and the chairman this
morning in his opening comments used the word red flag as it
relates to the $500 million in emergency supplemental provided
HUD in an emergency CDBG funding that really was unprecedented
as it relates to the complement of the funding for disaster
relief under FEMA and other disaster relief programs.
Having said that and we know the template of which I am
talking about, my State of Idaho last year had two
presidentially declared disasters, for anybody's information
who is interested, disaster 1154 and 1177. As a result of that,
the State of Idaho made certain requests. Last fall, HUD
demanded, and I am told on a 24-hour notice, a complete
assessment of unmet needs for disasters that I have just
mentioned. The State assessment included $8 million for the
first disaster and $13 million for the second, for a total of
$21 million.
But the State very clearly said that of all of our
priorities, the second disaster which included the replacing of
a critical flowway of water under Milo Creek and two
communities in north Idaho was the priority, the single most
important priority. It is interesting that in response HUD
released $2.8 million of disaster relief for the first disaster
declared but not the second, not the State's priority, about 13
percent of the request.
Now, I could go on down through this, but I am curious
about several things. I do not expect you to be able to answer
all of them here today.
But in looking at all of this, this was a tremendously high
priority. It involves human health and sanitation, untreated
sewage flowing down the main streets of a community, and it was
a critical need. The State put money into it. They brought
other Federal agencies in, and HUD's was the matching.
Now, of that $4 million request, our conversations--and I
appreciate that. You suggested the ability to release about
$377,000 for that particular project.
I guess my question is beyond the scope, the nature of the
public health and the safety of the issue. Combined, these two
HUD grants add up to about 15 percent of the unmet needs of my
State, and I would like to know if this is the same formula,
the 15 percent funds requested that HUD has applied to other
States' requests because what I am finding out in letters that
while it is argued that--and let me read a quote from a letter
that has been received by the committee from Assistant
Secretary DeCell.
The Department has developed a web-based reporting system
to simplify reporting by the guarantees on the use of CDBG
disaster funds. HUD is in the process of seeking OMB approval
for data collection and compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Requirements Act so that it can populate the system with data.
All of the allocations for the 1997 CDBG emergency supplemental
appropriation of $500 million have been announced.
But it goes on to conclude that we do not really have an
accounting of it. As of February 28, 1998, HUD had obligated
$265.7 million and disbursed $58.3 million. I guess I can add
up that there is close to a couple hundred million dollars of
unobligated.
And I am curious, as is the committee, of how that money
got distributed and under what allocation formula and spread
out amongst the States with designated Presidential disasters.
Am I looking at something that is reasonable and right based on
the State's ability to perform and its ability to match all
these moneys coming together?
Because without question, Mr. Secretary, of all of our
difficulties in the last weather cycle of 1997, the Milo Creek
problem in Kellogg and Wardner, ID, is the greatest of all. And
the State offered that priority and somehow HUD appeared to
ignore it and say, no, it will fund these but we will not fund
this. Of course, the problem with that project is it is about
an $11 million project, and you do not just start something
like that and let it sit. You have got to have all of the money
together before you launch a project of that nature.
So, I have asked you several questions in combination, but
I think the committee is obviously very concerned about the
overall accountability of that emergency money and how it has
been allocated.
disbursement of emergency supplemental
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, there were a number of elements
to the question that you asked. Let me touch on a few of them
and then any that I do not touch on I will either follow up or
get you information after this hearing.
The way the program works is basically this. We had $500
million at the beginning of the fiscal year, and we have a
formula which takes into account what we call the unmet buyout
need which is a FEMA calculation, the unmet housing loss, which
is an SBA calculation, unmet business physical damage loss,
which is another SBA calculation, and relative need to State
gross product. So, we have a number of factors which are part
of a formula that we used to allocate the $500 million to
whatever that need is.
Every disaster is a multiple of what we provided through
CDBG. Every disaster.
When we began the year, we were making those allocations
out of the $500 million. When we ran that formula against the
$500 million, the State got $2.8 million. That was in October
1997. The second disaster happened for us at the end of the
cycle. We only had $17 million left when the State made the
second request, and we were allocating that $17 million to a
much larger universe. Of that $17 million, the formulaic
allocation was $377,000. That is as a Senator, a question of
timing and the availability of resources.
When we started the program year and the first request came
in, we were allocating on a base of $500 million. Again, nobody
got what they needed. They only got a fraction of what they
needed, but we were running the formula against $500 million.
When we got to the end of the year, the funding was basically
all exhausted. There was just a $17 million amount left, and we
did the allocation against the $17 million. And that is where
the $377,000 came from.
But I can get the committee all the allocations, the
formula used. You will see that those disasters which were
early in the cycle, which basically were the disasters which
stimulated the $500 million in the first place, got the funding
by a formula. Then, as the program was authorized to handle
disasters as they came up through the year, at the end of the
year we had a very small amount of money left, and that is what
we were allocating.
[The information follows:]
Summary of HUD Disaster Recovery Allocation Calculation
Under Public Law 105-18, signed by the President June 12, 1997,
Congress appropriated:
``an additional amount for `Community development block
grants fund' as authorized under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, $500,000,000, of which
$250,000,000 shall become available for obligation on October
1, 1997, all of which shall remain available until September
30, 2000, for use only for buyouts, relocation, long-term
recovery, and mitigation in communities affected by the
flooding in the upper Midwest and other disasters in fiscal
year 1997 and such natural disasters designated 30 days prior
to the start of fiscal year 1997, except those activities
reimbursable or for which funds are made available by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business
Administration, or the Army Corps of Engineers * * * ''
Using the legislation as its guide, the calculation used to
allocate the supplemental CDBG disaster appropriation reflects the
following three tenets:
(1) Meet unmet buyout/mitigation need and other unmet housing and
economic losses.
(2) States with more recent disasters will require relatively more
funding to recover than states with disasters at an earlier time.
(3) The larger the amount of unmet need relative to an area's
overall economy, the more Federal assistance it will need to recover.
The allocation is a two step process. The first step allocates
funds to states and the second step does a substate allocation to
direct grantees.
The state-level allocation uses the following calculation:
Each state receives funding for buyout/mitigation need.
Remaining funds are allocated by formula using the following
method:
--.40 (share of unmet economic loss) + .60 (share of unmet home loss)
adjusted by the amount of time since the disaster ended
adjusted by the relative impact the unmet loss has on the local
economy
Where,
--unmet economic loss means unmet agricultural loss as reported by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plus the total loss
for businesses, rental properties, and nonprofit organizations
denied Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans; and
--unmet home loss means the total loss for homeowners denied SBA
disaster loans less the amount of Individual and Family Grants
provided to homeowners by FEMA.
If a state would be allocated less than $250,000 under the
calculation, it receives no allocation and the amount is redistributed
to the remaining states.
The local level allocation is as follows:
Less data are available at the substate level than at the state
level, so substate allocations are made using the following data:
--Each local community's share of its state's unmet buyout need,
--The local community's total unmet loss for homes and economic need,
--Remaining need for Federal dollars and jurisdiction capacity.
1997 HUD DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee County name Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE, AL....................... MOBILE............. 679,777
BALDWIN COUNTY, AL............... BALDWIN............ 981,301
MOBILE COUNTY, AL................ MOBILE............. 935,102
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, AL............ ................... 2,596,180
=================
PULASKI COUNTY/COLLEGE STATION, PULASKI............ 687,989
AR.
STATE GRANT, AR.................. ................... 686,446
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, AR............ ................... $1,374,435
=================
MODESTO, CA...................... STANISLAUS......... 650,426
SACRAMENTO, CA................... SACRAMENTO......... 320,780
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA............ SACRAMENTO......... 400,704
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA........... SAN JOAQUIN........ 1,174,098
SONOMA COUNTY, CA................ SONOMA............. 547,804
STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA............ STANISLAUS......... 575,921
YUBA COUNTY, CA.................. YUBA............... 2,563,780
STATE GRANT, CA.................. ................... 5,338,112
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, CA............ ................... 11,571,625
=================
FORT COLLINS, CO................. LARIMER............ 511,740
STATE GRANT, CO.................. ................... 156,829
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, CO............ ................... 668,569
=================
STATE GRANT, FL.................. ................... 512,116
=================
STATE GRANT, ID.................. ................... 3,219,750
=================
CHICAGO, IL...................... COOK............... 900,000
STATE GRANT, IL.................. ................... 607,052
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, IL............ ................... 1,507,052
=================
STATE GRANT, IN.................. ................... 6,511,863
=================
HOPKINSVILLE, KY................. CHRISTIAN.......... 447,174
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY............. JEFFERSON.......... 2,068,840
LOUISVILLE, KY................... JEFFERSON.......... 2,000,197
OWENSBORO, KY.................... DAVIESS............ 336,116
FALMOUTH CITY, KY................ PENDELTON.......... 2,186,005
BOURBON COUNTY, KY............... BOURBON............ 587,852
CYNTHIANA CITY/HARRISON COUNTY, HARRISON........... 867,560
KY.
FRANKFORT CITY/FRANKLIN COUNTY, FRANKLIN........... 717,760
KY.
PENDELTON COUNTY, KY............. PENDELTON.......... 567,439
SHEPHERDSVILLE CITY/BULLITT BULLITT............ 1,488,753
COUNTY, KY.
STATE GRANT, KY.................. ................... 4,484,904
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, KY............ ................... 15,752,600
=================
BOSTON, MA....................... SUFFOLK............ 228,534
LAWRENCE, MA..................... ESSEX.............. 333,300
SALEM, MA........................ ESSEX.............. 505,421
STATE GRANT TARGETED TO ESSEX ESSEX.............. 3,491,075
COUNTY, MA.
STATE GRANT SUBTOTAL FOR OTHER ................... 806,369
AREAS, MA.
STATE GRANT TOTAL, MA............ ................... 4,297,444
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, MA............ ................... 5,364,699
=================
STATE GRANT, MD.................. ................... 469,601
=================
STATE GRANT, ME.................. ................... 782,332
=================
DETROIT, MI...................... WAYNE.............. 3,336,146
WAYNE COUNTY, MI................. WAYNE.............. 975,582
STATE GRANT, MI.................. ................... 415,552
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, MI............ ................... 4,727,280
=================
EAST GRAND FORKS CITY, MN........ POLK............... 20,469,522
STATE GRANT, MN.................. ................... 71,567,909
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, MN............ ................... 92,037,131
=================
STATE GRANT, MT.................. ................... 863,522
=================
CHAPEL HILL, NC.................. ORANGE............. 349,041
DURHAM, NC....................... DURHAM............. 342,902
FAYETTEVILLE, NC................. CUMBERLAND......... 320,093
GOLDSBORO, NC.................... WAYNE.............. 648,674
JACKSONVILLE, NC................. ONSLOW............. 308,188
RALEIGH, NC...................... WAKE............... 3,002,052
WAKE COUNTY, NC.................. WAKE............... 1,332,066
WILMINGTON, NC................... NEW HANOVER........ 740,794
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NC.............. BEAUFORT........... 1,421,128
CRAVEN COUNTY, NC................ CRAVEN............. 1,338,999
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC.............. JOHNSTON........... 1,519,812
KINSTON CITY/LENOIR COUNTY, NC... LENOIR............. 10,922,932
NEW HANOVER COUNTY/WRIGHTSVILLE NEW HANOVER........ 1,853,170
BEACH TOWN, NC.
ONSLOW COUNTY, NC................ ONSLOW............. 1,347,205
PENDER COUNTY/SURF CITY, NC...... PENDER............. 3,670,386
STATE GRANT, NC.................. ................... 6,569,270
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, NC............ ................... 35,686,712
=================
FARGO, ND........................ CASS............... 5,943,963
GRAND FORKS, ND.................. GRAND FORKS........ 171,567,707
CASS COUNTY, ND.................. CASS............... 1,400,000
GRAND FORKS COUNTY, ND........... GRAND FORKS........ 2,176,049
MERCER COUNTY, ND................ MERCER............. 500,000
PEMBINA COUNTY, ND............... PEMBINA............ 1,000,000
DEVILS LAKE/RAMSEY COUNTY, ND.... RAMSEY............. 3,500,000
RICHLAND COUNTY/WAHPETON, ND..... RICHLAND........... 3,470,759
TRAILL COUNTY, ND................ TRAILL............. 1,000,000
WALSH COUNTY, ND................. WALSH.............. 504,504
STATE GRANT, ND.................. BURLEIGH........... 10,200,140
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, ND.................. ................... 201,263,122
=================
STATE GRANT, NH.................. ................... 557,750
=================
RENO, NV......................... WASHOE............. 651,733
SPARKS, NV....................... WASHOE............. 988,442
STATE GRANT, NV.................. ................... 386,714
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, NV............ ................... 2,026,889
=================
CINCINNATI, OH................... HAMILTON........... 423,621
CLERMONT COUNTY/NEW RICHMOND, OH. CLERMONT........... 506,342
SCIOTO COUNTY, OH................ SCIOTO............. 588,670
STATE GRANT, OH.................. ................... 1,263,631
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, OH............ ................... 2,782,264
=================
ASHLAND, OR...................... JACKSON............ 573,391
STATE GRANT, OR.................. ................... 3,721,775
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, OR............ ................... 4,295,166
=================
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA............ MONTGOMERY......... 650,797
STATE GRANT, PA.................. ................... 287,832
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, PA............ ................... 938,629
=================
BAYAMON MUNICIPIO, PR............ BAYAMON............ 5,404,219
CAGUAS MUNICIPIO, PR............. CAGUAS............. 273,646
CAYEY MUNICIPIO, PR.............. CAYEY.............. 1,552,491
HUMACAO MUNICIPIO, PR............ HUMACAO............ 324,035
PONCE MUNICIPIO, PR.............. PONCE.............. 4,590,285
SAN JUAN MUNICIPIO, PR........... TRUJILLO ALTO...... 315,218
TOA ALTA MUNICIPIO, PR........... TOA ALTA........... 397,906
TOA BAJA MUNICIPIO, PR........... TOA BAJA........... 1,478,336
COMMONWEALTH GRANT SUBTOTAL, PR.. ................... 15,172,960
-----------------
COMMONWEALTH TOTAL, PR..... ................... 29,509,096
=================
RAPID CITY, SD................... PENNINGTON......... 642,102
STATE GRANT, SD.................. ................... 57,794,124
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, SD............ ................... 58,436,226
=================
STATE GRANT, TX.................. ................... 2,223,138
=================
STATE GRANT, VA.................. ................... 780,000
=================
STATE GRANT, VT.................. ................... 1,219,587
=================
KING COUNTY, WA.................. KING............... 613,353
KITSAP COUNTY, WA................ KITSAP............. 387,225
SEATTLE, WA...................... KING............... 601,694
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA............. SNOHOMISH.......... 575,522
YAKIMA, WA....................... YAKIMA............. 204,646
STATE GRANT, WA.................. ................... 2,420,113
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, WA............ ................... 4,802,553
=================
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, WV............. HAMPSHIRE.......... 533,181
KANAWHA COUNTY, WV............... KANAWHA............ 581,547
STATE GRANT, WV.................. ................... 2,333,420
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, WV............ ................... 3,448,148
=================
MILWAUKEE, WI.................... MILWAUKEE.......... 1,455,474
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI............. MILWAUKEE.......... 936,469
WAUWATOSA, WI.................... MILWAUKEE.......... 831,325
WAUKESHA COUNTY, WI.............. WAUKESHA........... 677,135
STATE GRANT, WI.................. ................... 171,261
-----------------
STATE TOTAL, WI............ ................... 4,071,664
=================
TOTAL GRANT AWARDS......... ................... 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Secretary, I do appreciate that
explanation and it certainly fits with the circumstances and
the figures that have been applied. There is no dispute there.
But I will say that I think by the request of the committee and
the committee staff and the concern of the chairman and myself,
that accounting and how all that money got allocated is
something we are concerned about not just for Idaho but half a
billion dollars happens to be quite a bit of money. It
apparently has not been forthcoming. We would hope it could be.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Craig, for reemphasizing
that point.
Senator Mikulski. Is that a vote or what is that?
Senator Bond. It looks like we are going into recess maybe.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, could we have a followup to
Senator Craig about the public utility issue coming up?
Senator Bond. Let me allow Senator Burns.
Senator Mikulski. And then we will come back.
Senator Bond. Because I think you and I may have a little
more time.
Senator Mikulski. OK. Very good.
Senator Bond. If you can check and find out----
Senator Mikulski. Yes, what could all that mean?
Senator Bond. I think we are probably trying a new
legislative day. I think it is one of those parliamentary
tricks.
Senator Mikulski. I think that is some of the Architect of
the Capitol staff complaining about downsizing. [Laughter.]
Secretary Cuomo. Well, there are more red lights flashing,
whatever it is.
Senator Bond. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will not take me
very long. I have just got a couple of areas of concern.
forest services' moratorium on building roads
First of all, Mr. Secretary, thank you for returning the
phone call the other day. I appreciate that. We have talked
about that one problem. We have got a couple of them in
Montana, and I will not bring them up here because I do not
think that would do anything to further the hearing here.
I would like to make a comment, though. The Forest Service
has put a moratorium on building roads out in our part of the
country. It is costing us timber sales. They said they had to
do that in order to reassess and do this.
I cannot believe that you run a $25 billion outlay here and
it does not have an accounting system to really monitor on what
is going on just about everywhere. That is like a humongous
undertaking, between you and I. I do not fault you in this
because you are just the new kid on the block. I think it is
incumbent on us, working with you, to come up with some way
that we can account for this money. That is the reason I think
that it has been so loosely run in HUD that it has opened up
some activities that are a little on the unsavory side.
housing funds for indian country
I do want to bring up this thing with our housing funds in
Indian country. I do not know what the real answer to that is,
but I understand that you have a report back from OMB. I have
not seen that report. I would like to, if I possibly could. In
a fair housing situation that we have in Montana, I want to
just issue an invitation to come down to the office or I come
to your office, one way or the other, and I think with the
proper staff involved, maybe we can work out and get some
answers to some of these problems. Would you accept an
invitation like that?
Secretary Cuomo. It would be my pleasure, Senator.
Senator Burns. We could get a ways through this. But I am
really concerned. This administration gives a lot of--we hear a
lot of rhetoric coming out of there on what they are going to
do for Indian country. Then the followthrough has not been very
good. I have got some people--it is wintertime in my end of the
world, and I am concerned for people who live on those
reservations and I will continue to be, as I am with their
education and their economic opportunity. I just do not want to
see anything slow up that pipeline.
So, that is the only question that I have. If we could get
together in the next couple of weeks or so or at your
convenience at your place or my place--it does not make any
difference--or a coffee shop in between. [Laughter.]
It does not make any difference. Or under a tree. I think
we just need to have a sitdown and exchange some ideas and
straighten some things out. There are some misunderstandings.
Let us get by those misunderstandings and try to solve some
problems.
Thank you very much for coming this morning. I appreciate
this opportunity. If we could work that out, I would be very
appreciative.
Secretary Cuomo. It would be my pleasure, Senator.
financial information systems
First, if I might, on the financial information systems. We
had a major problem on the financial systems and tracking the
money. It is much better today than it was a year ago. We had
89 separate financial systems in the Department. We are
integrating them into one.
Senator Burns. Unbelievable.
Secretary Cuomo. Yes; it was not a good situation, let us
put it that way.
It is a much different situation today. I mentioned in my
opening testimony, the first Federal Department to have its
budget in on time this year to OMB was HUD which was unheard of
a few years ago, and the numbers all added up. Not only were we
first but we were accurate, which is always nice.
Senator Burns. You got to remember that Senators only learn
to count to 51. [Laughter.]
indian country
Secretary Cuomo. When the Senator called on the concern
about the Indian funding, we got on that right away, Senator.
You were correct. This was a very new approach. It was a new
piece of legislation. It raised some problems with OMB. It
raised some problems internally with some of the various
offices in the Department that were trying to stop it.
We cleared all that away. I am pleased to tell you that
today, Senator, the funding will be available to Indian tribes
who need it. Literally today the operating funds are available,
and we are getting that word out. We are contacting the tribes
by telephone as well as on the Internet and we have published a
notice. So, that funding is out and is available.
It would be my pleasure to meet with you, Senator, and it
would be my pleasure to come to your office. I spend a lot of
time in the HUD building and any excuse to get out I take. So,
I am glad to come see you.
Senator Burns. You ought to do that, but you are just
moving from one barn to another.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I
appreciate the openness of the Secretary. We can work our way
through these things.
Senator Bond. Senator Craig, do you have any last comments
that you would like to add, or Senator Burns, I would be happy
to----
Senator Burns. I am going to go vote and save the Nation.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. That makes me feel good all over. [Laughter.]
We will adjourn the hearing. As you have noticed, Senator
Mikulski has gone ahead. When she comes back, I will ask her to
take over the gavel and to conduct questioning. I will return
as quickly as I can. We thank our colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You and the others here can rest
for a few minutes. We stand in recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Bond. The hearing will reconvene, if you will
please take your seats.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I apologize for the delay.
assisted grant programs
Let me ask a couple questions. I mentioned the McKinney
homeless program. Then we talked about some of the confusion
and the complaints. What happened with the funding for these
ongoing assisted grant programs? Can you tell us how these are
supposed to work? What will I tell Sister Lorraine and the
people who run Kitchens and their clients if they go out of
business in the next coming months?
Secretary Cuomo. Mr. Chairman, what you can say is, why did
the local government, the city make the decision not to
prioritize Kitchens as their No. 1 priority?
What we have done with the homeless program is just what
the chairman said should be the way we should go. We do not
make these decisions in Washington anymore. We at one time did.
Now we say to the local city, the State, whatever the case may
be, you tell us what program you believe you need most. Put
that at the top of your list and then we will bring a
competition to bear because we want performance, not blank
check government. We want to make sure we are funding the best
programs out there, but you prioritize. We then run a
competition and then we allocate the funds the best we can, but
we are leaving the decisions to local government.
Renewals mean we funded some programs last year, the year
before, et cetera. Should they get funded again? We do not know
here in Washington. We say to the local government, do you need
that program more than any other program, and they literally
give us a list of priorities. We just work our way down their
list.
Senator Bond. All right, and I assume that the increase in
homeless grants would be utilized in the same manner.
Secretary Cuomo. Same manner. In other words, we allocate
based on the local government's priorities. The local
government decides whether or not a renewal should be funded,
not Washington. It is a major shift in the way we are doing
business. It follows all the principles that the chairman laid
out as the direction for HUD to follow, HUD using the
devolution approach, deferral to local government.
[The information follows:]
Fiscal Year 1997 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition--
Summary of Results
the kitchen, inc., springfield, mo
The results of the fiscal year 1997 national competition were
announced on December 22, 1997. Subsequent to the announcements,
several letters were received expressing support for The Kitchen, Inc.,
located in Springfield, Missouri, and voicing concern over the decision
not to renew funding for that organization. Two of the letters were
from Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft. A copy of the response to the
Senators' letters is attached. A summary of the process that resulted
in The Kitchen, Inc. not being funded follows.
The City of Springfield, Missouri submitted an ``associated''
application in the 1997 competition of which The Kitchen, Inc. project
was a part along with Ozark Area Community Action Corporation (CAC).
The project submitted by the Ozark Area CAC was given the first
priority by the Springfield, Missouri Continuum of Care. The Kitchen,
Inc. was identified as the second priority project in the same
application. The requested amounts were $74,394 and $1,556,366,
respectively.
Both projects were assigned 35 points out of a maximum possible 60
points on the Continuum of Care rating element. The project submitted
by the Ozark Area CAC received 40 points on the ``need'' rating element
out of 40 possible points. However, The Kitchen, Inc. received only 20
need points for this factor.
``Need'' points were awarded based upon a applicant's relative need
for homeless assistance compared to the extent of need nationwide. Need
is calculated from generally available data on poverty, housing
overcrowding, population, age of housing and growth lag. In the
competition, those priority projects whose requested amounts fell fully
within the applicant's Continuum of Care pro rata need amount (or
``first tier''), which in the case of Springfield totaled $520,597, or
those where more than one-half the requested amount fell within this
``first tier'' received the full 40 points. Those projects where more
than one-half of the requested amount fell outside of the ``first
tier'' were assigned no more than 20 points. The Kitchen, Inc., fell
outside of the ``first tier''. Consequently it received only 20 points
under ``need''.
The 20 ``need'' points were added to the 35 points received for the
Continuum of Care rating element, bringing The Kitchen Inc.'s total
score to 55, which was below the 73 points necessary for funding.
______
Letter From Hal C. DeCell, III
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Office of Constituent Services,
Jefferson City, MO.
Dear Senator Bond: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1998,
on behalf of your constituent, The Kitchen, Inc., Springfield, Missouri
which applied for supportive services funding under HUD's 1997
Continuum of Care homeless assistance competition.
The Kitchen, Inc., project was a part of an associated application
with Ozark Area Community Action Corporation. The project submitted by
the Ozark Area Community Action Corporation was given the first
priority by the Springfield, Missouri Continuum of Care. The Kitchen,
Inc. was identified as the second priority project in the same
application. The requested amounts were $74,394 and $1,556,366,
respectively.
Both projects were assigned 30 points out of a maximum possible 60
points on the Continuum of Care rating element. Because of the order in
which the two projects were prioritized, the project submitted by the
Ozark Area Community Action Corporation received 40 points on the
``need'' rating element out of a 40 possible points. However, The
Kitchen, Inc., received only 20 need points on this factor. Projects
were funded based on the order of their ranking. While the Ozark Area
Community Action Corporation project received a total score high enough
to warrant selection, The Kitchen, Inc., did not score high enough to
receive funding in the national competition.
Thank you for your interest in the Department's programs. Please
let us know if we can be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Hal C. DeCell, III,
Assistant Secretary.
Senator Bond. Well, there is a question about whether the
local officials in this instance have told us that they
supported this. We will work with you to find out where that
decision was made. Obviously, we are hearing two different
stories, which is the reason we have hearings.
Secretary Cuomo. I understand, Mr. Chairman. My
information--and I will work on it on my side--is it was not
their top priority.
Senator Bond. All right.
affordable housing
Let me jump to a totally new subject. We have talked a good
deal about the real problems that we have in the cities, but I
have to tell you that as I have traveled through rural
Missouri, I find a crying need for affordable housing, and in
many, many rural areas, the people who are moving from welfare
to work cannot find the jobs. We have a strong economy in the
rural areas, but people who are starting to work and coming in
at above minimum wage, but still a very modest wage, cannot
afford housing.
What are you doing in rural areas? What can we do to meet
these needs as well?
Secretary Cuomo. We have, Mr. Chairman, as you know,
actually several rural specific programs from last year's bill
where we are now actually running programs in rural parts of
the country directly from HUD. But the two main programs, CDBG
and HOME, operate in rural America also. We tend to think of
them as urban programs, but under CDBG, community development
block grant, in which a large portion of that program goes to
housing rehabilitation, the State administers in rural areas.
And we are doing housing work through CDBG in rural areas. The
HOME program also is used extensively in rural areas.
We have a new software technology at HUD where we literally
have mapped every HUD project in the Nation, and I will send
the chairman the map for your State just to give you an idea of
what is happening in the rural areas, much more than people
think.
Senator Bond. Well, and we know but we also hear that there
is a much greater need. I agree with you that HOME and CDBG are
available. They are available in the cities. They are available
in the rural areas. We focused on the HUD programs directly in
the cities and the things that you are doing above and beyond
that minimum, and I need to know what it is that we could do
specifically in the rural areas. We need to work with you.
I will impose so I can finish up this round of questioning
and then turn it over to Senator Mikulski for as long as she
wishes.
economic development initiative
The economic development initiative, community empowerment
fund. It is stated that the $400 million grant funds will
leverage an estimated $2 billion in private sector loans. How
did you determine that that $400 million in grants would result
in $2 billion in loan guarantee commitments, and how can you
ensure that the funds would not be used simply to lure jobs
from one area of the country to another area, something that is
of great concern?
Secretary Cuomo. This is not going to be a case of first
impression, Mr. Chairman. We now run the EDI program, economic
development initiative, which the chairman knows well, and the
108 loan program, which the chairman also knows well, which are
proven programs with proven track records. They are producing
jobs. They are working well. There is a tremendous demand by
cities all across this Nation and rural areas for this kind of
tool, and we are banking on the experience. These are not
estimates. We have experience from past EDI loans and 108 loans
that we have been doing now for years, literally 4 or 5 years.
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
housing for the elderly
Secretary Cuomo, I want to now go to my questions on
elderly housing. Of course, I think one of the exciting things
about housing for the elderly was that it was partnerships
often with nonprofits and faith-based groups.
By the way, I would like to thank you for your effort to
reach out to faith-based groups and for the establishment on
the--I believe you have a Center for Community and Interfaith
Partnerships. We have already connected some of our faith-based
groups to that center, and I believe it is working because they
do not have golden Rolodexes to know how to apply for Federal
funds and so on.
But let us go to the housing for the elderly. In President
Clinton's budget, there was a cut of $498 million in housing
for the elderly, and this gave us a tremendous concern. Last
year Senator Bond really took the leadership and I worked very
closely with him to restore a $300 million and something
reduction in housing for the elderly. I think you would agree
that this is the one program that everybody likes.
So, my question is twofold. One, do you really want us to
cut this, or was it just a way to balance the budget, assuming
Bond and Mikulski would rescue it? And if so, in our allocation
where would you suggest we get it? Because it will come out of
other HUD programs.
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, three quick elements in response.
No. 1, on the not-for-profit center, I could not agree with
you more. That center is working well. It is the first
institutional input for not-for-profits at HUD. Historically,
HUD does business with public housing authorities and State and
local governments, but not-for-profits do not really have a
home at HUD if you will. Not-for-profits have gotten so much
more sophisticated over the past decade where they are really a
proven service delivery mechanism now. The Senator knows you
have Enterprise, et cetera in your State. So, the center is
working very well. Father Joe Hacala who ran CHD has come in
and is doing it for us, and we are very excited about it.
On the senior citizen housing, Senator, first as an
approach, listening to what the chairman said in his opening
comments, we currently run the 202 and 811 program in
Washington where we make the decisions on what programs should
win, in what city and where they should be cited literally
because when they give us an application, it has an address. We
do it without consulting the local government, without asking
the Governor, without asking the Senator. We make the decision.
If we believe in devolution and getting resources to the
Governors, why not take the 202/811 funding, put it in the HOME
program, and say here you go, Governor. Here is the block grant
for affordable housing. You decide between seniors and disabled
and public housing needs, et cetera, and the resources are now
within your own control. If you want to come up with a
comprehensive----
Senator Mikulski. You are recommending we take the housing
for the elderly and convert it into a block grant out of HOME?
Secretary Cuomo. We say roll the 202 into HOME with a fire
wall which would wall off the 202 so the seniors would have
that guarantee of a certain amount within the HOME block grant.
Senator Mikulski. Well, then why have any--I do not want to
get into an argument here, but why then have any programs at
HUD? Why not just convert everything into a block grant?
Secretary Cuomo. And that is the tension I think, Senator,
between----
Senator Mikulski. It is more than a tension. If you go down
this road, once you get on this road, you will pick up a lot of
other traffic.
Secretary Cuomo. I understand that point. The truth is
somewhere in the middle. With the block grants, you would lose
control, but if you had a block grant where you said, but x
must go to seniors----
Senator Mikulski. Even if you block grant it or whatever,
it is still a $498 million shortfall.
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, the GAO offers testimony today
where they say there is $439 million in the HUD budget that is
in addition to the savings that HUD has previously found within
the budget. This committee asked GAO to go in and take a look
at the books and GAO found $439 million. We have done a scrub
of the books. We concur with GAO and we concur on the $439
million. The $439 million would bring this committee a long way
back to restoring that whole 202/811 program.
Senator Mikulski. So, you are saying look to the GAO
report, which your new Chief Financial Officer has concurred
with, that this be the source of the $400?
Secretary Cuomo. I am saying, Senator, yes, the GAO has
found $439 million. We would concur that there is $439 million
there. We would be pleased to work with the committee on any
other budget nuances that we would have to come up with to make
it work.
new and innovated approaches to elderly housing
Senator Mikulski. Well, let me then go to a report that we
had in fiscal year 1998. We asked for a report on what HUD
could do to encourage new and innovative approaches to elderly
housing that may reduce costs, increase efficiency, which
really means the delivery of services. Could you tell me the
status of that report and what leadership you are providing for
new thinking and new approaches on housing for the elderly?
Secretary Cuomo. We are doing a lot of work in the
Department, Senator, on senior citizen housing, assisted living
housing, working with the not-for-profits on design standards,
et cetera. The specific report--I do not know where the report
is in development. I could either find out now--I am sure we
have the appropriate person here, given the number of HUD
officials--or I could get it at a later date and get it back to
you.
Senator Mikulski. Well, what about the ideas? Is there
really a driving force with the population aging, with this---
AARP tells me that for every one section 8 unit, there are
eight people on a waiting list. The aging in place of both the
population, the aging in place in senior housing, the whole
issue of how services are provided.
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, I think we have probably one of
the most sophisticated service delivery mechanisms and advanced
design and operation concepts in the area of senior citizen
housing. There is a great depth to the infrastructure of
delivery there. The Catholic Charities, the B'nai B'riths of
the world have been doing this for years. The 202 program has
been in existence, and we have learned a ton. Capturing it,
disseminating it, proliferating it is now the challenge that
the Department is working on.
Again, I have to find out where the report is, but it is an
area that we are very concerned with getting the word out.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I could pursue this line of
questioning, but let me just say this, Mr. Secretary. We just
had a conversation where we could find the $400 million plus.
That is very heartening.
Second, you are saying you want, though, this to be block-
granted into HOME leaving devolution and all these nice new
words that are out there with decentralized decisionmaking. To
be decentralized to whom? OK, that is No. 1.
home block grant plus vouchers
And then No. 2, if this depth of knowledge within the
nonprofit and often faith-based groups, then what are their
ideas in terms of the new approaches we need to do rather than
just building housing, providing the subsidy, and so on? Just
exactly what you said, assisted living, continuing care. You
are going to devolve that.
Secretary Cuomo. When we put our budget together, we had to
make some tough choices, we wanted to do the community
empowerment fund, the economic development. We wanted to do the
100,000 new vouchers because it is critical that we get back to
building housing in this Nation. We then had the dilemma of how
to provide the senior citizen housing. Our solution was the
HOME block grant plus vouchers. We also have vouchers for
senior citizens there.
The Senator poses a different scenario saying if you had
the additional $439 million, how would you run the program? The
Senator's point is that the 202 program and the 811 program,
work very well. If you had the funding, why would you not
retain the 202/811 programs, keep that infrastructure going and
do more hard construction rather than vouchers. That is a very
persuasive case.
That is not the choice that we had when we put the budget
together. Ours was a conundrum of lack of resources. If we had
the additional funding, we may very well have made a different
choice, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Let me just say this. I do not go for the
voucher idea for the elderly. Old people need safety, security,
and community. They do not want to be out there with a voucher
shopping for housing. They want to be in an environment that is
safe, secure, reliable, provides a sense of community and some
sense of continuity of services. So, they do not want to be out
there with a voucher foraging for someone.
Then there are all kinds of other issues from rails in the
bathrooms, et cetera. So, I think the pursuit of vouchers for
the elderly is not an idea that I will support. So, just know
that.
Second, we really do need energy and focus on how we are
going to meet the needs of the elderly and not just view this
as a set of budget decisions. I know of your deep commitment to
this area and I am going to count on you to do that.
old inner beltway communities
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one other issue about aging and
that is communities that are aging in place, which is the old
inner beltway communities, meaning the first generation out of
the city into the suburbs. These communities are now 50 years
old themselves. We see them in Maryland. We see them I am sure
in Missouri and outside St. Louis. They might be within the
city limits. They might be just outside the city limits. We
have one in Prince Georges County, Silver Spring in Maryland.
Could you tell me what you are thinking about in that area?
Because these are neighborhoods that were once really kind of
new housing and, by the way, often were the first integrated
housing because of the GI Bill of Rights and VA providing loans
in my own State often to the first black home ownership
neighborhoods. They are now very stressed and we want to deal
with them while they are stressful before they go into siege.
housing for the elderly
Secretary Cuomo. Senator, two points.
Just to conclude on the senior citizen housing, if I might
backtrack for half a moment. Our decision was to use vouchers
and the HOME program in a situation where we did not have
enough resources to do everything we wanted to do. The
situation the Senator poses is different. If we had an
additional $400 million, how would we provide senior citizen
housing? The answer may very well have been 202/811 as opposed
to vouchers and the HOME program. So, we had a different
reality that we were dealing with, and that is why we came to
the conclusion we did.
But I would be the first to speak about the strength of the
202 program and the infrastructure and the need for
construction, especially for senior citizens. Unfortunately, we
did not have the resources to do everything we needed to do at
that time. Today, it sounds like we do, and that is very
encouraging that we could do the senior housing and the
vouchers----
Senator Mikulski. You are now repeating yourself.
Secretary Cuomo. OK. I just wanted to make sure I made
myself clear the first time, Senator. I am glad I did.
old inner beltway communities
Second of all, on the communities aging in place, we want
to offer them basically two aspects. What I hear from the
county executives and the mayors is they want more home
ownership. If they have public housing that is troubled, they
want HOPE VI to redo that; or they want more home ownership,
even more than rental housing, because home ownership gets them
taxpayers, gets them communities, et cetera. Help me with home
ownership. That is home ownership zones. That is FHA loan
limits. And help me get and keep businesses and jobs because I
am losing them to the suburbs. That would be our economic
development grant and empowerment zones. Those two main pieces
on the menu: the housing/home ownership piece and the jobs/
economic development piece.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I am heartened by that. Mr.
Chairman, I am done and will turn this over to you. I know we
have other business.
If I could share with the chairman and you, Mr. Cuomo. We
have a community called Suitland. It is a wonderful community.
It is a fight-back community from drugs that invaded. A dynamic
county executive. But guess what we have in Suitland? We have
the Federal Government contributing to the deterioration of the
community.
One, we have a Federal complex that employs 9,000 people.
It should be a cornucopia of opportunity for economic
development. They have a barbed wire fence around it. They have
a barbed wire fence around the Federal facility and we do not
have one around the Federal prison in Allegany County.
So, when I threatened to take down the barbed wire, I got
GSA's attention, but GSA and the way they run the Suitland
complex contributes. If you see it, it is a dump. It is a
Federal dump. The Federal employees have every right to
complain. We have a Berlin Wall where they cannot do shopping
in the community and then, because it is an older community, we
have a whole set of housing and businesses, that actually HUD
is involved with, that are deteriorating.
I would like to just one day either you and I and the
county executive, even if we did a windshield tour because I
think Suitland is a cameo of two things, one, where the Federal
Government has contributed to the deterioration of the
community, but No. 2, where the Federal Government could be an
impetus really for empowerment without a whole new lot of
stuff. I would like you to look at this and look at some of the
other communities because I do not want stressed communities to
go to siege communities. And I thank you for that.
Secretary Cuomo. It would be my pleasure, Senator. I would
love to take you up on the invitation and get the county
executive and we could go out and take a look.
Senator Mikulski. Great.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. If possible, I
would like to join you on that windshield tour because that is
precisely the kind of thing that we do not want to see Federal
policies doing. That is a real concern to the committee, and I
assure you we will work with you on that.
I want to make it clear to everyone here that it is my
intention--and I might say our intention--to fund fully the
section 202 and the section 811 programs. We believe they are
vitally important. I have visited too many senior citizen
developments, and when you tell these people on walkers, in
wheelchairs, with canes we are going to send them out shopping
with a voucher, they regard that with a minimum amount of high
enthusiasm. This is not something they want to hear and Senator
Mikulski is correct.
Well, I very much appreciate it. I have, as you might
guess, a significant number of additional questions, but the
morning is late. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will submit those
for the record and continue to work with you. Thank you for
your testimony.
Now I would like to call on the Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Domestic Finance, Mr. John Hawke, to be joined by
Director Ellen Lazar of the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund.
Secretary Cuomo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. HAWKS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
DOMESTIC FINANCE
ACCOMPANIED BY ELLEN W. LAZAR, DIRECTOR
opening remarks
Senator Bond. The committee will come to order. If you are
still moving, do so quietly please. If there is anybody left,
we would invite you to come up to the front. It looks like we
are going to have to pass the collection plate from the rear.
[Laughter.]
We still have some and we are delighted to have you here.
We have Mr. John Hawke, and I call on my colleague for an
introduction of Ms. Lazar.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just
introduce to you Ms. Lazar who really comes with a great
background in nonprofit management and understanding that it is
not only housing that builds a community, it is a whole set of
really working with those who make the community worthwhile.
Her training specifically even at the Enterprise Foundation
which took the best practices of the private sector with the
mission-driven of the nonprofit sector are there. So, we look
forward to hearing her testimony, and I am sure that with CDFI
they will have a new leadership and, therefore, I think a more
reliable outcome.
Senator Bond. Mr. Hawke, you can proceed please.
statement of john d. hawke
Mr. Hawke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski. I
would like to submit my prepared statement for the record and
just make a very few----
Senator Bond. The full statements will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Hawke. Just a couple of brief opening remarks before I
turn it over to Director Lazar.
cdfi is a high priority program
First, CDFI is a high priority program for the
administration to which the President and the Secretary of the
Treasury are both strongly committed. CDFI's are helping to
create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods across the country.
Second, with Director Lazar and the people she has brought
in, we have in place a strong management team. They have our
full confidence and support.
fund in review
Third, we frankly recognize that prior to this new team
coming on board, the Fund had some growing pains. The
congressional oversight process helped to focus our attention
on problem areas and we think that process has worked well.
A measure of our success in this regard is that the Fund's
financial statements for its first 3 fiscal years recently
received a clean, unqualified audit from Peat Marwick. Both our
new management and the outside auditors, identified process
weaknesses that existed as of the end of the last fiscal year,
but all of these have either been addressed and cured or are in
the process of being cured. The Fund is confident that its next
audit will show no material weaknesses in internal processes.
Finally, I am afraid that there are some misperceptions
about certain aspects of the Fund that have gained currency and
I urge the committee to look at the facts rather than
unsupported allegations. In particular, I cannot state too
emphatically that from the outset of this program, we have gone
to great lengths to assure that the Fund's decisionmaking
processes are fair, objective, and untainted by outside
influence. We have insisted that funding decisions be made only
by the Fund, and I have the highest degree of confidence that
the Fund's decisions have been made solely on the merits.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John D. Hawke, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
speak with you today about our fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. I am pleased to be
joined today by Ellen Lazar, the new Director of the CDFI Fund.
The President's budget for fiscal year 1999 includes $125 million
for the CDFI Fund. This funding is a critical component of our strategy
to promote private sector-led economic growth in economically
distressed areas.
As Secretary Rubin has often said, this is an issue of vital
importance to all of us--no matter where we live or what our incomes
may be. It is a fundamental national economic issue, because our
country will never reach its full economic potential, unless we succeed
in bringing all Americans into the economic mainstream.
The Administration's strategy has three components: investing in
people, through education and training; strengthening public safety;
and encouraging business investment with improved access to capital to
create jobs and foster growth. At Treasury, we are energetically
involved in this effort by bringing our broad expertise in financial
institutions and tax policy to bear on these issues, from tax
incentives for investment to strengthened regulations under the
Community Reinvestment Act. One of the most important components of our
strategy is the CDFI Fund.
The CDFI Fund's aim is to expand access to credit and financial
services in lower income urban, rural, and Native American communities,
areas where one of the biggest obstacles to economic growth is a lack
of access to private sector capital. With CDFI, I believe we have a
new, more market-driven approach to community development. CDFI's
around the country, with the Fund's support, are helping to open up new
markets, demonstrate the viability of lending to low income
communities, partner with mainstream financial institutions in
innovative ways, and mentor and grow small businesses. By filling
market niches and drawing mainstream financial institutions into low
income communities through partnerships, CDFI's help to make our
financial system work for more Americans. In many respects, we are
witnessing a quiet revolution in the approach taken to community
development, with CDFI's helping to prime the pump.
The CDFI Fund has two main programs: the CDFI program, which is
designed to assist specialized community development financial
institutions, and the Bank Enterprise Award program, which rewards
financial institutions that are increasing their lending and providing
more financial services in distressed communities. The two programs are
complementary, and both pursue strategies designed to meet unique local
needs, whether it is helping families to buy a house, or a budding
entrepreneur to start a business, or a community to provide the child
care facilities working families need.
The program is still young, but we are already seeing signs of
success. Thus far, the Fund has awarded $75 million to nearly 80 CDFI's
around the country. These dollars are required to be matched at least
one-to-one with non-Federal dollars by CDFI award recipients. Moreover,
the Fund's investments become part of the capital base of the CDFI's,
further leveraging federal dollars. Finally, the federal dollars are
leveraged again, as the CDFI's, often with other financial
participants, make investments or loans for individual projects.
These investments are making a difference. For example, Bethex
Federal Credit Union in the South Bronx, a small financial institution
originally founded in 1970 by former welfare recipients, received a
$100,000 grant from the CDFI Fund to expand its financial services and
increase its business lending. Over the past 18 months, Bethex's
membership has grown from 1,270 to 3,000 and its assets have increased
from $1.6 million to $3 million. In addition, Bethex has launched
``School Banking,'' to encourage savings among students.
Let me describe the impact that the Fund had on one individual.
Andrew Fuentes of San Antonio was too ill to return to his construction
job. At his wife's suggestion, he made a table and set of chairs for
their empty kitchen out of some old wood. Soon afterward, Mr. Fuentes
was selling his rustic furniture to friends, and he began making
furniture full time. Fuentes approached several banks for a loan to
expand his business, but was turned down because of his credit history.
He eventually applied for and obtained a $3,000 loan from ACCION Texas,
a local 1996 CDFI awardee. This loan has already allowed him to expand
his inventory and double his sales.
With respect to the BEA program, more banks and thrifts than ever
before are reaching out to their communities and are investing in
CDFI's. This year, the Fund received 104 applications, a 40 percent
increase over last year's applications. The Fund's $30 million in BEA
investments have already leveraged $273 million in bank activities.
Moreover, many of the awardees are choosing to reinvest the awards they
receive for past performance back into community development projects.
In this way, the CDFI Fund is getting increased private sector leverage
for federal dollars.
Central Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, for example, was awarded
$99,869 for increasing its loans and services in distressed
neighborhoods by more than $8.3 million during the first half of 1996.
In addition to loans for housing and other purposes, the bank made a
significant loan to help a major manufacturer and employer remain in
the community.
As with any new organization, there have been some growing pains.
Let me emphasize that congressional oversight has been useful in
helping the Fund strengthen its internal controls and procedures. I
believe that we have dealt with those problems effectively, and we will
continue to improve procedures as this program grows and matures. In
fact, the Fund was recently given an unqualified audit for its
activities since inception. The audit also confirmed the findings of
the Fund's management that material weaknesses had existed in the past,
and that the Fund had corrected or was in the process of correcting
each of those weaknesses. We are moving this program forward with the
new leadership of Ellen Lazar, who I believe brings to the job the
dedication, the many years of experience in community development, and
the energy needed to implement the CDFI Fund's important work in the
years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, the Fund's vision makes sense, it has strengthened
its internal controls, and the Fund's investments are beginning to make
a difference in people's lives. Since its inception, CDFI has enjoyed
bipartisan support. I look forward to working with all of you to secure
the President's request for $125 million in funding for fiscal year
1999, so that CDFI can help more local communities across the country
rebuild neighborhoods, create jobs, and restore hope. CDFI is a solid
investment in the long-term economic well being of not only those
communities, but all of us. Thank you very much.
Statement OF ELLEN W. LAZAR
Senator Bond. Ms. Lazar.
Ms. Lazar. Chairman Bond, Ranking Member Mikulski, it is a
distinct pleasure to be before you today representing the
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. I would like
to begin by thanking the committee for your continued support
of the fund. The funding you provide is making a difference in
the lives of people that are often left out of the economic
mainstream.
The Department's and my top priorities will continue to be
strengthening management and internal procedures of the Fund
and to expand the Fund's impact in communities. I wish to
assure you that I and the Department are committed to
developing and implementing the necessary improvements to the
Fund's financial and program management, reporting systems,
internal controls, operating procedures, and awards monitoring.
cdfi making significant strides
We have already made significant strides. In our first
financial statement audit covering fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997, we received a clean opinion from KPMG Peat Marwick. As we
expected, the audit also confirmed material weaknesses that we
had previously identified. Our corrective action plans will
eliminate these conditions during fiscal year 1998.
The Fund is taking critical steps to strengthen and build
its management structure and staff. Furthermore, we will reduce
our reliance on outside contractors and enhance our in-house
capacity.
During the Fund's 1996 and 1997 round, the Fund awarded a
total of $75.5 million in assistance to 75 CDFI's serving
urban, rural, and Native American communities.
The CDFI program requires that all financial assistance be
matched on at least a one-to-one basis from non-Federal
sources.
Collectively, 1996 and 1997 CDFI program awardees are
located in 30 States and the District of Columbia. These
organizations finance affordable housing, small businesses,
micro-enterprises, and community facilities.
stimulating private markets
The Bank Enterprise Award Program provides incentives for
banks and thrifts to invest in CDFI's and to increase their
lending, investment, and services to distressed communities. In
1996 and 1997, the CDFI fund made 92 awards totaling $30
million under the BEA Program. BEA awardees in turn provided
$130 million in financial and technical assistance to CDFI's
and invested $140 million in communities. The program has
served awardees in 24 States and the District of Columbia.
The Fund requires all CDFI awardees to enter into
performance agreements with measurable goals. In the BEA
Program, the Fund requires awardees to fully complete their
projected activities before their awards will be disbursed.
The Fund also promotes best practices throughout the
industry. The Fund's presidential awards for excellence in
micro-enterprise development is a nonmonetary program that
recognizes organizations that have demonstrated excellence in
promoting entrepreneurship.
We are beginning to see the impact that the Fund can make
in underserved communities and among people that are often left
out of the economic mainstream. This year the Fund will be
launching an analysis of how the Fund's investments have
created benefits for distressed communities.
In fiscal year 1998, the Fund was appropriated $80 million.
The Fund will use these funds on the core component of the CDFI
program, the intermediary component of the CDFI Fund, the BEA
Program, a new technical assistance program, and a new training
program. The Fund expects to use $5.5 million for its
operation.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
Our request for fiscal year 1999 is $125 million. This
funding level will allow the Fund to increase the number of
CDFI's receiving financial and technical assistance and to
expand our other activities.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to provide an overview of the Fund's
mission, its accomplishments, and plans for the future. As a
new initiative, we are now beginning to see the first glimmer
of what the Fund can accomplish by assisting communities to
realize their potential. I look forward to working with you
over the course of this year's appropriations process.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellen W. Lazar
Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, it is a distinct pleasure to be before you today and
represent the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. I am
Ellen Lazar and I have been the Director of the Fund for two months.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to introduce you to other
members of the Fund who are with me: Paul Gentille, Deputy Director for
Management/Chief Financial Officer of the Fund and Maurice Jones,
Deputy Director for Policy and Programs at the Fund.
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Bond, Ranking Member
Mikulski and other members of the Committee for your continued support
for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. For your
efforts, the Treasury Department and I are deeply grateful. The funding
you provide is making a difference in the lives of people that are
often left out of the economic mainstream.
The CDFI Fund, which was authorized by the Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, was created to address the
critical problems of urban, rural and Native American communities that
often lack adequate access to capital. Access to capital is an
essential ingredient for creating and retaining jobs, developing
affordable housing, revitalizing and maintaining neighborhoods,
building local economies, and enabling people to realize their hopes
and dreams. There are significant capital gaps in distressed
communities, and this market niche is not often recognized or well
understood. This makes it difficult for conventional sources of capital
to effectively serve low income people.
Despite the great strides that have been made as a result of a
strengthened Community Reinvestment Act in promoting access to credit
in underserved neighborhoods, market imperfections still keep capital
out of these communities. Today, low income communities are faced with
many challenges--such as moving families from welfare to work,
providing basic financial literacy skills, and training unskilled
workers to become job ready.
For example, there is the single mother of three in Charlotte,
North Carolina who recently moved to escape an abusive spouse but found
it impossible to service the debts caused by one of her children's past
medical expenses on her modest salary as a teacher's aide. The School
Workers Federal Credit Union was able to arrange a debt consolidation
loan and help her not only better manage her debts but also begin a
savings program. She has now been able to make a $1,500 down payment on
a house. Thanks to the $150,000 grant from the CDFI Fund it received
last year, this Credit Union is now poised to help many others work
their way out of debt and into asset building for their future.
The CDFI Fund represents a new direction in community development.
The Fund's programs leverage limited public dollars to build the
capacity of private sector institutions to finance community
development needs, and the programs help forge partnerships between
communities and mainstream financial institutions. The Fund's efforts
are designed to turn dysfunctional markets into well functioning local
economies. The President and Congress working in partnership created
the Fund in 1994. The Fund's vision, and its approach represent a true
innovation as a Federal initiative. We are now beginning to see the
first glimmer of what the Fund can accomplish by assisting communities
to realize their potential.
building strong and effective management systems
The Department's and my top priorities will continue to be
strengthening management and internal systems and procedures of the
Fund. Understanding the importance of a sound management and program
infrastructure, I wish to assure you that I and the Department are
committed to developing and implementing the necessary improvements to
the Fund's financial and program management, reporting systems,
internal controls, operating procedures, and awards monitoring. The
Fund's new leadership is committed to improving financial management
and awards monitoring by ensuring strong program and financial
structure, effective internal controls, and increasing the use of
information technology.
To date, we have already made significant strides toward achieving
these objectives. I am very pleased to report to the Subcommittee that
in the Fund's first financial audit for fiscal years 1995 through 1997,
it received an unqualified opinion which means that our auditors opined
that our financial statements fairly and accurately present the
financial position of the Fund. As expected, the audit confirmed our
own findings that the Fund had material weaknesses in prior fiscal
years. Using the Fund's FMFIA and audit processes and corrective action
plans, we will correct all material weaknesses and findings during
fiscal year 1998. As noted in our Annual Report, the Fund is taking
critical steps to strengthen and build its management structure and
staff. In the first quarter of 1998, a Deputy Director for Management/
Chief Financial Officer, with significant financial management
experience in government, was appointed. The Fund has also moved
swiftly to fill other management positions that are critical for
ensuring proper internal controls and accountability including an
awards manager, an accountant, a Deputy Director for Policy and
Programs and program managers for each program.
A priority for the Fund during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 will be to recruit, develop and retain high caliber staff. The
Fund requires a highly trained staff due to the complexities and
diversity of the community development finance industry. We will reduce
our reliance on outside contractors and enhance our in-house capacity
and expertise to meet the needs of the community development field.
Special emphasis is being placed on the recruitment and hiring of
additional Fund staff and the dramatic reduction of the utilization of
outside contractors.
The Fund is committed to managing for results and I am planning to
lead our management in a rigorous review of the Fund's current 5 year
strategic plan, goals and performance measures within the next couple
of months. If appropriate, I will revise our 5 year strategic plan and
goals. I intend to show an important linkage between the Fund's goals
and measures and those goals and measures we require from our awardees.
Our strategic plan will be accomplished with appropriate Congressional
consultation, as required by GPRA, and I look forward to working with
the Committee on this important planning process.
program overview and principles
The Fund seeks to promote economic revitalization and community
development through investment in and assistance to community
development financial institutions (CDFI's) and through encouraging
insured depository institutions to invest in CDFI's and increase
lending, investment and services within distressed communities. The
Fund's programs are built on several key principles. First, stimulation
of private markets is critical for rebuilding economically distressed
areas. Second, building the capacity of community based institutions is
critical for providing localities with the tools necessary to serve
many underserved communities. And third, an initiative that promotes
private sector strategies to achieve public policy goals must be based
on performance and maximizing impact. The Fund has five programs that
collectively address these principles: Its two main programs--the
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program and the
Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program; and its other initiatives, the
Training Program, Technical Assistance Program, and the Presidential
Awards for Excellence in Microenterprise Development.
Stimulating Private Markets
The CDFI Program seeks to stimulate markets and spark economic
activity by funding organizations that emphasize private sector market
discipline. The Fund makes investments in, and provides technical
assistance to, CDFI's. CDFI's are private for-profit and nonprofit
financial institutions with community development as their primary
mission. CDFI's include community development banks, community
development credit unions, non-profit loan funds, micro-enterprise loan
funds, and community development venture capital funds.
During its 1996 and 1997 rounds, the Fund awarded a total of $75.5
million in assistance to nearly 75 CDFI's serving urban, rural and
Native American communities. These investments will leverage new
capital and generate new community development activity over the next
several years.
The CDFI Program also stimulates private investment by requiring
that all financial assistance be matched on at least a one-to-one basis
from sources other than the Federal government. As a result, the vast
majority of all matching funds are raised from private sector sources.
For example, during the 1996 funding round, nearly three-quarters of
our awardees derived all of their matching funds from private sources
including banks, corporations, foundations and individuals.
Collectively, 1996 and 1997 CDFI Program awardees are located in 30
states and the District of Columbia. Half of the awardees serve
predominantly urban areas, one-third serve predominantly rural areas,
and the balance serve a combination of the two. These organizations
provide a wide range of lending products, investments and services
within their communities. They finance affordable housing projects,
small businesses, microenterprises, and community facilities. Awardees
are selected based on factors including potential community development
impact, financial strength, organizational capacity, and quality of
their business plan.
The Fund's 1996 investment in Northeast Ventures of Duluth,
Minnesota illustrates how the Fund sparks economic activity. Larry Van
Iseghem is a chemist with an environmental mission. Larry's company,
located in a rural and declining region of eastern Minnesota, developed
and brought to market an environmentally benign, water based coating
for heating and cooling equipment which adds energy efficiency to
furnaces and air conditioners while preventing corrosion. An early
investment by Northeast Ventures allowed Mr. Iseghem to start his
company and to expand and move into development of new products. ``Some
potential investors were wary of my ideas, because they weren't sure
environmental benefits and economic viability could go together,''
Larry explains, ``Northeast Ventures Corporation didn't consider this a
liability, but a plus. Environmental responsibility is one of their
criteria.''
In addition to CDFI's, traditional financial institutions play a
key role in community development lending and investing. The Bank
Enterprise Award (BEA) Program stimulates private markets by providing
incentives for banks and thrifts to invest in CDFI's and to increase
their community development lending, investment and service activities
within distressed communities. In 1996 and 1997, the CDFI Fund made 92
awards totaling $30 million under the BEA Program. During these rounds,
BEA awardees collectively provided $130 million in financial and
technical assistance to CDFI's and generated $140 million in loans,
investments and services within high poverty neighborhoods. The Program
has served awardees in 24 states and the District of Columbia. The
Program has awarded funds to banks and thrifts as small as $21 million
in total assets to as large as $320 billion in total assets. Program
participants represent a broad spectrum of the industry including
national banks, state chartered commercial banks, Federal savings banks
and thrifts, mutual savings banks and credit card banks.
The Bank of America Community Development Bank (B of A) was awarded
$1.6 million in the 1996 funding round for increasing its multifamily
housing, commercial real estate and business loans in distressed
communities across California. The Bank made nearly $25 million in
loans in targeted neighborhoods meeting the BEA Program's distress
criteria, including $9.5 million in commercial real estate loans, $13.2
million in multifamily loans, and $2.2 million in business loans. The
Bank projects that these loans will generate more than 185 units of
affordable housing and 300 jobs. B of A's increased multifamily lending
activity has helped provide a vital source of affordable housing for
low-income families in targeted neighborhoods in San Francisco,
Modesto, and Los Angeles, including the projects described below:
--a $2.6 million construction loan to support the acquisition and
rehabilitation of a deteriorated residential hotel in San
Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood into 58 units of quality
affordable housing for formerly homeless individuals; and
--a $6.8 million loan to support construction of a new 79-unit
apartment building located in Downtown Los Angeles. The
building serves households earning less than 60 percent of Los
Angeles County's median income.
In addition to significantly increasing its lending activity in
eligible distressed neighborhoods--activity that qualified it for its
award--B of A, together with Bank of America, F.S.B., has invested its
entire combined Bank Enterprise Award back into the community. $1.1
million of the award money has been used to established the Bank of
America Leadership Academy, a nine-month program that provides training
for senior management of community development organizations. The B of
A Leadership Academy is funded jointly by Bank of America Community
Development Bank, Bank of America, F.S.B., and the Local Initiatives
Support Corporation (a certified CDFI and a 1996 CDFI Program awardee);
and is conducted by the Development Training Institute. The B of A
Leadership Academy is funded for three nine-month programs. Each
session trains 35 executive directors or senior staff of community-
based development organizations that are at least five years old and
have completed at least three projects.
An additional 20 percent of the combined awards will go to the Low
Income Housing Fund, a certified CDFI and a 1996 CDFI Program awardee
which provides loans for very low-income housing development across the
country.
Capacity Building
The Fund builds the financial capacity of CDFI's by providing
financial assistance in the form of equity investments, grants, loans
or deposits to enhance the capital base--or the financial muscle--of
these organizations to make loans, investments, provide technical
assistance or otherwise address unmet community development needs.
Unlike programs in which resources are provided for specific projects,
under the CDFI Program the Fund invests in CDFI's as institutions in
order to promote their long-term viability and ability to serve
distressed communities.
Appalbanc, a multifaceted CDFI that serves 85 extremely distressed
counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, has
developed an effective strategy to promote housing development and
homeownership. Since its inception, Appalbanc and its affiliates have
financed the development or rehabilitation of more than 20,000 homes.
The $1.33 million in assistance provided by the CDFI Fund will be used
to expand Appalbanc's activities in this very needy region.
The Fund builds the organizational capacity of CDFI's through
several mechanisms. First, as part of the CDFI Program funding rounds,
the Fund conducts ``debriefings'' with each applicant that was turned
down for funding. Through this debriefing, applicants are given
valuable feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of their
organizations as observed by those involved in reviewing their requests
for funding. Many of these organizations have used the information from
these debriefings to address their weaknesses, build on the strengths
of their operations and improve performance.
Second, the Fund provided assistance to two national intermediaries
in 1997 who will provide intensive financial and technical assistance
to small, nascent and growing CDFI's. CDFI Intermediaries are
organizations that focus their financing activities primarily on other
CDFI's. By providing financial assistance to specialized
intermediaries, the Fund strengthens its capacity to support the
development and enhancement of the CDFI industry. Together, the two
national intermediaries selected by the Fund in 1997 are expected to
serve nearly 200 CDFI's over the next five years.
Finally, this year the Fund will launch two new initiatives to
build the organizational capacity of CDFI's and other organizations
engaged in community development finance activities. The first
initiative is a $5 million technical assistance program that will
provide grant monies to CDFI's for capacity building activities. The
second initiative is a new training program that will enhance skill
development among CDFI's and other members of the financial services
industry that are engaged in community development finance activities.
The Fund expects to provide up to $15 million for this program.
The Fund expects to publish a Notice of Funds Availability
regarding the first round of the technical assistance program this
month. Later in 1998, the Fund will launch the second prong of this
strategy. It will select organizations to provide, on the Fund's
behalf, training to CDFI's and other members of the financial services
industry.
By building the capacity of CDFI's, the Fund helps these
organizations to enhance the economic well being of people in their
communities.
Promoting Performance and Impact
The Fund's investments are making a difference in communities. For
example, one 1996 CDFI Program Awardee, Cascadia Revolving Fund, made a
loan to Nancy Stratton of Port Haddock, WA to open a day care center in
her home. Nancy knew that her previous credit problems and lack of
business experience would prevent her from obtaining financing through
traditional sources. Cascadia worked with Nancy to refine her business
plan and make a loan to help her start a now successful business. A
1996 BEA Program Awardee, Central Bank of Kansas City, was awarded
$99,869 for increasing its deposit-taking activities and consumer and
commercial real estate, housing, and business loans in distressed
neighborhoods. During the first six months of 1996, this bank provided
more than $8.3 million in loans and services. In addition to
facilitating neighborhood redevelopment through its single- and multi-
family housing activities, the bank made a significant loan to help a
major manufacturer and employer remain in the community.
The Fund also promotes performance and impact by requiring all
CDFI's selected to receive assistance to enter into an agreement to
meet performance goals. These performance goals are tailored to each
CDFI based on its Comprehensive Business Plan. Performance goals may be
based on the amount of lending or investment activity projected, the
number of people to receive technical assistance, or other measures of
a CDFI's success in meeting its community development objectives. The
performance levels for each CDFI are intended to be challenging and are
based on the projections made in an Awardee's application for funding,
the amount of assistance provided by the Fund, and the CDFI's financial
and organizational capacity.
In the Fund's Bank Enterprise Award Program, the Fund encourages
performance by requiring awardees to fully complete their projected
activities before their awards will be disbursed. Thus, each Federal
dollar disbursed has already made an impact within a local community
before it is received by an Awardee.
The Fund also encourages performance within the CDFI industry by
promoting best practices. For example, the Fund's Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Microenterprise Development is a non-monetary program
that recognizes and seeks to bring attention to organizations that have
demonstrated excellence in promoting micro entrepreneurship. By
recognizing outstanding microenterprise organizations, the Presidential
Awards seek to promote sound lending practices and bring wider public
attention to the important role and successes of microenterprise
development especially in enhancing economic opportunities among women,
low income people, and minorities who have historically lacked access
to traditional sources of credit.
We are beginning to see the impact that the Fund can make in
underserved communities and among people that are often left out of the
economic mainstream. This year, the Fund will be launching an impact
analysis project that will provide valuable information on how the
Fund's investments have created benefits within communities. As part of
demonstrating impact, the Fund will continue to expand its
communication tools, including development of a web site and
publication of regular newsletters designed to publicize information
about community development finance industry trends and best practices,
as well as the Fund's activities.
In fiscal year 1998, the Fund was appropriated $80 million. The
Fund intends to use these funds on the Core Component of the CDFI
Program, the Intermediary Component of the CDFI Program, the BEA
Program, a new Technical Assistance Program and a new Training Program.
The Fund expects to use $5.5 million for its operations.
The Fund has established key goals with respect to its program
activities. Under the CDFI Program, the Fund will seek to increase the
cumulative number of CDFI's receiving financial and technical
assistance under the CDFI Program. For this purpose, the Fund has
requested a budget increase in fiscal year 1999 to $125,000,000.
Increased funding will allow the Fund to increase the cumulative
number of CDFI's receiving financial and technical assistance under the
CDFI program. Financial assistance to CDFI's enhances private sector
capacity, directly addresses community development financing needs in
distressed communities, and strengthens CDFI's long term capacity to
help restore healthy private market activity. The increased funding
will also be used to expand the BEA Program, training program and
technical assistance program and in part to help accelerate the
development of a secondary market for community development loans.
summary
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
this opportunity to provide an overview of the Fund's mission, its
accomplishments and plans for the future. I also look forward to
working with you over the course of this year's appropriations process.
I would be very pleased to respond to any questions you may have about
my testimony or about the Fund and its activities.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to submit
my questions for the record.
Senator Bond. I would be happy to take those for the
record.
I express my appreciation to Mr. Hawke and Ms. Lazar.
success of cdfi program
Mr. Hawke, when you say the program has had growing pains,
that is certainly putting the best face on it. That is what we
might call meteor census.
I do recognize and I congratulate you on finding someone of
Ms. Lazar's caliber to come in to run the program. You bring
new hope and new promise, but I am still very much concerned
about the track record of the program and the problems
associated with overfunding a problem like this before we have
capacity, before we know how it is working, when we do not know
how the resources can be expended. This is where being from
Missouri people believe me when I say, ``Show me.'' I know many
of these problems are problems that are being remedied.
But I would like to know what yardsticks, briefly just what
yardsticks are used to determine whether a grant application
can leverage other funds successfully, and what can you give us
in terms of hard data that will confirm the promised success of
the CDFI program.
Ms. Lazar. Senator, the program has had a 2-year track
record, and during that 2-year track record, all our decisions
have been based on merit. We have a very detailed and thorough
process for evaluating our applications. We look at the track
record, financial strength, and current operations of the
CDFI's that we are evaluating. We look at their capacity,
skills, and experience of the management team. We look at the
quality of their comprehensive business plan. We look at their
ability to raise the required matching funds and the expected
community development impact.
When we measure that impact, we enter into an assistance
agreement with our awardees. Those assistance agreements
contain performance goals that are structured over 5 years. We
negotiate them with the awardees. An example of a performance
goal for the particular institution might be to increase the
number of loans each year to low-income individuals, to provide
financial counseling to low-income borrowers, to increase
investments in businesses in distressed areas.
For nonregulated institutions, we also negotiate financial
covenants.
Our awardees are required to submit quarterly reports to us
and annual reports. This year in 1997 we have also developed an
impact report that they will be required to submit to us on an
annual basis. It is a very, very rigorous process that will
allow us to understand the impact of these organizations at the
community level and their capacity to sustain themselves over
time.
assuring the awards process
To address your issue about what has been fixed, for our
1997 round we put specific procedures in place that have proved
effective in ensuring the integrity of the awards process. We
developed specific CDFI program reviewer selection criteria. We
developed a conflict of interest policy for CDFI reviewers. We
developed conflict of interest certifications. We developed a
2-day training program for our reviewers. We crafted an initial
review form to ensure consistency and fairness, and then a
numeric scoring system to complement that qualitative process.
We have put together an interview guide for CDFI reviewers and
written policies and procedures for our core and intermediary
funding rounds.
Senator Bond. We would look forward to seeing the
information that you have developed. I was going to ask a
question on the conflicts of interest. I will have the staff
look at that.
cdfi program achieves goals
But you are telling me that these are procedures in the
future, and is it too early to demonstrate results? Have you
had confirmed successes which you can provide us for the record
of where the CDFI program has achieved goals that you set out
and have they been confirmed, not just reported, but confirmed
by adequate independent, objective assessors of the program?
Ms. Lazar. Thus far, Senator, we have put together
anecdotal stories that we can share with you and provide them
to you for the record. We also do, as I said earlier, require
monthly and annual reports from our awardees, and over the
course of the next year, we will be compiling that data in a
way that it can tell our story in a way that shows that the
dollars have been effectively used.
Senator Bond. Mr. Hawke, you look like you are ready to say
something.
Mr. Hawke. Just one short addition to that, Mr. Chairman,
and that is that the real success stories in this program are
at the street level. When the money is advanced by the CDFI,
whom we fund, to the ultimate user, whether it is somebody who
is starting a new business or getting a working capital loan,
that is where the real proof of the program is, and those are
not the people that we deal with directly in the CDFI program.
But we have a number of anecdotal instances.
Senator Bond. We do not need the anecdotes, but I would
like to have the independent objective assessment which shows
the street level successes. We want to see that the program has
been having the impact and we want it from an independent,
objective assessment. I realize that you do not control it
directly. We need to find out does it work. That is the key
thing.
unable to meet management requirements
Let me ask two quick questions. I understand that the CDFI
Fund as yet has been unable to meet the management requirements
of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. Are you taking
steps to meet the requirements, and at what point do you expect
to meet them?
Ms. Lazar. I am happy to answer that question, Senator. We
take this issue very seriously, and we are going through an
FMFIA process as we speak. There were certain material
weaknesses that had been pointed out in our audit, including a
lack of delineation of responsibilities within the
organization. We have put together an organization plan and
have begun staffing under it. I was hired in January. We hired
a Deputy Director for Management and CFO in November, and we
selected a Deputy Director for Program and Policy in February.
We have also hired managers for all the programmatic areas. So,
we are working very diligently on staffing up and getting that
organization plan in place.
One area that was identified that was of concern was that
we did not have a CFO or an awards manager, an awards
management process. We have hired a CFO and an awards manager
came on board at the end of January. We have begun developing a
structured system and putting the awards oversight rules in
place within the organization.
Senator Bond. When can we expect to have the system working
and providing results on, as I said, the independent, objective
evaluation or assessment?
Ms. Lazar. I think we will have that material by the end of
the fiscal year. We will have gotten all our systems in place
and we will have responded to all the material weaknesses that
have been identified.
goals
Senator Bond. Well, we will want to see that. The promise
sounds great. We are looking for demonstrated performance.
You have selected a wide variety of CDFI's and you have
mentioned a number of criteria. We would like fuller
description of the selection criteria for the record, and I
would also like a listing of the weaknesses you see in the
applications which result in denying CDFI assistance. But just
for my edification at this hearing, would you give us a brief
summary of what you look for that works and what you most
commonly find when you deny something?
Ms. Lazar. I have not gone through an awards process, but I
will tell you what we have seen. We really look to see that
these organizations can sustain themselves over time and that
they are going to provide impact in the communities in which
they are working. We look at a very, very thorough,
comprehensive business plan that we ask our applicants to
submit. We ask for documentation of their track record, their
financial strength. We want to see their financials. We want to
understand that they have the ability to raise matching funds
from the private sector and their communities. Keep in mind
that the matching funds have to be non-Federal dollars. We want
to make sure that they have a strong management team.
Often, from what I understand, awardees have been turned
down because one of those pieces was not in place. The business
plan did not seem logical or accurate or the management team
was not strong enough or the financials reflected a less than
consistent growth pattern within the organization.
Mr. Hawke. Senator, if I could just add one thing to that.
In the budget for the coming year, we have got a total of $20
million allocated to training and technical assistance. One of
the objectives of the training and technical assistance program
is to help applicants meet deficiencies that might have come up
in the applications process, to train them how better to
establish financial controls and qualify under the kinds of
standards that Ms. Lazar is talking about.
Ms. Lazar. Senator, I would like to add that we also do
debriefings of our applicants if they have been turned down for
an award so that we could work with them and explain what the
problems have been so that they might in the future work on
their growth and development through the advice we have
provided them.
Senator Bond. I thank you for that information. Twenty
million dollars sounds like a very generous amount to apply to
a $125 million program.
But we look forward to working with you and having the
further information on how well this is working. Basically, let
me tell you I am skeptical about putting significant funds into
a program until I see that it is working. We want to see the
program continues so that we have an opportunity to evaluate it
and see what kinds of benefits we are getting from the program
because, as you can well appreciate, if you sit through all
these hearings--I certainly do not wish that on anybody other
than Senator Mikulski and our staffs and myself--you will find
that we have some very compelling competing priorities which we
have to fund from what is always too small a 602(b) allocation.
subcommittee recess
Thank you very much and we will keep the record open for
other members of the committee who want to ask specific
questions. We will be submitting questions to you. Please feel
free, if you wish, to submit additional information for the
committee above and beyond your full written statements and the
answers to the questions that we ask you to fill out. We would
be pleased to have such submissions.
With that and with thanks to all who participated, this
hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Thursday, March 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Burns, Campbell, Craig, and
Mikulski.
Also present: Senator Domenici.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF TOGO D. WEST, JR., ACTING SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
D. MARK CATLETT, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT
KENNETH W. KIZER, M.D., M.P.H., UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH,
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
JOSEPH THOMPSON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
JERRY W. BOWEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies will come to order.
This morning we meet to take testimony from the Department
of Veterans Affairs on its fiscal year 1999 budget proposal,
and later we will hear from officials representing the
Arlington National Cemetery. We welcome VA's Acting Secretary
Togo West this morning and other VA officials.
Mr. West, you are taking over the helm at a time of
tremendous change at the VA. On the health care side, VA has
undertaken a reorganization within the past few years,
dramatically reduced its staffing, revamped its resource
allocation system, and has begun implementing numerous
efficiencies and improvements aimed at improving quality and
cost effectiveness of care.
I believe the Veterans Health Administration is on the
right track, thanks in large part to the VA's Under Secretary
for Health, Dr. Ken Kizer. I will have other things to say
about that, but Dr. Kizer, we appreciate the excellent
direction you have given. His efforts to reorganize and retool
VA's massive health care system are beginning to show results.
A recent GAO report, which I requested, confirmed that
medical centers are operating more efficiently, increasing the
number of patients assigned to primary care, decreasing waiting
time for appointments, and increasing the number of high
priority patients. But there are still many challenges.
Last year Congress gave VA the authority to retain
collections from third parties. VA is heavily dependent on such
funds to operate the medical system and is struggling to
improve its collections capability. Serious questions remain as
to whether VA will be able to meet its goals in this area, as
we will discuss later.
In addition, currently VA is embarking on creating an
enrollment system and making available for the first time a
complete health care benefits package to veterans who come to
the VA for health care services. There appears to be confusion
as to what the enrollment system will mean to veterans, and
questions remain as to what will be included in the benefits
package.
In addition, in certain networks there are concerns about
the impacts of the new allocation system, VERA, and questions
about quality of care.
Critical to VHA's success is adequate monitoring of the
networks to ensure that veterans are consistently receiving
quality health care services and that VA policy is being
implemented uniformly in its hundreds of health care
facilities.
No less important are the challenges facing the Veterans
Benefits Administration. Over the past several years, numerous
studies have been commissioned to determine how to fix the
abysmal service veterans receive when they make claims for
benefits, primarily in the disability compensation program.
There have been GAO reports, congressionally mandated
commissions, business process reengineering efforts, and
countless studies, resulting in voluminous recommendations. I
suggest now is the time for action. We have done enough of the
studying. We have thought about it. We have looked at it. We
have got the consultation. It is time we get it done. Veterans
just cannot wait any longer.
Previous efforts to make changes to the Veterans Benefits
Administration seemed to have resulted in little or no
improvement. Last year in my opening statement for the VA
appropriation hearing, I noted I was pleased to see VBA's plans
for business process reengineering efforts, but at the time I
noted my skepticism as to whether VBA could meet its goals.
Unfortunately, in the past year performance seems to have
gotten no better. In fact, we are learning that it may be worse
than we thought because of inaccurate reporting from regional
offices.
The key conclusion of the National Academy of Public
Administration report, which this committee commissioned and
which was released last year, was that VA has not met the
challenge of achieving long-term improvement in services for
veterans because it has not had consistent leadership and the
strategic planning and management capacities needed to plan and
rigorously implement such improvements.
I am encouraged that at long last VBA has new leadership.
The new Under Secretary for Benefits, Joe Thompson, appears
committed to making the changes, including organizational
restructuring, and has noted the importance of disciplined
strategic planning and management capacity.
Mr. Thompson, I sincerely hope--and more importantly, the
veterans hope--that you can provide the real leadership that
NAPA has called for. You have a great opportunity because you
go into a situation which needs real leadership, and this is
going to be an exciting test of your abilities to see whether
you can provide the improvements that have been recommended and
that are vitally needed.
I would remind the Department this committee has directed
VA to provide by the end of March a comprehensive reform plan
for the Veterans Benefits Administration, including an improved
accountability system, the creation of a strategic management
process, and a 5-year restructuring plan, among other things.
We will look forward anxiously to receiving the report.
fiscal year 1999 budget request
Turning to the budget request, VA's fiscal year 1999 budget
request totals $42 billion, of which about $19 billion
represents discretionary spending. The budget proposal includes
$17 billion for VA medical care, which would be augmented by an
estimated $677 million in receipts. Together with receipts, the
medical care account would drop $40 million in fiscal year
1999.
VA's proposal is consistent with its plans announced a year
ago to decrease patient cost by 30 percent by 2002, increase
the number of users by 20 percent, and increase the amount of
nonappropriated revenues to 10 percent of total funding.
However, the administration's proposal to cut VA below the
current level raises real concerns, and we wonder very
truthfully whether we are cutting to close to the bone.
As I mentioned previously, VA is depending heavily on its
ability to collect almost $700 million in third party payments
to accommodate increased payroll and other inflationary
requirements. Unfortunately, the Department's track record on
collections is somewhat less than stellar. VA currently is
lagging its fiscal year 1998 estimate by 10 percent, and GAO
has been very skeptical of the Department's ability to
significantly improve collections.
In addition, the Department is banking on enactment of
legislation authorizing VA to bill Medicare for certain
Medicare-eligible veterans to meet its 30-20-10 goal by the
year 2002. Yet, it appears that this proposal continues to
encounter opposition, and its enactment is far from certain.
With respect to VA's research program, I was pleased to see
that the administration at last recognizing the value of this
program by requesting a 10-percent increase, for a total of
$300 million. Last year the administration called for an almost
11 percent decrease to this important program. So, we are
delighted finally to see administration support for a program
which has resulted in improved quality of care, as well as
incentives for topnotch doctors to work in VA hospitals. We
think the two go hand in hand and must be taken as a whole.
However, the research budget has been packaged by the
administration as part of its Research Fund for America which
is proposed to be offset in part by tobacco settlement
legislation. The administration's budget request is replete
with phony or unrealistic assumptions, and this is an example.
The administration's budget raises expectations which the
Congress simply will not fulfill. That dog will not hunt.
Given that there is far less room under the discretionary
budget caps than the administration's budget would spend, it is
not clear whether we will be able to meet the President's
request for a $28 million increase for VA research. But if
funds are available, this will certainly be one of our
priorities.
According to VA's budget, there will be a proposal
forthcoming for a new smoking cessation program for veterans,
to be accompanied by an $87 million budget amendment. We have
seen no details on this program nor how we would find the
resources to fund it.
It is interesting that the amount proposed for this program
would bring total discretionary spending for the VA exactly
even with the fiscal year 1998 level. In any event, we would
urge the Department to provide information to the committee as
soon as possible on this proposed new program.
For general operating expenses, VA is requesting $850
million, an increase of $63.5 million. The increase would go in
part to a number of VBA initiatives such as computer-based
training, which are intended to streamline and improve service
to veterans. While we support this, we want to be sure the
initiatives are the highest priorities and the most effective
means to improve service delivery to veterans.
In the area of construction, VA's budget would cut
construction programs by 36 percent, including an unacceptable
reduction to the State home program of 54 percent. This program
is an example of a strong Federal-State partnership in
providing much-needed nursing home care to veterans, and there
is a backlog of $125 million in priority projects which were
not funded this year due to inadequate funds.
Just by way of example, to select one State, Missouri,
nursing homes in St. Louis and Mt. Vernon applied for fiscal
year 1998 funds and were denied. I fully expect that they will
seek funds next year, and under the President's request, they
likely would be rejected.
In terms of the major construction budget, I am also very
disappointed that a project which has been in the pipeline for
some time to expand the St. Louis National Cemetery has not
been included in the budget. I have been told that this project
was originally requested in VA's submission to OMB, but the
green eye shade types at OMB rejected VA's request.
If additional grave sites are not developed, Jefferson
Barracks National Cemetery will deplete its current inventory
of full casket grave sites in 2005, and veterans will be denied
access to burial in a national cemetery in relatively close
proximity to their place of residence. OMB's decision to strike
this important project from the budget is troublesome.
That concludes my opening statement and it is now my
pleasure to turn to my ranking member, Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA S. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This morning I would welcome to his first hearing before
this subcommittee the Acting Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Mr. Togo West. Mr. West, we look forward to
working with you, as we did when you held your post as
Secretary of the Army, and we look forward to helping you
expedite your confirmation. But whether you are acting or you
are confirmed, I think we are all confirmed in the belief that
you are going to be an outstanding Secretary of the Veterans
Administration.
Also, I would like to welcome from the Department of the
Army who will testify during the second panel, the National
Cemetery, John Zirschky, the Acting Secretary----
Senator Bond. Zirschky.
Senator Mikulski. Zirschky. You know, Polish names are in
the news these days. I should get this straight. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony. I
just wanted to let you know that I am going to be leaving about
10:20 a.m. to join the First Lady in the introduction of the
reauthorization of national service. I am not marked absent.
First, let me begin by thanking the VA for its support of
several facilities in my State that are providing essential
care for the veterans of Maryland. I would like to particularly
thank them for taking a model that we developed in western
Maryland for outpatient services and then really being able to
move those services throughout the State of Maryland in a way
that meets the Vision 5 procedure.
Also, I know that we are going to be opening construction
of an 80-bed acute psychiatric building at Perry Point. That
building that it is replacing is one that goes back before
World War I in which mentally ill people were in buildings that
had difficulties with the air conditioning and so on.
I want to thank the VA for also working with me and other
officials to ensure that we have access to quality care.
Mr. Chairman, since the VA was founded, we have fought
three wars: a World War II, a cold war, and a gulf war. And
from Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, each conflict produces a new
generation of veterans each with a unique set of needs.
Also acknowledging the wonderful role that women played--
and, of course, Arlington is this fantastic memorial--it is
really since Vietnam that the role of women and the women
making use of veterans health care has really been increasing,
and we thank you for your focus on this.
The particular needs of veterans may vary somewhat from
veterans of different eras, but one thing should never change.
That is the commitment we make to our veterans, particularly to
make sure the quality health care is available to them and that
effective services, including the timely processing of
benefits, is our No. 1 priority.
I am going to commend Secretary West today for some of the
budget recommendations that they are making. I am particularly
heartened with the $28 million increase for VA medical
research. We know that many of the games in being able to
control cost comes from the use of better--the new smart
weapons against disease, just like the smart weapons of war
helped us be able to be more efficient. We also know that VA
medical research has a unique role to play because it is about
hands-on clinical practice working also with the best of NIH.
We want to work with the chairman to ensure that VA medical
research continues to be a priority within the VA budget and to
make sure that they have the resources they need.
I also would like to commend Dr. Kizer for the improvements
that he has made in reducing patient cost. We might not be
where we ultimately want to be, but I know since last year, I
note that patient cost have been reduced by 9 percent and 23
percent since 1993. I think that this is really something to be
commended and also then see how further gains can be made
without skimping on care. We do not want to shortchange the
veterans themselves.
Also we know that the veterans' demands are increasing.
There are some yellow flashing lights that I have in the
budget. For the second year in a row, I am concerned about the
fact that there has been--what I am concerned about is the VA's
slow progress in collecting paybacks from private insurance. If
we are going to have reliable revenue streams both in Congress,
you as the CEO and our clinical director, which is what Dr.
Kizer is, needs to be sure what are the revenue streams that
really are reliable. I think from what I note, the first
quarter of fiscal year 1998, VA's collections were running
behind projections by $9 million. So, we look forward to
hearing about that.
The other thing that we are concerned about is the
continual problem of how long it takes to process a VA claim. I
know that we have recommendations here, but really it is
getting worse rather than better. Even when I chaired the
committee, and with the support then of Senator Garn, Senator
Gramm, now Senator Bond has this stewardship of the committee,
the processing time actually seems to be increasing, and I
think that is unacceptable. So, we look forward to hearing
about that.
We also know that there are new challenges facing the aging
veteran, and we look forward to how we will meet those needs
within our fiscal parameters.
The other thing that I want to comment on is two things.
One, the progress we need to make on the year 2000 computer
problem, and I understand gains have been made there.
Then another. I raised it, Mr. Secretary, with your
predecessor, and that is the GI educational benefit. The GI who
now uses the educational benefit is very different than the
World War II guy who came home which enabled many of our men to
leapfrog really to be solid members of the middle class. It was
the largest single upgrade of male educational levels I think
anywhere in the world.
Now I think we believe in lifetime learning. No. 2, when
you go to school, you do not go to school with a little parka
and sing boola-boola and Ivy League songs. Many will be in
community colleges. Many will be in continuing education. Many
might be stretching out their education. Many might have had
one but would like to use the GI bill to retrain so they can
keep ready.
I would like for the VA to look at where does the
educational benefit fit through with the idea of lifetime
learning and also the opportunity for many of our older
veterans, who might have not ever used the educational benefit,
for them to have a chance to upgrade where they are in the work
force. For many of the guys and gals that came out, they had
training in the military. It put them in the work force. The
electronic technician, the people you would be familiar with,
Mr. West, particularly the minority population. But now the new
world order needs whole new technological skills, and I wonder
where the VA would fit into that. That is new thinking. We need
to do homework. We do not want to create a whole new
unrealistic set of entitlements, but I do think since our
military helped us be ready for the new world order, I want to
be sure that we back them when they are home to make sure they
can participate in the new economic world order.
So, I thank you and I look forward to hearing your remarks
and working with you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
Senator Campbell.
Prepared STATEMENT OF BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, since I have to run to
another committee, I would ask unanimous consent to have my
complete opening statement put in the record.
Senator Bond. We would be delighted.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Campbell
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this
morning and I welcome Acting Secretary West and his colleagues who have
come before us today to testify on the 1999 VA budget request. I am
aware of the time constraints today, so I will only say a few words.
Thus far, the 105th Congress has proven to be exceptionally active
for veterans' issues as we continue to face many challenges. Like my
colleagues here on the Committee, I am pleased that we can begin to put
behind us, a deficit that has routinely inhibited our ability to
maintain worthwhile veterans programs and forced us to place a monetary
value on the service to our veterans. It is a pleasure to be operating
on the road to a balanced budget and we will do so with our nation's
veterans at the forefront of concern.
I recognize the efforts that VA has made in producing a fiscally
responsible budget and I commend your work in this respect. I am
greatly concerned, however, by any proposal that provides less than
adequate funding for VA health care spending.
Over the next five years, the VA aims to reduce its per-patient
cost by 30 percent, increase the number of patients served by 20
percent, and finance 10 percent of its own expenditures using
nonappropriated funds. This is certainly an admirable list of goals but
I do have concerns with VA's ability to deliver these promises. Like
the fiscal year 1998 request, funding for the VA Health Care will
remain unchanged for 5 years but would be supplemented by the
collection of third-party reimbursements. Like all veterans, I would
love to see this plan work, but I am pretty uncomfortable with such a
gamble being taken with veteran health care.
I am also very concerned with the VA's proposal to bar compensation
for veterans suffering from smoking-related illnesses. While serving in
the Air Force during the Korean War, I can remember personnel being
permitted, and even encouraged to use tobacco. I have great concern for
such a proposal that turns our veterans out into the cold. Until a
clear understanding is reached on the history of this policy, I do not
see this to be a fair plan.
I remain eager to continue working with my colleagues on this
subcommittee and the VA Committee to address the many issues presented
by an ambitious health care plan, a staggering backlog of veterans
claims, and the mysteries of Persian Gulf War illness. Over the past
weeks, we have been plainly reminded of the potential conflict with
which U.S. military forces can so readily be faced. As there is still
so much work to be done in caring for the veterans from the Persian
Gulf war, it is vitally important that this reminder reinforces our
commitment to this group of veterans.
I thank the chair and look forward to this morning's testimony.
Senator Campbell. Just to welcome Secretary West and
associate myself with your comments on the so-called 30-20-10
program. That is a great goal and I hope it can be done, but I
do have some worries about it. I am a little uncomfortable that
we might be taking a gamble, and I am looking forward to
reading your testimony in detail.
I am also concerned about the VA's proposal to bar
compensations for veterans suffering from smoking related
illnesses. I was in the service myself, as you were. I do not
know about your age group. In my age group, everybody was
encouraged to smoke. At virtually every stop, if you have them,
smoke them, they would say to us. It just seems to me when we
have encouraged soldiers to smoke and we now have many of them
that are retired and have lung problems, that we should not
just abandon them. So, I hope we are going to be able to deal
with that.
Then, finally, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that everybody
is talking about the tobacco settlement, where we are going to
put the money from the so-called settlement. I do not know if
we are even going to have that much to divide up after we look
at all the requests from different people. But the amount of
money that is going to be doled out is made by these economic
assumptions, and from my perspective, an economic assumption is
a prediction made by learned, scholarly types in Washington,
DC. But if you go out where Senator Burns comes from and ask
the people at the sale barn what is an economic assumption,
they will tell you it is a wild-eyed guess or something like
that because they have not got a crystal ball anymore than
these experts here have. So, I really worry a little bit about
all the talk we hear now about where are we going to put all
this money from the so-called settlement before we have it.
But I do look forward to reading your testimony and welcome
the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
West, for coming this morning. I just want to mention a couple
of things.
First of all, I want to compliment you and your staff and
the hospitals. I just had a daughter that graduated from
medical school out in Seattle at the University of Washington,
and she did some rotations at veterans hospitals out there. As
a physician now that she is, those experiences were pretty
positive. The reason I mentioned that, I talked to her last
night and she said, well, just tell them that all the
experience I had was very positive.
I want to mention a couple other positive things that are
happening too. Sure, we all have our misgivings and maybe we
have a different way of approaching things, but I think we have
done a major step whenever we start talking about where Senator
Campbell comes from, Senator Craig, and yes, and even in my old
home State of Montana. We are getting some rural clinics on
line. We are looking into and trying to take advantage of
benefits of telemedicine in the areas of psychiatry and
consultation, evaluations, those type things, and that is going
to have to be if our rural clinics are going to have any kind
of success at all. We have counties that have no doctors at
all, and the travel to a VA installation becomes a challenge to
some of our older veterans.
I guess I was really made aware that we have the technology
to do a lot of things when I was on the U.S.S. George
Washington, and I went through their hospital there and saw how
they use telemedicine and providing health care for 4,500
sailors in a very confined area and a long way from home. I
want to help you in that area.
I think I just have one little problem with this. I looked
at research. In here you added about $28 million to that, or is
it $28,000? I do not know what it is. Probably $28,000,
something like that.
Mr. West. $28 million.
Senator Burns. $28 million?
I think whenever we start talking about research in this
area, I think there is some redundancy here that we could
probably take advantage of the research that is going on at NIH
and a host of other places. I would sincerely think that maybe
you could get a memorandum of understanding or something to
work with these research centers and we could probably save a
little money there.
I cannot stay for your statement, but I will read it
because I have got to go to a tobacco hearing. I have the same
concerns about that as Senator Campbell does.
Again, I want to thank you.
In the area of the gulf war, some of the things that is
coming out of the gulf war, those veterans. So far I think we
need to accelerate of handling those cases, accelerate that a
little bit better because I have heard a little grumblings out
there.
But welcome aboard and we look forward in working with you,
especially in that area of telemedicine. Of course, I think we
have to explore one of these days of giving our veterans a card
like a credit card and allow them to get their health care in
their own communities. I think we have to explore that one of
these days. Now, I realize that the bureaucracy shudders at
that thought, but nonetheless, I think we should be moving in
that area where we can serve our people better, and people just
kind of like to go to doctors and get in hospitals at home, if
they can. So, I think we ought to continue to explore that idea
but understanding the powers that be, I also understand that
too. So, thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Burns.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. West and all of you from the Veterans
Administration.
Let me ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my full
statement become a part of the record.
Two observations. First of all, I am pleased that there is
support for the demonstration program test for feasibility of
Medicare subvention. I think that is clearly a step in the
right direction. It speaks to a need to serve all veterans
instead of squeezing, squeezing, squeezing the budget down and
developing and tightening categories of those who may receive
assistance in health care from our system.
Also, I am frustrated by this year's construction budget,
down 45 percent from last year and, of course, last year was
down from the year before. While I realize construction needs
will change over the years, I have concern that the $285
million is drastically inefficient to cover essential,
necessary projects that the VA lists as priorities. And in
that, I am speaking primarily of the construction and
maintenance of extended care facilities. That has been cut
almost one-half from the request of $80 million of 1998 to $37
million, as I mentioned in 1999.
The substantial decrease brings to mind questions about the
VA's commitment to meeting its construction requirements.
Currently there are $237 million in category 1 projects for
which the States have come up with the 35 percent of the cost
and are waiting for the Federal Government to meet its
obligations. Now, that is a clear signal, that if the States
have come up with some money, they have assessed the need and
determined that it is worth their money to match the
obligation, and the obligation is, of course, the 65 percent on
the Federal Government.
prepared statement
So, it concerns when we look at our largest aging veteran
population in history. You estimate the number of veterans age
75 and older will increase by approximately 2.6 million from
1995 to 4 million by the year 2000. That is exactly what those
extended care facilities are needed for. I am surprised that
this budget is that small compared with what the States are
ready to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Craig
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing regarding the
Veterans Affairs budget for fiscal year 1999. The Veterans
Administration has the tremendous task of administering benefits and
services to more than 25 million veterans and approximately 44 million
members of their families.
As a fiscal conservative, I often find it a difficult task to weigh
the decision between program funding and keeping a budget balanced.
However, in the long run, a balanced budget will serve all Americans,
including our veterans. With limited dollars to allocate, it is more
important than ever that we make certain we effectively prioritize
programs and projects.
Medical care.--I am very pleased about the Administration's support
for the demonstration program to test the feasibility of Medicare
Subvention. I have long been a supporter of this concept, and was glad
that Congress finally authorized the DOD to establish a limited
Medicare Subvention program. Subvention will help provide greater, and
much needed access to VA facilities for those veterans who do not have
service-connected disabilities. I, like other Idahoans, am very eager
to find ways to increase access to medical care for our veterans.
Construction budget request.--This year's construction budget is
down 45 percent from last year, and down even more from fiscal year
1997. While I realize construction needs will change over the years, I
am concerned that $285 million is drastically insufficient to cover
essential necessary projects that the VA lists as priority.
For example, the request for construction and maintenance of
extended care facilities has been almost cut in half from a request of
$80 million (fiscal year 1998) to a request of a $37 million (fiscal
year 1999). This substantial decrease brings to mind questions about
the VA's commitment to meeting its construction requirements.
Currently, there are $237 million in ``Category One'' projects for
which the States have come up with 35 percent of the costs, and are
waiting for the Federal Government to meet its obligation to provide
the other 65 percent. $37 million will barely cover the costs of five
projects.
Currently, our nation is faced with the largest aging veteran
population in its history. The VA estimates that the number of veterans
aged 75 and older will increase from approximately 2.6 million in 1995
to 4.0 million in 2000. We must make certain we have the facilities to
meet a growing need. If we don't we will fail to meet our obligation
now, our nation's veterans could suffer the consequences very soon.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
Secretary West, as always, we will include your statement
in full with any additional information you wish, as well as
leaving the record open for a number of days for other
questions from members of the panel. Now I invite you to
proceed and summarize, to the extent that you think it would be
helpful to the committee, your testimony.
statement of togo d. west, jr.
Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few
comments. I appreciate your including the full written
statement.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, members of the
subcommittee, I appear before you today to present the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It is a pleasure to do so on this, I guess,
my maiden voyage. I am the only person of the folks sitting at
the table before you who is not an employee of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. I am still on the rolls of the Department
of the Army. So, it is good to see my former and, I guess for
the moment, current colleagues here in the back there.
You already noted the presence at the table of the Under
Secretary for Health, Dr. Ken Kizer, to my immediate left and
your right. To my immediate right, the Under Secretary for
Benefits, Joe Thompson. Also to my immediate right is the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Management, Mark Catlett, and to
the far left, the Director of the National Cemetery System,
Jerry Bowen. Those are the five of us who are at the table.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in the 5 years
of this administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs has
embarked on a course of change, a course I think was outlined
by you fairly in some of your opening comments. These changes
have resulted, I believe in my observance during my brief 10
weeks or so in this position as Acting Secretary, some
improvement in the time it takes to process benefits claims by
veterans. Although several members of the subcommittee referred
to an increase in the time to process claims, in fact, even
with I think what all of us will acknowledge are unsatisfactory
results to date, claims are being processed faster than they
were 5 years ago. In 1994 the average processing time for an
original claim was 213 days. In 1997 that was down to 133 days
to process. It is true, as you pointed out, that that number
has risen, but happily not back to the 1994 figure.
As you will hear from our Under Secretary for Benefits, our
goal is to continue to improve processing timeliness even as we
devote some attention to improving processing accuracy. It is
important not just to be timely in the processing of claims,
but to get them right the first time, otherwise the delay to
our veterans is doubled, even tripled.
We are, as you pointed out, in the fourth year of a massive
transformation of the health care system at VA. That has
resulted in more outpatient care, less inpatient care, as was
referred to by several members of the subcommittee, more
outpatient clinics, and yes, even the closing of unused and
unneeded hospital beds.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request will permit us to
provide health care to even more veterans, and Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee, to take that health care to where
the veterans are.
We continue to integrate organizational elements within the
VA to become more efficient, more cost effective, more
vigilant, but also to continue the increase in quality.
As we move into the next millennium, I look forward to
working with you, with this committee, on behalf of veterans
and their families. I will expect, if confirmed, and am
prepared to demand of this Department several things: first,
that we improve the timeliness and the accuracy of our delivery
of benefits to our veterans; second, that we continue the
transformation of health care in this Department, emphasizing
quality, compassion, and effectiveness; third, that we master
the challenges of information technology and make it available
to serve our veterans better, including the looming issues of
year 2000 which, as you have acknowledged, I think we have a
pretty good handle on, certainly as compared with our
colleagues elsewhere in the executive branch, although that may
be a low standard of comparison. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Do not set the bar too high. [Laughter.]
Mr. West. That we assure that our employees in this
Department have a work environment that is conducive to their
best efforts in order that they can better serve our veterans
since it is the team that delivers the benefits, that delivers
the care to those whom we are here to serve.
And finally, that we continue the efforts begun by my
predecessor, Jesse Brown, to integrate more fully the
Department's organizational elements and the process known as
ensuring ``One-VA.''
Mr. Chairman, in this budget, as you have noted, we are
requesting $42.8 billion for both mandatory and discretionary
programs, and as you have also observed, quickly I will
confirm, yes, $17.7 billion for medical care, $21.9 billion for
compensation and pension payments, $92 million for the National
Cemetery System.
We are also requesting a 10-percent increase in funding for
medical research, and I will also point out in response to the
one observation that was made that we do indeed seek to take
advantage of the ability to cooperate with other agencies. If
you consider over $400 million in NIH and other grants, the
$300 million appropriation, and funding the Department provides
for doctors' salaries--we are looking at a total investment by
this Department of over $1 billion in research. That I think is
a good effort and an important effort in terms of what it
portends for our veterans in the years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, with this budget, we will be able to open 71
new outpatient clinics. We will treat an additional 134,000
veterans over the ones we treated in 1998. That is a 4-percent
increase. With this budget, we will provide quality health care
for more than 3.4 million individual patients, an increase of
about 134,500. This level of funding in this budget should
support almost 695,000 inpatient episodes, 37 million visits to
our outpatient clinics.
Mr. Chairman, with this budget, we will expand, we will
improve the health care delivery, and we will do it, as you
have noted, without an increase in appropriated funds above the
1998 enacted level if we can receive the requests we are
seeking in certain elements of this plan. Some of this is
within our own capability, as you noted, to realize the success
that we have tried to build in our third party collections. At
the same time, some of it is in the hands of the Congress. We
are pleased that there is movement on the Medicare subvention
front. We still support it, but more importantly, as you have
noted, our plans rely on it.
Mr. Chairman, there are some new initiatives in this
budget. There is $87 million for a new smoking cessation
program, as you have noted. There is an increase of $191
million for the Montgomery GI bill. That is a 20-percent
increase, the largest in its history, and there is an increase
of $100 million for the VA's readjustment benefits accounts
which reimburses the Department of Labor for its programs that
assist veterans to find employment.
The budget contains funding and personnel to continue the
activation of four new cemeteries during the next 2 years. They
will serve the metropolitan areas of Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX;
Saratoga, NY; and Cleveland, OH. This is the largest new
program in cemetery construction I think since the Civil War.
In summary, this is a sound budget. This is a realistic
budget. It is a budget that puts our veterans and their
families first, but as you have noted, it is a budget that
depends on success in several important areas. Our job then,
Mr. Chairman, in this Department and mine as its acting head
is, yes, to be a part of the administration's program but to
keep foremost in our minds that we have a unique mission to
serve veterans and that we are here to do right by those who
have done right by our country.
Mr. Chairman, the comments by the members of the
subcommittee and my comments demonstrate I think that VA is
undergoing significant change in a number of areas. We are
changing the way we do business. Some years ago in the early
1960's, a young American President commented to an audience in
Germany that change is the law of life. He said we should not
be afraid of change, but embrace it. He said that those who
stand with their eyes too firmly fixed on the past or
concentrating solely on the present are sure to miss out on the
opportunities of the future. He was talking about global
security.
Today you and I are talking about the protections that we
owe our veterans, but in either case, the message is the same:
We must not be afraid of change. We must embrace it, and the
signal effort in this budget is to continue the change you have
noted in VHA, the changes that are underway in the Veterans
Benefits Administration for the simple purpose of improving and
assuring the delivery and continuation of services and benefits
to our veterans in the future.
prepared statement
It is a significant undertaking. We cannot do it alone. We
need all the help we can get, and that is why we are here
today.
Mr. Chairman, we are available for your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Togo D. West, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I am pleased to present
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). We are requesting $42.8 billion in new budget
authority for veterans' programs.
Throughout my professional life, I have witnessed the unique
contributions of our men and women in uniform. Their sacrifices have
kept this Nation free and secure. I am privileged to have been asked to
help keep the Nation's promise to the veterans of many different eras
for their very special contributions to the United States.
Working with Congress over the past 5 years, VA has torn down
bureaucratic barriers between veterans and their health care and
compensation benefits, has reorganized its health care system, and has
revised eligibility rules to best meet the needs of our veterans. VA
right-sized, cut back, did more with less, and reallocated resources to
accommodate the changing needs of those we serve. VA is keeping
America's promise to the Nation's veterans.
My goal will be to keep VA on this aggressive course. We are
working to ensure the improved delivery and accuracy of compensation
and pension benefits, continue improving our health care system, and
fully integrate the Department's organizational elements into ``One
VA.'' Our systems must operate in unison and our focus must be on the
veterans and improving their quality of life. VA has the talent and the
will to accomplish these goals. A vital element for our success must be
providing a workplace free of discrimination and harassment in all
forms. We must recognize our employees for their innovation and provide
the appropriate tools for their work.
Our budget request builds on our previous accomplishments and
positions us for the future. Highlights of our proposal by major
component are:
Medical care.--The budget provides $17.7 billion (includes $677
million in medical collections), to provide medical care to eligible
veterans. By continuing to improve the delivery and access of
outpatient care, the Department will open 71 new outpatient clinics and
treat 134,000 more veterans in 1999 than in 1998, a four percent
increase. The Medicare subvention demonstration program will again be
recommended by the Administration.
Montgomery GI bill and readjustment benefits.--The budget proposes
to increase mandatory Montgomery GI bill education benefits by 20
percent, or $191 million, in 1999--the most significant increase in
benefits since the program's inception. The budget also proposes an
increase of $100 million ($500 million over 5 years) in VA's
readjustment benefits account to reimburse Department of Labor (DOL)
programs to train, retrain, and assist Vietnam-era veterans to find
employment. The proposed funding would enable the development of a
national program that would target dislocated veteran workers, giving
emphasis to the needs of individuals from 40 to 65 years of age, large
numbers of who are Vietnam-era veterans, and those receiving public
assistance.
Medical research.--The $300 million request includes a ten percent
increase over the 1998 enacted level for research into illnesses
affecting veterans and the general population. This program is included
in ``The Research Fund for America.''
Veterans Benefits Administration.--The budget provides $806
million, $52 million over the 1998 enacted level, a seven percent
increase, to ensure the smooth delivery of compensation, housing,
education, pension and insurance benefits to veterans.
National Cemetery System.--The budget requests $92 million, $8
million above the 1998 enacted level, to operate the National Cemetery
System. At this level, the Department will open four new cemeteries
during the next 2 years--a number unprecedented since the end of the
Civil War.
Smoking Cessation.--The budget proposes to establish a $87 million
smoking cessation program for veterans who began to smoke during
military service.
Further details on our fiscal year 1999 request are as follows.
provide quality health care
Dramatic change has occurred in the veterans health care system in
the past 3 years. Our primary consideration is providing quality health
care to as many patients as possible. We also must continue to
emphasize our goals of achieving greater value for the expenditure of
health care dollars, and we are committed to reaching our other
strategic goals. Some of our strategies may be similar in principle, or
practice, to what other health care organizations are doing to become
more efficient and effective. Our efforts, however, must be understood
within the context of VA's special mission of serving veterans, many of
whom have unique medical conditions not well suited to ``market-based''
strategies. We are also dedicated to educating the next generation of
health care providers and researching solutions to some of health
care's most perplexing problems.
One of VA's key strategic objectives is the enhancement and system-
wide standardization of quality. Through the integration of strategic
planning, performance management and financial goals and targets, VA
has organized a system of coordinated health care delivery focused on
continuous quality improvement that is patient-oriented, ambulatory
care-based and results driven. Better care management is one of the
major strategies that will transform the health care delivery system to
treat patients in the most appropriate setting. Use of primary care
providers/teams to coordinate health services is already enhancing
quality and the cost-effectiveness of care. As we continue to perfect
functional performance measures, management and patients will be able
to assess whether or not high quality health care has been achieved. We
continue to emphasize the importance of employing new technology,
education and research capabilities to increase efficiencies, reduce
costs, and enhance quality of health care provided to veterans. We
believe this strategy will preserve the viability of the health care
system well into the next century and prepare VA to continue to meet
the diverse health care needs of the veteran population, especially the
special needs of those groups of veterans for whom VA is the hallmark
provider or who cannot afford other health care options. The reinvented
VA system is on its way to becoming a model for future integrated
health care systems, public and private.
emphasize a business-like approach to health care
VA will continue the course set in 1998, emphasizing and supporting
a dynamic business-minded approach to health care delivery within a
framework of quality. Retention of all medical collections and user
fees will add tangible incentives for our employees to enhance customer
service. The opportunity for additional patients to choose VA has the
potential to improve the return on the VA infrastructure investment
made by the taxpayer and to maintain the health of the VA health care
system. We will continue to distribute medical care resources under the
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. The financing of
additional workload in 1999 reflects our ability to serve more veterans
with their care financed by a system-wide unit cost reduction achieved
by increased emphasis on primary care services.
VA will expand and improve health care delivery without any
increase in appropriated funds above the current 1998 enacted level for
Medical Care. Resources include the Medical Care account's annual
appropriation ($17 billion), sharing and other reimbursements ($147
million), and the Medical Care Collections Fund ($677 million). We
expect to provide quality health care to more than 3.4 million unique
patients, including 3.0 million veterans, an increase of approximately
134,500 unique patients. The new funding level should support almost
695,000 inpatient episodes and 37 million outpatient visits.
Starting in 1998, VA committed to the goals of reducing per-patient
cost for health care by 30 percent, serving 20 percent more veterans,
and increasing alternative revenue sources to 10 percent of all Medical
Care funding by 2002. This five-year projection assumes fiscal year
1998 authorization of Medicare subvention, successful pilot testing,
and expansion nationwide. It is important to emphasize that the per
unique patient price reduction of 30 percent is dependent upon the
workload increase of 20 percent. This dynamic allows VA to spread its
fixed cost across an expanded workload base.
improving benefits delivery
We have made a strong commitment to improving the quality and
timeliness of processing compensation and pension claims through better
management and development of a Balanced Scorecard for measuring
progress. Using five core measures--customer satisfaction, speed,
accuracy, unit cost, and employee development and satisfaction--
Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) will upgrade the delivery of
benefits and services to veterans and their families. In pursuing the
Balanced Scorecard, VBA will establish new management information
systems and revise existing ones. This will be accomplished in a manner
that is consistent with our departmental efforts to generally improve
information content management. Some current performance measures and
targets will change as new systems are implemented with new data
consistent with the Balanced Scorecard. Eventually, VBA will use a
data-driven Balanced Scorecard to link effective strategic planning and
performance management with annual budget requests and truly become a
data-driven organization. The real measurement of services will be
improved satisfaction of our veterans.
This budget requests $22.6 million to continue VBA's Business
Process Reengineering (BPR) initiatives aimed at producing significant
improvements in processing compensation and pension claims over the
next few years. We are also requesting additional funds to fully
automate our education assistance payments for veterans and their
dependents, making it much more convenient for them and less costly to
the taxpayer. We are requesting increases for other program
enhancements aimed at providing better service for veterans at reduced
cost, including creative use of information technology and expanded
training opportunities.
ensure a lasting tribute for veterans and family members
We project that annual veteran deaths in the United States will
increase over 14 percent, from 525,000 in 1996 to 601,200 in 2003.
Annual veteran deaths are expected to peak at 620,000 in 2008. As the
number of deaths increase, the National Cemetery System (NCS) projects
increases in the number of annual interments from 71,786 in 1996 to
104,900 in 2008.
Our request for the NCS continues to position VA to meet these
future requirements. The budget includes funding and personnel to
continue the activation of four new cemeteries during the next 2
years--an increase unprecedented since the end of the Civil War.
State veterans cemeteries are a complement to VA's system of
national cemeteries and have an important role in meeting future burial
demand. To foster an enhanced partnership with the States, as proposed
last year, legislation is under consideration to amend 38 U.S.C. 2408
to encourage the establishment, expansion, and improvement of State
veterans cemeteries by increasing the maximum Federal share of the
costs of construction from 50 percent to 100 percent. The legislation
would also permit Federal funding for up to 100 percent of the cost of
initial equipment for cemetery operations. States would be responsible
for providing the land and paying all costs related to the operation of
the State cemeteries and for subsequent equipment purchases.
improve performance-based budgeting
The Government Performance and Results Act is the primary vehicle
through which we are developing more complete and refined strategic
goals and performance information. This will allow us to better
determine how well VA programs are meeting their intended objectives.
We are continuing to move our focus away from program inputs and toward
program results.
During fiscal year 1997, we published our initial strategic plan
under the Results Act. This plan covers fiscal year 1998 through fiscal
year 2003 and was submitted to the Congress in September 1997. The
strategic plan is structured around two themes--Honor, Care and
Compensate Veterans in Recognition of their Sacrifices for America; and
Management Strategies. The first theme addresses the strategic goals
for VA programs that provide benefits and services to veterans and
their families. The second presents process-oriented strategies that
will help VA operate as ``One-VA''--a unified organization delivering
seamless service to veterans with a focus on providing world-class
customer service, ensuring a high performing workforce to serve
veterans, and providing the taxpayer maximum return on investment. The
Departmental goals and objectives in the strategic plan are the driving
forces for budget formulation and performance planning.
We have completed our first performance plan under the Results Act.
This plan contains specific performance goals, performance measures,
and target levels of performance within each program supporting the
broader general goals in the strategic plan. We have integrated the
fiscal year 1999 performance plan into our budget request to begin
drawing a closer relationship between resources and performance.
We continue to strengthen our strategic management process and to
respond to Congressional and GAO criticism of selected management
problems in the Department. The prominent criticisms are the need for
VA to: (1) identify the purposes and effectiveness of our programs, (2)
integrate our information technology investments, and (3) validate our
performance measurement data. We have a number of key initiatives
ongoing. First, we are developing a list of programs and a schedule of
program evaluations that will assist us in determining how well our
programs are meeting their intended objectives. These evaluations will
begin in fiscal year 1998. Second, we are establishing an Office of the
Actuary which, among other areas of responsibility, will be involved in
developing and providing information to be used in assessing
performance measures and in gauging progress toward achieving our
organizational goals and objectives. Third, we have launched a project
to bring about a greater degree of integration of our various customer
service activities, a project that will focus on how information
technology can enhance the Department's customer service. And finally,
the Office of the Inspector General is conducting a study to review the
validity and reliability of VA's performance data. The initial part of
this study focuses on timeliness data for compensation and pension
claims, but during fiscal year 1998 this effort will be expanded to
include measures covering the medical care program.
I will now briefly summarize our 1999 budget request by program.
medical programs
medical care
The 1999 request recognizes that dramatic changes have occurred in
the veterans health care system over the past 3 years. Commitment to
improving the quality of health care and to maintaining a standard of
quality is a key strategic objective. VA has implemented a new national
network management structure. Duplicative administrative functions and
clinical services are being consolidated and geographically proximate
facilities are being integrated. Resources are being shifted from
inpatient care, which was specialty focused, to primary care delivered
on an outpatient basis. It is the continuation of aggressive business-
minded approaches coupled with a clear understanding of health care
priorities that has allowed VHA to come so far so quickly and which
will allow continued progress in 1999. In the 4 years to follow, VA is
committed to its 2002 targets of reducing per-patient health care costs
by 30 percent, providing quality health care to 20 percent more
veterans and increasing the portion of the operating budget obtained
from third party medical collections and other alternative revenue
sources to 10 percent.
The allocation of medical care resources under the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) complies with Public Law 104-204,
ensuring that veterans across the country have fair and equal access to
VA health care. The Eligibility Reform Act, Public Law 104-262, affords
a great opportunity to provide improved health care value to current
users; expand the number of users; attract new revenue generating
customers who bring insurance or Medicare payments with them; and,
provide value to taxpayers.
This budget is a continuation of the Administration's policy,
established last year to straight-line appropriation requirements
through 2002 along with retention of expanded medical collections,
anticipated passage of Medicare subvention, increased sharing revenues,
and anticipated improved management efficiencies.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, allows VA to
retain all collections from third parties, copayments, per diems, and
certain torts after June 30, 1997. These collections are deposited in
the new Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) and beginning, October 1,
1997, were available for transfer to the Medical Care appropriation to
remain available until expended. As estimated from individual network
plans, MCCF will transfer collections of $677 million to the Medical
Care account in 1999 to support veterans' health care, an increase of
13 percent.
VA is enhancing its customer focus. The department is measuring
customer satisfaction and timeliness of services, and comparing our
quality measures to community standards. VA is committed to the
enhancement and system-wide standardization of quality. This commitment
to improve health care quality in VA facilities is evident by moving
additional staff to the Office of the Medical Inspector. This staff
will conduct investigations, site visits, reviews, and other
evaluations of quality of care issues.
The Administration supports enactment of a demonstration program in
1998 to test the feasibility of ``Medicare subvention.'' This
demonstration would permit VA to collect from Medicare for health care
services provided to Medicare eligible, higher income veterans who do
not have compensable disabilities. The advantages of this initiative
are that: veterans will have more options in selecting a quality health
care provider closer to where they reside; Medicare will be billed at
costs that will be lower than the private sector; and VA will be able
to employ underutilized capacity to provide health care to Medicare-
eligible veterans. The Administration will work with Congress to seek
passage of the Medicare subvention pilots this year.
To promote more efficient management of resources, VA proposes a
change in the appropriation language that provides for a 2-year
spending availability for up to 8.3 percent of resources made
available. This percentage is equivalent to approximately 1 month of
spending authority. This proposal promotes more rational spending
aligned with business-type decisions, recognizes the need for
management flexibility during this period of significant change, and
reflects the GPRA concept of integrating budget decisions with
planning.
smoking cessation
The Administration is requesting authorization of a 5-year smoking-
cessation program for any honorably discharged veteran who began
smoking in the military. Private providers, on a per capita basis, will
deliver the program to the extent that resources are available. Once
this program is authorized, the Administration will submit a budget
amendment requesting an appropriation of $87 million for this new
activity. A legislative proposal to authorize this program will be
transmitted in the near future by the Administration. It is estimated
that between 1.3 million and 2.6 million veterans would avail
themselves of this valuable program over the next 5 years.
medical and prosthetic research
Funding for Medical and Prosthetic Research is proposed as part of
the Research Fund for America. This proposal highlights the
Administration's priority to support needed and sustained investments
in important Federal research programs on a deficit neutral basis. A
total of $300 million will support over 1,795 high priority projects
and VA research's general goal to meet the needs of the veterans and
contribute to the Nation's knowledge about disease and disability. VA
research will continue to focus on designated research areas that are
of particular importance to our veteran patients including: Gulf War
illnesses, aging, chronic disease, mental illness, substance abuse, and
sensory loss.
The additional $28 million requested will allow continuation of
ongoing programs and the start of major research initiatives that take
advantage of VA's unique assets in clinical outcomes and rehabilitation
research and our large integrated health care system. The first of the
initiatives will establish a new Quality Enhancement Research
Initiative (QUERI) to accomplish unprecedented collaboration between
research, policy and performance, patient care and informatics (medical
data). Target areas for this initiative include prevalent conditions,
such as, cancer, prostate disease, depression and consequences of
chronic spinal cord injury. Other initiatives will focus on medical
therapy and surgical treatments of Parkinson's Disease; rehabilitative
research in the areas of vision and hearing, aging with a disability,
and prosthetics; and prevention of complications of Type II Diabetes
Mellitus. In these areas, no other federally supported clinical or
research entity can initiate or complete such critical and ambitious
research activities on behalf of America's veterans.
medical care collections fund
The enactment of Public Law 105-33 established the Medical Care
Collections Fund (MCCF) and enabled VA to retain third party recoveries
and other copayments from the provision of health care services and to
use those resources to provide additional care to veterans. In an era
of government efficiency, where fewer Federal dollars are being spent
to provide more services effectively, MCCF will allow the VA to have
the necessary flexibility to produce more funding through user fees
while maintaining no increase in appropriated funds.
In 1999, VA expects to increase collections by 13 percent from the
previous year to a total of $677 million. To improve recoveries, MCCF
is focusing on consistent utilization of existing billing and
collection software; better documentation of detailed clinical and cost
data on insurance bills; implementation of billing rates based on
reasonable charges; and continued development of automated recovery
processes.
benefits programs
VA benefits programs provide assistance to veterans in recognition
of their military service to their country and to aid their transition
to civilian life. We provide compensation payments to veterans who
suffered disabling illnesses or injuries as a result of military
service and to survivors of those who died from service-connected
causes; pension payments to needy disabled wartime veterans and the
needy survivors of wartime veterans; education and training assistance
to active duty personnel and to veterans to help them readjust to
civilian life; vocational rehabilitation and counseling assistance to
help disabled veterans obtain employment; credit assistance to enable
veterans and active duty personnel to purchase and retain homes; and
life insurance. Delivery of these benefits must put veterans first,
foster partnerships between VA and veterans and their service
representatives, exploit advances in information technology and
training, and place management focus on desired customer service
improvement as well as efficiency.
The Administration is requesting $21.9 billion to support fiscal
year 1999 compensation payments to 2.4 million veterans, 305,000
survivors and 2,000 children of Vietnam veterans who were born with
spina bifida, and to support pension payments to 390,000 veterans and
283,000 survivors. The mandatory appropriation request includes the
estimated cost of providing compensation for disabilities and deaths
attributable to tobacco usage during military service estimated at
about $17 billion over 5 years. VA's General Counsel has determined
that under current law, service connection of a disability or death may
be established if injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in the
active military service. VA already has received and begun to
adjudicate tobacco-related disability and death claims. The budget
proposes legislation to disallow benefits for these disabilities or
deaths attributable to diseases which began after military service and
after any applicable presumptive period, and based solely on tobacco
use during military service. Discretionary resources in the budget
assume enactment of this legislation.
We are also proposing in this budget a 2.2 percent cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) to be paid to compensation beneficiaries, including
spouses and children receiving Dependency and Indemnity (DIC) at an
estimated cost of $287 million in fiscal year 1999. The COLA is based
on the projected change in the Consumer Price Index. Proposed
legislation is included to pay full disability compensation benefits to
Filipino veterans and DIC to their survivors residing in the United
States currently receiving these benefits at half the level that U.S.
veteran counterparts receive. The cost of the proposal will be
approximately $5 million a year, for a total of $25 million over 5
years.
This budget request also reflects a need for an additional $550
million for the fiscal year 1998 Compensation programs. The COLA that
took effect December 1, 1997, is responsible for $303.4 million of this
increase. The remainder is primarily attributable to higher than
expected increases in average benefits, with an increase of veteran
cases as well as the inception of compensation benefits and vocational
training for children of Vietnam veterans who were born with spina
bifida. Several factors contribute to the increase in the average
benefit payments. Among them are (1) the processing of older cases as
emphasis on reducing backlogs continues, which generates significant
retroactive benefit payments; (2) increases in the number of service-
connected disabilities claimed and granted to veterans; and (3) higher
than expected average benefit payments to Vietnam and Gulf War
veterans. These changes, along with estimated tobacco-related claims,
result in the increase over the original budget estimate.
An appropriation of $1.2 billion is requested for the Readjustment
Benefits program to provide education opportunities to veterans and
eligible dependents and for various special assistance programs for
disabled veterans. Education benefits will be provided for about
482,000 trainees in 1999, including 310,000 training under the
Montgomery GI Bill. This request includes funds for the annual Consumer
Price Index adjustment (estimated to be 2.0 percent effective October
1, 1998) for education programs. Legislation is proposed in this budget
that will provide a 20 percent rate increase for the Montgomery GI Bill
education program as well as for survivors' and dependents' education
programs. This legislation will also propose additional funds in the
amount of $100 million to be used for veterans training programs
administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) under Part C of the Job
Training Partnership Act. The estimated 5-year cost of the rate
increase and the reimbursement for DOL training programs is $1.5
billion.
This budget proposes legislation to eliminate authority to finance
the sale of acquired properties (establish vendee loans) to the public.
VA acquires properties incident to the foreclosure of guaranteed loans.
Properties can be sold for cash (borrowers obtain their own financing),
but in 80 percent of the cases VA finances the sale by establishing a
mortgage loan receivable. The establishment of vendee loans and their
subsequent sale extends VA's liability for many years. By selling all
properties on a cash basis, future expenses due to foreclosure of
pooled vendee loans will be eliminated. If enacted, this proposal is
estimated to save a total of $42.2 million over 5 years.
VA is also proposing legislation to charge lenders a fee of $25 for
each VA loan that is guaranteed. The fees would be earmarked for use in
developing, maintaining, and enhancing a VA Loan Information System
that would interact with the information systems used by lenders to
make and service VA-guaranteed loans. Amounts collected will be
deposited in the Supply Fund. VA may charge this fee for 4 years, not
to exceed a total of $15 million.
Legislation is proposed as well to establish a reserve, from
appropriated funds, to fully fund the ``H'' program (certain disabled
veterans within the National Service Life Insurance program) and allow
for the payments of future dividends. This legislation will require an
initial transfer to the National Service Life Insurance fund of $4.5
million in 1999. The $4.5 million appropriation will be offset to the
extent that annual appropriations to the Veterans Insurance and
Indemnities appropriation to cover the costs associated with the ``H''
program will no longer be necessary.
general operating expenses
A total of $849.7 million is requested for the General Operating
Expenses (GOE) appropriation in 1999. This funding level, combined with
$160.2 million of administrative costs associated with VA's credit
programs (funded in the loan program accounts under credit reform
provisions), $11.3 million in reimbursements from the Compensation and
Pensions account for costs associated with the implementation of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 as amended, and $38.9 million
from insurance funds' excess revenues, together with other reimbursable
authority, will provide $1.224 billion to support operations funded in
the GOE account.
veterans benefits administration
The 1999 budget request for the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) of $651 million will support an average employment level of
11,221, which is 125 FTE's below the 1998 level. Much of the FTE
decrease, however, relates to moving 80 FTE to the Franchise Fund for
the Debt Collection Activity, and to reductions in the overhead,
administrative support areas. Employment for direct processing of
compensation and pensions claims increases by 140 FTE over 1998 within
this total. This request, combined with $155.5 million associated with
credit reform funding, will result in an increase of $52.5 million in
appropriated discretionary funding over the 1998 level.
This budget reflects VBA's progress in implementing the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The
integration of plans, resources and performance measures is constantly
being improved. The 1999 budget reflects improvements over last year
and will change further as our new team revises indicators and goals
and establishes new ones.
There are several initiatives which, taken as a whole, comprise our
new vision for processing compensation and pension (C&P) claims. Among
those included in this request are the conversion to service centers,
or the organizational and physical combination of Adjudication and
Veterans Services Divisions at each of the 57 regional offices. Once
completed, enhanced customer satisfaction as well as improved
processing will follow. Funds are requested for the pre-discharge exam
initiative that provides an outreach effort prior to separation from
the service at major sites across the United States. This is a critical
element of the reengineered C&P vision for the performance of claims
development, disability examination, and preparation of rating
decisions for service persons awaiting discharge from active duty.
This budget also reflects funding for finalization of the ongoing
geographical consolidation of loan processing and loan service and
claims functions from 45 offices to nine Regional Loan Centers (RLC's).
Consolidation will result in improved services to veterans at reduced
costs through greater efficiency and economies of scale. Service to
lenders will improve through greater consistency and responsiveness.
This consolidation is expected to generate nearly $43 million in
savings through 2003. Funds are also included to deploy a new Property
Management Local Area Network (PLAN) System. Real property acquired by
VA as a result of guaranteed loans requires management and disposal.
Automated information support will be provided to promote the rapid
acquisition and sale of properties in order to maximize recovery of the
government's expenditures.
Other funds are included to continue information technology
initiatives that will support the needs of a reengineered environment.
Education processing will benefit from completing installation of
imaging technology into the VBA environment, reducing the dependency on
paper documents and improving timeliness and accuracy of claims
processing. Additionally, education systems will be modified to take
full advantage of the efficiencies gained from recent technological
advantages. Development of the payment processing system for the
Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve program will continue in 1999 and
serve as the foundation for all future education redesign efforts. VBA
will also replace the current system of manual processing with an
expert system and replace the current system of delivering monthly
benefit checks to veterans by mail with either a voucher to be drawn
through electronic benefits transfer or electronic transfer of funds
directly into their bank accounts.
Another initiative will improve timeliness and quality of service
while reducing costs for the insurance program. Paperless processing in
this business line will require installation of an imaging system to
provide electronic storage of insurance records and on-line access.
Creation of a large database of imaged beneficiary forms will allow the
retirement of almost 2.5 million insurance folders.
national cemetery system
The National Cemetery System (NCS) proposes a budget of $92
million. This represents an increase of $7.8 million over the 1998
level. The funding increase over last year's level is for: (1) workload
increases at the Tahoma National Cemetery in the Seattle, Washington,
area; (2) the continued activation of three new national cemeteries in
Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; and Saratoga, NY; (3) the partial activation
of a new national cemetery in the Cleveland, OH area; (4) the increased
cost of the Integrated Data Communication Utility (IDCU) system
conversion; and (5) for inflation and employee payroll costs.
general administration
A total of $199 million is requested for the Office of the
Secretary, five Assistant Secretaries and three staff offices. This
request, combined with $4.7 million associated with credit reform
funding, will result in a total resource level of $203.8 million.
equal employment opportunity
During 1998, VA has restructured its Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) complaint process. The 1999 budget reflects the creation of two
new offices to handle processing and adjudication of EEO complaints.
The Office of Resolution Management (ORM) was created within the Office
of Human Resources and Administration. In addition, the Office of
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) was formed.
This function will be located in the Office of the Secretary.
For 1999, funding for the new offices will be handled entirely on a
reimbursable basis except for that portion of their operations
performed for staff offices within the General Administration activity
of the GOE appropriation in which ORM and OEDCA operate. General
Administration funds that supported the previous Equal Employment
Opportunity process for VHA, VBA, NCS and the Office of the Inspector
General have been moved to their respective budgets for 1999.
Reimbursements are calculated on a per case basis.
shared service center
The 1999 budget reflects the phased expansion of the Shared Service
Center (SSC) to encompass additional VA employees and sites. The SSC
will centralize payroll processing and personnel information. For 1999,
the SSC is requesting $26.6 million in reimbursement authority from
other VA organizations.
board of veterans' appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) will continue administrative
productivity enhancement initiatives involving both automated and
manual procedural changes. In 1998 and continuing into 1999, BVA
expects to increase electronic exchanges of information with VBA and
thus improve data currency and decrease administrative handling. BVA
continues to work to reduce the time it takes veterans to receive
decisions on appeals. A total of $40 million is requested for the Board
in 1999.
policy and planning
The Office of Policy and Planning is requesting $11 million in
1999. Funding is provided for program evaluations ($2 million in 1999),
establishment of an Office of the Chief Actuary ($2 million in 1999),
and the National Survey of Veterans II ($1 million in 1999). This
request builds upon funds provided by Congress in 1998 for these
activities.
office of general counsel
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) is requesting $38.8 million in
budget authority to support its operations in 1999. The 1999 request is
$2.2 million above the 1998 current estimate. These additional funds
will allow the General Counsel to maintain its current level of
operations plus allow it to address the growing backlog at the Court of
Veterans Appeals and field offices.
office of management
The Assistant Secretary for Management is requesting $49.4 million
in budget authority in 1999. This request includes $900 thousand to
develop a replacement strategy for the VACO Campus LAN. This strategy
will focus on immediate short-term solutions to keep the system viable
and long-term solutions that will allow the VACO community to have a
dependable, reliable, and fully functional LAN network.
office of inspector general
The 1999 request of $32.7 million includes funding for the
Inspector General to continue to focus its efforts on high pay-off
areas deemed most vulnerable to fraud, waste, inefficiency, and
mandatory coverage areas such as audits of VA's financial statements.
capital planning
With the recognition of the need to improve its capital planning
process, VA has initiated a process to ensure that major capital
investments are based on good business decisions, tie to Departmental
strategies and goals, and represent the best return to the taxpayer.
Representatives from top management, in the form of the Capital
Investment Board (CIB), make strategic decisions about capital
expenditures. This is an evolving process that also fosters a ``One-
VA'' approach to the use of capital funds by facilitating dialogue
about major construction projects, leases, information technology, and
major equipment purchases across VA management.
construction, major projects
A total of $97 million is requested for the Major Construction
program. The Major Construction request would fund a clinical
consolidation/seismic project at Long Beach, CA, a seismic corrections
project at San Juan, PR, and columbarium projects at Ft. Rosecrans
(California) and Florida National Cemeteries. Additional funds are
requested to remove asbestos from VA-owned buildings and to support
advanced planning and design activities.
construction, minor projects
A total of $141 million is requested for the fiscal year 1999 Minor
Construction program. The request includes $123 million for Veterans
Health Administration projects. Of this amount, $68.9 million is
targeted for the outpatient care and support category. This will enable
VA to continue its commitment to provide primary and preventive care.
Additionally, $32.5 million is for inpatient care and support. This
category includes projects that improve the patient environment, such
as providing private and semi-private rooms. A total of $14 million is
also included for the National Cemetery System. Funds in the amount of
$2.4 million are requested for the Veterans Benefits Administration.
Staff Office and Emergency projects are provided $1.6 million.
parking revolving fund
VA is requesting authorization of $13 million for a parking garage
in Denver, CO. No additional funding is required as this project would
be funded from unobligated balances currently available.
grants for the construction of state extended care facilities
The fiscal year 1999 request of $37 million for the Grants for the
Construction of State Extended Care Facilities will provide funding to
assist States to establish new, or renovate existing nursing homes and
domiciliaries.
grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries
The fiscal year 1999 request of $10 million for the Grants for the
Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries will provide funding to
assist States to establish, expand, or improve State veterans
cemeteries. Legislation is again proposed to increase the maximum
Federal share of the costs of construction from 50 to 100 percent.
closing
Mr. Chairman, the challenges before us are great but our dedication
and commitment to ensuring the best possible care and service to our
Nation's veterans are greater. We owe our veterans the best service we
can provide. I look forward to working with you and the members of this
Committee to meet these challenges.
medical collections
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Since Senator Mikulski is on a tight time schedule, I will
defer my questions and allow her to take up such time as you
need.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to go
by the 5-minute rule.
Mr. West, let us start off with the question about the
medical care cost and the collections in the Medicare
subvention because really one of the anchor services of the VA
is its medical care, and then the need to have reliable revenue
streams both from appropriations, but also the private
collections.
Could you tell us what are your plans and what are the
strategies and the methodologies to use to increase the
collections from private insurance? Do you have a specific
plan, specific benchmarks, and what are your thoughts on
increasing those collections?
Mr. West. I think we do and I will ask Dr. Kizer, the Under
Secretary for Health, to provide some specifics about it.
I would observe before that, if I might, Senator, there has
been some concern expressed over the rate of collections. I
think it is a little early to make that judgment. The only
numbers we have available to us are for the first quarter of
the fiscal year. We are just about to end the second quarter.
So, I think next month sometime, we will have one-half a year.
I think that Dr. Kizer would be more comfortable to see where
we are at the end of the third quarter. But I am not so sure
that there is reason to be pessimistic just yet. There is
reason to be careful, to pay attention, and as you said, to
examine exactly what we are doing to ensure our collections.
I think our experience on collections in just that first
quarter runs roughly like last year's. I think I heard a few
days ago Dr. Kizer say----
Senator Mikulski. I am going to have to leave really very
quickly. Could we hear the methodology? I appreciate those
comments, sir.
Dr. Kizer. Senator Mikulski, as you know, this year we are
looking at about 4.4 percent of our operating budget to come
from nonappropriated funds and next year increasing that to
about 4.6 percent.
As you note, and I think understand as well, before this
year the importance placed on collection and having the
infrastructure in place was not there. There are one-half a
dozen generic things that are specifically being done, and each
of those have parts to them. We are focusing particularly on
better insurance identification, on better collection
processes, better claims processing, better utilization
management, also on setting of reasonable rates, a new
authorization that was provided that will help in this regard
as well.
Now, we have recently disseminated a document that provides
more specific guidance in this regard, and I think that it
would be helpful to perhaps provide you with a copy of that and
you can see in much more detail some of the specific things
that are going to be done in this regard.
[The information follows:]
Executive Summary
background
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces the same challenges
in the administration of its healthcare system of 170 hospitals and 400
clinics as do other Federal agencies on the journey to reinvention.
Private sector health systems, both for-profit and not-for-profit, face
similar challenges in trying to manage the industry's formidable
changes precipitated by managed care, cost containment, and new
patterns of care. An abundance of dilemmas confront everyone: declining
revenues, cost controls, eroding customer bases, quality mandates,
reorganizations, mergers and outsourcing, and demands for adopting best
business practices. All of these challenges coincide with stakeholder
imperatives for these organizations to become more business-like and
perform using measurable industry standards.
In the face of increasing pressures to reduce costs, enhance
quality and implement managed care, VA has developed a five-year plan
called 30/20/10. This calls for a reduction in per-patient cost by 30
percent; an increase in unique patients served by 20 percent; and an
increase in nonappropriated revenues by 10 percent of total operations.
VA intends to achieve the latter goal through its revenue cycle
program, formerly known as Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR).
The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990 established and
funded the MCCR program as a special apparatus to identify, bill and
collect for the cost of providing non-service connected care (NSC) to
veterans. Collections, minus the expenses charged back to MCCR, were
returned to the U.S. Treasury. Through subsequent legislation relating
to program coverage and scope, MCCR has expanded to a nationwide force
of 2,700 personnel. Despite MCCR's investments in technology, program
policy and procedure, software development, and training, hospitals
have not achieved the performance levels anticipated. After growing to
a peak of $581 million in 1995, collections have declined to $563
million in 1996 and $524 million in 1997. Much of this decline can be
attributed to a decrease in the VA's inpatient workload, changes in
insurance membership (HMO & PPO penetration), and changes in insurance
companies' payment methods.
study requirements
Concern about the erosion of MCCR performance, as well as anxiety
about VA's ability to generate a 10 percent non-appropriated revenue
stream, crested in September 1997. At this time the VHA CFO determined
the need for and contracted with Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (C&L), a
subcontractor to Abt Associates, to conduct a major management review
of MCCR. The scope of this review called for C&L to document actual
performance, account for the way MCCR funds were expended, and
benchmark VA performance with best practices in the private sector
(both for-profit and not-for-profit hospital systems) and in high-
performing VA hospitals. VA requested C&L to identify better ways to
allocate resources, perform work processes, deploy technology and
collect money due to the VA. Finally, it asked C&L to determine if
there were meaningful opportunities to contract elements of the revenue
cycle.
The request for this study came during a landmark period. With the
passage of the Balanced Budget Act in mid 1997, Congress gave VA
permission for VISN's to retain MCCR collections for enhancing the
quality of care to veterans. This new incentive has spurred a great
deal of interest in the program and many VA officials and staff
contacted during the course of this study stated that they will use its
findings and best practices as guides for their reengineering plans.
study scope and methodology
Extensive Review of VA Operations
Coopers & Lybrand conducted the study from September 1997 to
January 1998. We followed an intensive schedule during which study
teams conducted MCCR program reviews at 24 VA medical centers. The
teams investigated all aspects of facility operations. Specifically,
we: interviewed key hospital staff, performed process mapping to obtain
work volumes, cycle times and process costs, reviewed internal MCCR
diagnostic reports, observed veteran registration interviews,
administered surveys to MCCR staff, reviewed accounting records, and
presented our observations to directors, chiefs of staff, chief
financial officers and MCCR coordinators. We also conducted numerous
interviews with Veteran Integrated Service Network (VISN) directors and
their staffs, VA central office officials associated with MCCR
operations, regional counsel, field directors supporting operations
(e.g., Austin Automation Center, St. Paul Debt Collection Center) and
VA system development contractors.
Private Sector Benchmarking
Concurrently, C&L conducted a thorough benchmarking study of nearly
25 private sector organizations. These included private, multi-hospital
hospital systems, national hospital chains, and academic medical
centers, some of which are affiliated with VA hospitals. We collected
data from industry associations, such as the Hospital Accounts
Receivable Association (HARA) and the Hospital Financial Management
Association (HFMA). Finally, we visited with and interviewed numerous
private sector firms in the hospital billing and collections industry,
such as Medaphis, NEIC and PAYCO.
Characteristics Unique to the VA
Although the steps of the revenue cycle process are generally the
same in both the private sector and VA, many unique VA characteristics
must be considered when making performance comparisons because they
inhibit performance in the revenue cycle. While some of these
characteristics exist as a matter of national preference and VA's
mission, other characteristics appear to exist as a matter of VA
internal policy. Many of these inhibitors can and should be changed if
national decision makers, veterans, and the public are asking VA to
perform more like a business in both clinical and administrative areas.
Patient Mix and Demographics.--Many patients are high-risk and
elderly. This, coupled with the fact that VA has a myriad of rules
concerning eligibility for services, makes patient processing more
time-consuming and error-prone than in the private sector.
Inappropriate Care.--As a paternalistic provider of care, much of
VA's healthcare is inappropriate and overlooked by utilization review
(UR). In a 1996 internal study, nearly 40 percent of inpatient care
exceeds Interqual's length-of-stay or care setting criteria. According
to policy terms, third party payers do not reimburse for such care.
Lack of Incentives.--Neither veterans, clinicians or administrative
staff have strong incentives to cooperate in the 1st or 3rd party
billing processes because VA's future did not depend on it. The revenue
cycle has generally been a low priority operation, despite the efforts
of many dedicated staff.
Current Operations.--Since VA has historically not had to bill for
its services, it lacks the complete infrastructure and procedures for
doing so. Although improvements are being made, the current system of
per diem billing does not comply with industry standards and is often a
basis for out-of-hand denials by insurance companies.
Payer Mix.--Two major payers, Medicare and Medicaid, account for
about 54 percent of most private hospital revenues. Thus, hospitals
have standardized processes that keep costs down and increase
collection effectiveness because these payers meet their obligations
and pay on time. In contrast, VA hospitals have no predominant, large
payers and must bill hundreds of different insurance companies.
Medicare Reimbursement.--By law VA cannot bill Medicare for care
provided to veterans. This deprives VA of revenue and also complicates
the billing process because it must bill ``medigap'' policies without
the benefit of an explanation of benefits (EOB) from Medicare. VA thus
often bills for the entire amount, distorting the residual liability of
medigap payers, who typically only pay a maximum of 20 percent of the
total bill. Therefore, these payers often refuse to pay, and sometimes
sue, VA over this issue.
Investment Costs.--VA is a relative newcomer to the billing and
collections business and is still making large investments in program
design, information systems and training. This accounts for about 20
percent of current operational costs.
findings
By most industry standards, as well as VA's internal standards, VA
hospitals fall short of the optimum performance demonstrated by for-
profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Based on VA's fiscal year 1997
collection levels, effectiveness and productivity data, program costs,
and management practices, only a few hospitals succeed. Even these,
however, have inconsistent performance across all billing and
collections processes. We measured VA's performance using primary and
secondary benchmarks.
Primary Benchmarks
Primary benchmarks are indicators of how well the revenue cycle
supports the basic mission of the organization. The primary revenue
cycle benchmarks used in this study capture the private sector's
fundamental precepts: they measure outcomes of revenue processes
critical to organizational success and survival in the healthcare
industry. For the VA, they measure how well it bills for NSC care and
recovers its costs. Success depends on the performance of all hospital
departments, not just the MCCR unit. Other factors critically impact
success, such as VA-wide policies and procedures concerning veteran's
rights, appropriateness of care, performance incentives and fee
schedules.
Collections.--The $525m in collections is 3 percent of the VA's
hospital operating budget. This is low considering that 85 percent of
the workload is for NSC care; also, this is a third of the 30/20/10
revenue goal. Although we recognize that the VA only bills a percentage
of its total workload, we found individual university hospitals and
small, multi-hospital systems in Louisiana, Missouri and Virginia that
collect more that $525m.
Days in Accounts Receivable (AR).--The most prevalent revenue
measure used by the healthcare industry is days in AR. The industry
average is 60 days, while VA has its money tied up for 244 days. Much
of this is due to lack of aggressive follow-up on denial or partial
payments, as well as the fact that many claims are tied up in
litigation with some major payers.
AR>90 Days.--The secondary revenue measure used by the healthcare
industry is the percentage of AR older than 90 days. Industry limits
this to 28 percent while VA is at 92 percent. Again, some of the VA's
outstanding AR is currently tied up in litigation.
Net Collections.--This measures collections as a percentage of
total hospital accumulated charges, which are different from billed
amounts because of managed care and other discounts. Industry averages
62 percent while VA is at 33 percent, partially because it has
routinely overbilled medigap payers, as explained below.
Secondary Benchmarks
Secondary benchmarks are indicators of how well the revenue cycle
performs at the process level. For the VA, they measure how well the
hospital performs intake, coding, billing and collections activities.
The MCCR unit is responsible for performance, but success is modulated
by the quality of data provided by hospital registration and clinical
departments. Most of these measures are unique to VA and are not widely
used in the private sector because of its bottom-line emphasis on days
in AR.
Insurance Identified.--Systemwide, VA identifies 16 percent of its
new patients as having billable insurance, with a range from 8 percent
to 36 percent. The percent for all patients is lower. This severely
limits collections potential at the very beginning of the revenue cycle
and is one of the most serious process breakdowns in the program.
Bill Lag Time.--It takes the industry an average of 9 days from the
date of care to send a bill to payers, while this process takes the VA
83 days.
Patient File Closeout.--Clinicians and medical staff in the private
sector close patient treatment files within 5 days while VA takes 41
days.
Collections/FTE.--Industry collects $2-3 million per FTE associated
with the revenue cycle, while VA collects between $150-200 thousand.
Cost Effectiveness
The cost of operating the revenue cycle program in VA is presently
quite high. It costs industry $.023 to collect one dollar of revenue
while VA's fully loaded cost is $.34. Further analysis shows the
variation in cost-to-collect:
Inpatient Bills:
Means Test.................................................... $.10
Per Diem...................................................... .41
Third Party................................................... .07
Outpatient Bills:
Means Test.................................................... .62
Rx Copay...................................................... 1.35
Third Party................................................... .48
VA's cost ratio is high due to process inefficiencies, significant
errors and rework, diseconomies of scale (some units have as few as 10
FTE's assigned to MCCR), and ineffective use of available automation.
Of course, the average amount collected per bill also greatly impacts
the cost-to-collect ratio.
summary and conclusions
All of the study's quantitative and qualitative findings point to
the conclusion that there are certain, critical attributes that
distinguish thriving, high performing organizations from the
stragglers. We found recurring characteristics in successful revenue
operations in both the private sector and VA, which are categorized
into five critical success factors (CSF).
1. Leadership
Top management of successful organizations lead the process and are
a source of vision, innovation and culture change. Revenue directors
are hired for their new ideas and leadership traits, and are often
major players in helping health care organizations maintain cash flow
in today's turbulent and competitive market. In the VA fewer than 40
percent of senior executives were involved in or appeared committed to
revenue cycle operations. We believe this should improve because of the
new incentives provided by the Balanced Budget Act.
2. Organization Structure
Successful operations have cross-functional, centrally managed
organizations (called the ``business model'') that enhance quality
results by integrating sub processes into seamless operations. These
organizations have a single reporting structure across the hospital
that reduces instances of re-work, reduces fragmentation, and increases
effective communication. A single reporting organization was in place
at only 25 percent of the VA sites we visited, thereby hindering
performance (e.g., 20 percent rework in handoffs between departments)
and clouding accountability.
3. Accountability
High-performing operations track and measure the people, activities
and results of revenue processes through systems of internal control.
Revenue is everyone's responsibility, as measured via frequent reports
and benchmarks. In VA, the revenue cycle is viewed as MCCR's
responsibility only, there is limited compliance with standards outside
the MCCR unit, and few others in the hospital are held accountable. The
Diagnostic Measurement System is used effectively by only 50 percent of
the 24 sites we visited.
4. Human Resource Management
Best practice revenue cycle organizations significantly leverage
human resources through intensive training, averaging 3-4 training
sessions yearly, and placing a priority on professional certifications
such as from the American Guild of Patient Accounting Managers (AGPAM).
Nearly 25 percent have incentive compensation programs for employees.
Aside from periodic nationally-sponsored training, VA follows few of
these practices.
5. Technology
Technology drives the private sector's exemplary revenue cycle
programs. It reduces costs, errors and cycle times, and also helps
increase collections through better communications and data exchange
with payers. Today, healthcare success depends on the quality of
information systems. Many private sector organizations have
consolidated revenue organizations just to take advantage of integrated
information systems. Only about 60 percent of VA hospitals are taking
full advantage of available revenue cycle technology. VA has made major
investments in software, however, these tools must be better utilized.
Furthermore, the VA must continue the integration of separate systems
and the development of the Universal Billing System.
compelling case for change
Transformational (Leadership) Changes
We believe that there is compelling evidence for VA to make major,
transformational changes to its revenue cycle program. These changes
are required in leadership, organization structure, compliance,
attitudes toward revenue collection, and outsourcing of certain
functions. Responsibility for these transformational changes lies
equally with the VHA Chief of Staff and Chief Financial Officer,
network directors and hospital directors.
Transactional (Process) Changes
Concurrent with the transformational changes, VA needs to adopt
best business practices at the transactional, or process, level of
revenue cycle operations. VA recognizes several of these requirements
and has launched improvement initiatives, such as universal billing,
ambulatory data capture, veterans enrollment system and the Medicare
remittance advice project. Other initiatives need to focus on new
techniques for insurance identification and aggressive AR management.
Responsibility for these transactional changes lies with the Revenue
Cycle Program Office, VHA CIO, VISN directors, and hospital directors.
most efficient organization
Year 2000 Features
This report describes a most efficient organization (MEO) that will
affect the above changes by the year 2000. Major features of the MEO
consist of:
--Adoption of a business model organization structure at each
hospital
--Process ownership across medical, administrative and business units
--VISN-wide consolidation and quality control to strengthen crucial
``front end'' processes, such as preregistration, insurance
verification and elements of utilization review (UR)
--Centralization, internal franchising or contracting of many ``back
end'' processes, such as electronic billing, third party
follow-up and collections enforcement
--Leverage of process improvements currently underway
--Transition from a cost recovery to a revenue generation concept of
operations
Costs and Benefits
We conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine the benefits and
risks associated with the Year 2000 MEO. The transformational changes
will have a positive, wholesale impact on the way VA operates its
business and serves the health needs of veterans. For example, the
capture of clinical data for billing purposes also provides valuable
information on treatment patterns and medical outcomes. Over the next
three years these changes will help VA achieve the 30/20/10 goal for
its healthcare system.
Transactional changes will generate benefits through reductions in
process costs, cycle times and rework, as well as lead to improved
levels of accuracy and customer satisfaction. We determined the
benefits of focusing on key ``leverage points,'' such as (1)
identifying billable insurance; (2) producing accurate bills; and (3)
reducing days AR outstanding. From improvements in these three areas
alone, VA can dramatically improve its collections nationwide by nearly
$200 million.
As with all major change, there are some risks of implementation,
such as those associated with restructuring, technology development,
and timing. However, given the magnitude of the revenues at stake, as
well as VA's lukewarm performance in the process, the potential risks
are vastly outweighed by the rewards. VA can mitigate these risks
through the proper resolve to succeed.
recommendations
Coopers & Lybrand recommends that VA pursue a three-phased program
to remedy its lagging revenue cycle process. Known as CPR, the program
is an effective approach for prioritizing corrective actions,
leveraging resources and addressing all aspects of the revenue cycle
process.
1. Cash.--With VISN sponsorship, immediately launch at each
hospital a 6-month blitz on existing receivables (for services already
billed) as well as a concentration on UR and charge capture (for
services provided but improperly billed or not billed at all). Collect
funds due VA and prevent further revenue losses. This will help VA
accomplish its 1998 collection goal.
2. Process Compliance.--Through VISN leadership and action,
immediately take corrective actions to bring hospital programs into
full compliance with VHA revenue cycle guidelines and regulations, as
well as with established best practices such as those identified in
this report. Also begin VISN-level consolidation of applicable front-
end processes. This will help standardize operations, reduce costs, and
strengthen all processes in the revenue cycle.
3. Redesign.--VHA should continue the development of several
consolidated applications, systems and operations. Attention should
also be focused on removing some of the policy and institutional
barriers that inhibit optimum performance. Depending on the results of
phase 2, move toward greater reliance on contractors to perform back-
end processes. This will help VA realize MEO status by the Year 2000.
We recommend that VA require the full commitment and participation
of VISN and hospital executives in CPR. VA can no longer afford to
abdicate revenue responsibilities to collection units alone. Revenue
performance is everyone's business--in the same manner that delivering
quality healthcare to the veteran is everyone's business. VA leaders
should make the same investments in leadership, innovation, human
capital and technology for business functions that they have for
clinical functions.
section 1: introduction
a. background
The Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) is a $17 billion health care system. The VA medical network of
hospitals and outpatient centers consists of over 50,000 operating
beds, and treated over 800,000 inpatients and almost 33 million
outpatients in fiscal year 1997. Since 1986, the VA has been authorized
to recover from veterans and private health insurers a portion of the
costs VA incurs to provide health care services to veterans with non-
service-connected (NSC) disabilities. Through the Medical Care Cost
Recovery (MCCR) program, VA has launched several improvement
initiatives entailing process design, tools development, technology and
training. There have also been several MCCR studies, such as the 1996
Birch & Davis MCCR Cost-to-Collect Study and the 1997 GAO report.
Despite this activity, VA has had limited success in collections,
partially due to the fact that recovered funds were returned to the
U.S. Treasury (minus the MCCR's operating costs). As part of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, however, the VHA was authorized to retain
revenues collected after June 30, 1997. The VA believes that this new
incentive will spur improvements at the VISN and medical center levels.
This, along with several new initiatives such as Universal Billing,
Medicare Remittance Advice, Reasonable Charges, and the Enrollment
System, will enhance the cost recovery process.
In fiscal year 1996, VHA sought recovery of about $1.6 billion of
its costs but only recovered 35 per cent of the billed amount, or $563
million. Not only was this a low dollar amount, it also represented a
decrease of more than 5 percent under the previous year's collections
(see Figure 1-1, MCCR Recoveries). This slide in collections continued
in fiscal year 1997 to $524 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.030
Some of this declining performance in the revenue cycle process (as
the billing and collections function is known in the private sector) is
because of the VA's shift from inpatient to outpatient care settings.
However, much of the erosion is because many of the VA's 150 medical
centers have yet to implement revenue cycle programs. While some
hospitals have exemplary programs, none have consistently good
performance across all processes.
The VA plans to continue with its cost recovery or revenue cycle
program. It characterizes this plan to retain insurance payments and
other revenue as the first step in a five-year ``30/20/10'' program.
Under this program, the VA will reduce its per-patient costs by 30
percent, increase patients served by 20 percent, and finance 10 percent
of its expenditures using non-appropriated revenues by the year 2002.
The bulk of these non-appropriated revenues (56 percent in fiscal year
2002) will come from private health insurance recoveries. It is
anticipated that should VA receive Medicare subvention, a large portion
of additional revenues will be from Medicare (43 percent). Additional
dollars will be from first party co-payment and from sharing agreements
with DOD and local hospitals.
In fiscal year 1997, MCCR collections comprised 2.9 percent of the
total medical center operating budgets. If process improvements are
implemented it is estimated that MCCR collections will generate at
least 4 percent of the operating budget by 1999. (Figure 1.2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.031
Over the next five years, VA's healthcare appropriation will remain
fixed at $17 billion per year. As such, the VA's primary option for
increasing its revenues must come from an increase in third-party
reimbursements and anticipated Medicare subvention, a goal estimated at
$1.73 billion in 2002. In reality, this goal may be very difficult to
attain. If VA is to be granted Medicare subvention it must make
considerable improvements to its revenue cycle processes in order to be
Medicare compliant. Additionally, there are several factors that help
explain the current revenue decreases and the downward trend. These
factors include:
The decline and aging of the veteran population. This means that VA
must serve a greater proportion of this declining population to
maintain its current revenue projections. In addition, more VAMC users
will have secondary, rather than primary, health insurance coverage in
the future.
The changing nature of the healthcare industry, which has been
moving from traditional fee-for-service plans to managed care. Because
the VA is not an HMO preferred provider, veterans' increased enrollment
in HMO's and other managed care plans reduces the number of veterans
covered by fee-for-service insurance from which VHA can expect to
recover.
Payer mix. Figure 1-3 illustrates the payer mix obstacle. As the
figure shows, the private sector (for-profit and not-for-profit) can
collect revenue from many large sources unavailable to the VA,
including Medicare (19-41 percent), and Medicaid (13-35 percent). This
leaves the private sector dependent on commercial sources for a small
part of its reimbursement, while the VA must try to make up 79 percent
of its reimbursement from these sources. While the average private
hospital has a concentration of very large payers (thereby increasing
collections and reducing costs of operations) the typical VA hospital
must bill dozens upon dozens of small payers.
Figure 1-3
Percent
FOR-PROFIT:
Medicare...................................................... 41
Medicaid...................................................... 13
Other......................................................... 4
Private....................................................... 36
Self-pay...................................................... 6
=================================================================
________________________________________________
VHA:
First party................................................... 13
Sharing....................................................... 7
Other......................................................... 1
Third party/private........................................... 79
=================================================================
________________________________________________
NOT-FOR-PROFIT:
Medicare...................................................... 19
Medicaid...................................................... 35
Other......................................................... 8
Private....................................................... 16
Self-pay...................................................... 22
Shifts in care from inpatient to outpatient settings, that could
reduce private insurance recoveries and increase recovery costs because
of the greater number of small bills. For the VA, this continuing
decline in the number of inpatient days provided and a corresponding
increase in the number of outpatient clinic visits (Figure 1-4) means
higher workloads with smaller recoveries. (Under the VA's current
manual coding process, it spends almost eight times the amount to
collect a dollar from outpatient billing than it does on inpatient
billing (i.e., $0.65 vs. $0.08). VA must also generate approximately 20
outpatient bills to produce the equivalent recovery of a single
inpatient bill. Charges are also fixed fee; this means they are not
itemized and do not reflect ``reasonable'' charges.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.033
The trend continued in 1997 with 826,846 inpatient visits compared
to 32,648,000 outpatient visits.
b. study scope and organization
In August 1997, VA tasked Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P., a
subcontractor to Abt Associates, to perform a review and cost analysis
of the MCCR program. Specifically, VA requested C&L to review and
analyze all performance and cost aspects of the MCCR process, including
insurance identification, UR/clinical charge capture, billing, and
collection for NSC care. C&L was also asked to assess and benchmark the
VA's performance to other similar activities of healthcare
organizations and contractors in the private sector.
The study scope encompasses several fundamental elements of VA's
revenue cycle process:
--Process analysis and business process reengineering to enhance VA's
revenue cycle collections
--Program reconfiguration to design a ``Most Efficient Organization''
via process consolidations, organizational realignment, and
franchising and/or outsourcing critical processes
--Benchmarking to base the analysis on best practices in both the VA
and private sector, including not-for-profit hospitals
--Activity based costing (ABC) to determine the pattern of
expenditures and to plan the optimum allocation of future
resources
--Cost-benefit analysis to validate the effectiveness and payback of
the recommended new operation
--Action planning to establish implementation priorities and
timelines.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2, Background, presents a brief overview of the MCCR
program, including its legislative background, an overview of
processing, and some of the obstacles in making a comparison between
the VA and the private sector.
Section 3, Methodology, describes the techniques used by C&L in
performing this review and analysis.
Section 4, VA Study Site Profile, presents the results of our
research from the 24 site visits.
Section 5, Best Business Practices, addresses the best practices
observed in both the VA and the private sector, describes five Critical
Success Factors observed at the most successful organizations, and
explains areas where the VA and the private sector processes and
practices are fundamentally different.
Section 6, Proposed Reorganization and Cost Savings, describes the
VA revenue cycle optimal configuration. We also provide a cost benefit
analysis of this reorganization.
Section 7, Recommended Next Steps, identifies short-term and
strategic action plans using an approach called CPR--Cash, Process
compliance and program Restructuring.
section 2: program overview
a. the revenue process
The revenue cycle is the process by which health care providers
bill first party (the patient) or third-party (insurance companies, or
sometimes, managed care organizations) payers for the reimbursement of
medical services. The VA calls its program Medical Care Cost Recovery
(MCCR). Whether in the VA or in the private sector, the goal is to
collect the maximum payments in the shortest time for the lowest cost.
Successful completion of this task requires: Complete and accurate
patient and payer information; Appropriate diagnosis and coding;
Complete and accurate billing; Quick turnaround in payment; and Timely
reconciliation of appeals.
The revenue cycle process must meet the demands of at least five
stakeholders:
--Patients expect to receive accurate and timely bills for the
medical care they have received.
--Payers (first party--the patients and third party--the insurance
companies) need complete and accurate billing information to
fully reimburse for medical care.
--Physicians need access to accurate patient information to provide
proper medical diagnosis and treatment.
--Cost recovery personnel need accurate patient and insurance
information, appropriate diagnosis and coding, ``state of the
art'' technology, and stakeholder support to maximize
collections in a timely manner.
--Hospital administrators, e.g., directors, associate directors and
CFO's, need to maximize collections to support hospital
operations and have accurate performance measurements to
monitor these collections.
The revenue cycle process is essentially the same in VA health care
facilities as in the private sector. In each type of facility, the cost
recovery process is generally composed of several sub-processes, as
illustrated in the figure below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.034
The four major processing segments are Intake, Utilization Review,
Billing, and Collections. We describe each as well as several
characteristics of best practices in the following paragraphs.
1. Intake
Intake consists of three sub-processes: patient registration,
insurance identification, and insurance verification.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.035
The entire process depends on the quality of the information
provided during intake. This information includes: Name, Address,
Social Security Number, Telephone number, Date of birth, Employer, Name
of insurance carrier, policy number, and expiration date of policy,
Next of kin, Allergies or other conditions that might affect treatment
and care, Spouse's and dependents' names, and Name of spouse's
insurance carrier, policy number, and expiration date of policy.
Accurate intake processing is critical, because it influences the
success of every other phase of processing that follows. The best
practices of intake processing contain some of these attributes:
--Accurate demographic and insurance information captured during pre-
registration and registration. The private sector holds the
registration clerks accountable for all data captured.
--Increased efficiency in registering patients at Medical Centers.
Pre-registration captures up to 95 percent of necessary
information before patients enter the Medical Centers.
--Identification and verification of insurance will hold the payer
accountable for the medical bill while reducing denials and
increasing 3rd party reimbursements. The private sector
identifies and verifies 95 percent to 100 percent of insurance.
--Bills can be adjusted prior to distribution because insurance
contracts have been verified.
--The billing staff will face less re-work because they will not need
to go back to the patient to collect further insurance and
demographic information.
2. Utilization review
Utilization review (UR) confirms that the level and type of care
that the patient receives is ``appropriate,'' and that the insurance
provider will reimburse for that care.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.036
Utilization Review (UR) performs three processes in the cost
recovery process: pre-certification and certification, case management,
and appeals. It is a critical communication link between the business
administration and the medical care functions of the hospital.
UR performs pre-certification/certification that is contractually
required by insurance companies for inpatient admissions and for many
outpatient procedures. The purpose of pre-certification/certification
is to determine the appropriate level of care for each patient. UR
communicates with the insurance companies to certify that the proper
level of care is being given, the length of stay is correct, and the
diagnosis is accurate so the hospital will be reimbursed for the
medical care.
UR is part of the ``front line'' staff that has direct contact with
patients. They are instrumental in closing gaps in insurance
identification, eligibility/benefits information and insurance appeals.
The best practices of Utilization Review contain these attributes:
--Inappropriate medical care denials are reduced. The average private
sector staff, 14 percent of FTE, is a UR nurse while the
average VAMC staff contains about 7 percent of its FTE are
allocated to Utilization Review.
--Insurance company's policy concerning pre-certification/
certification are fulfilled.
--Increase number of denials overturned by aggressive appeals.
--UR participates and conducts meetings with medical staff and cost
recovery staffs.
3. Billing
Billing involves coding the medical care the patient has received
and generating bills for reimbursement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.037
Billing generates the formal, detailed requests for reimbursement.
Each bill accurately documents the services provided and the payment
amount requested in order to maximize both first and third party
recoveries.
In addition, since the bill is the formal notification to payers of
their financial responsibility, it must be accurate and in the correct
format to avoid denials or challenges.
Bills document the appropriate diagnostic codes (ICD-9 and CPT-4)
for the medical care given and the charges generated, which the payers
review before making payment. In both the VA and private sector,
administrative error in coding is often a major reason for bill
nonpayment.
Billing best practices contain several attributes:
--Bills are formatted to insurance companies' specifications.
--Scanning software is used to increase accuracy and speed of coding.
--Large percentages of bills are sent electronically.
--Specialized payer teams are established--each with a major payer to
build working relationships with 3rd party payers.
4. Collections
Collection is the actual receiving and accounting for incoming
revenue and the pursuit of outstanding debts to increase hospital cash
flow.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.038
The collection process involves the following steps:
Establishment of receivables is the process by which the
information from a bill is sent to Accounts Receivable and recognized
as an outstanding debt to be collected, this process is normally done
in billing as soon as a bill is created. Payment processing is the
actual collection of money, matching dollars against the outstanding
balance, notifying billing and UR of discrepancies in amounts billed
and amounts collected, and closing out completed accounts.
Collection correspondence and inquiries is the process of
continuous follow-up on delinquent bills until payment is received.
Collections can provide additional information or documentation if
necessary to make sure that a claim is paid. Referral of indebtedness
is the referral of delinquent, collectable claims to an outside source
for recovery.
Collection best practices include these attributes:
--All substantial claims are automatically pursued after a set time
period and denials are automatically appealed
--Collections are aggressive and fast
--Payments are received electronically and transferred into
appropriate accounts
--Accounts past due are outsourced to a collection agency.
b. process characteristics unique to the va
Although the steps of revenue cycle processing are parallel in the
private sector and the VA, many characteristics unique to the VA make
private sector comparison difficult. Some of these features include:
1. Veteran population demographics.--The patient population of the
VA is generally ``high risk,'' consisting of veterans who are elderly
and/or indigent, or have a higher risk of mental health. In addition,
this aging population indicates a high number of patients who are
eligible for Medicare. Because this specific population composes the
bulk of veteran patients, the VA's population generally has a lower
percentage of patients with private, non-governmental, health
insurance.
2. Patient mix.--Because the VA provides medical service for
military veterans based on a service rating, NSC/SC determinations, and
veteran eligibility status, all patients who participate in the VA
system are different. Medical charges, patient services, and care
availability are unique to any single veteran. As a result, patient
processing becomes a much more involved task than it is in the private
sector. From a cost recovery standpoint, billing becomes difficult, as
not all encounters are billable due to service-connected medical care
and income level.
3. Insurance identification.--The VA is currently working against
the average veteran's perception that he is entitled to ``free'' health
care and, therefore, does not need to provide private insurance
information. Although Congress has mandated disclosure of this
information, large proportions of veterans are unaware, unable, or
unwilling to provide insurance information. Currently, the burden of
obtaining insurance information is on MCCR in the VA while, in the
private sector, the burden is on the patients to produce insurance or
be responsible for the billing charges themselves. The VA now has the
difficult task of changing veterans' perceptions and their awareness of
the importance of insurance identification to the medical center for
cost recovery purposes, as well as their duty as VA patients to provide
this information.
4. Veterans' misconceptions.--Because billing the veteran's private
insurance policy is relatively new to the VA, many veterans are still
unsure about the implications of this action for both the hospital and
their individual policy terms. Veterans are still being told that, if
they give the VA their policy information, it is possible that their
rates will increase, services are cut, or their level of care will be
based on insurance coverage. Poor marketing of the positive benefits of
insurance collections for both the VAMC and the veteran add to the
confusion surrounding private insurance billings.
5. Inadequate cooperation from physicians (including inappropriate
care and slow Patient Treatment File (PTF) closeouts).--Because the VA
is new to the process of billing third-party insurance, many physicians
and other clinical staff are still unaware of the importance of their
cooperation in the cost recovery process. As a result, physicians are
often slow or non-compliant in completing patient treatment files in a
timely manner, or they recommend inappropriate care-levels for veteran
patients (e.g. inpatient admissions for outpatient procedures,
excessive length of stay). Both of these customs are detrimental to
full cost recovery for service by MCCR. In contrast, private sector
clinical staff is fully aware of their duty to provide the clinical
data and proper services needed to recover billable episodes of care,
and work with cost recovery services to ensure maximum reimbursement.
6. Lack of standardized charges.--Unlike most providers, VA does
not bill health plans for individual tests and procedures that it
provides to its policyholders. Rather, the VA prepares bills based on
its average costs for providing a day of hospital care and an
outpatient visit. Thus, in the process of assigning charges to a given
service, the VA currently lacks any standardized system from which to
work, which often results in disputes with insurance companies over the
accuracy of billing charges. Because the VA's method of assigning
charges to services is outside the norm for insurance providers, this
lack of standardization leads to a difficult process for cost recovery
unique to MCCR.
7. Payer mix.--Unlike the private sector, the VA cannot bill
Medicare. The private sector's biggest carriers are Medicare and/or
Medicaid along with HMO/PPO contractors. All of these carriers will
reimburse the private sector if billed. In contrast, the VA cannot
recover payment from HMO's and PPO's at this time because the VA is not
considered a preferred provider. (The veteran population is showing a
trend of moving toward these kinds of policies.) Because of the VA's
small billable payer mix, cost recovery becomes much more difficult.
8. Inability to bill Medicare.--Legislation prevents the VA from
collecting from Medicare, which is the largest healthcare payer in the
country and constitutes 41 percent of the private sector's payer mix. A
high percentage of the VA's patients are Medicare-eligible veterans,
which renders any private insurance as a secondary policy. It is
difficult to collect from Medicare supplemental policies because
current VA billing practices (i.e., a flat fee) conflict with industry
practice of paying ``reasonable'' rates. For example, if the VAMC flat
fee is lower than the standard industry charge for a particular
service, the Medicare supplemental provider will pay it. If the VAMC
flat fee is higher, the provider will not pay at all. Currently, there
are thousands of bills in litigation with supplemental and Medi-gap
insurance companies that will not pay the VA .
section 3: methodology
a. introduction
As part of the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) ongoing
process improvement initiative, Coopers & Lybrand was contracted to
review, study, and make recommendations of how the MCCR process could
enhance revenue generation. In preparation for this study, C&L
interviewed MCCR Central Office staff to develop a survey of costs,
process and activity maps, and a list of questions to ask VAMC's
executives and MCCR staff. C&L visited two preliminary sites
(Martinsburg and Richmond) to strengthen and adjust our approach and
methodology before visiting the 24 VAMC's selected for site reviews.
The Inspector General selected these 24 facilities prior to the award
of this contract.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.039
To conduct a review and cost analysis of all aspects of the MCCR
process, C&L:
--Analyzed fiscal year 1997 costs and FTE's by process (broken down
into 13 sub-processes)
--Assigned national overhead costs to each of the 24 VAMC's studied
based on numbers of bills generated at each site
--Calculated cost and FTE with and without overhead costs and
distributed cost by debt type.
To perform the MCCR process analysis, C&L:
--Reviewed performance data compiled through VA diagnostic measures
--Facilitated MCCR focus group sessions at the VAMC's and
administered a qualitative attribute survey to measure MCCR
process performance in the areas of rework, accuracy, and
internal customer satisfaction.
--Developed an internal C&L team survey to gauge the success of the
five critical success factors at each VAMC.
To conduct a private sector benchmark/best practice survey, C&L:
--Compared the MCCR process to similar activities in private sector
healthcare organizations
--Conducted a private sector benchmarking survey of more than 25
hospitals nationwide and compared performance data between the
24 VAMC's and the private sector hospitals
--Reviewed national healthcare financial publications and databases
for literature and data on ``best practices'' in this industry
--Interviewed 14 industry leaders in hospitals, patient accounting
offices, and collection agencies, drew upon C&L's internal
resources with expertise and experience in the health care
industry
To design a most efficient organization, C&L:
--Analyzed the VA's MCCR organizational structure and created a
proposed new organizational structure that would streamline the
overall process
--Developed scenarios for consolidation and new core businesses
--Interviewed contractors, vendors, and insurance carriers
--Factored in other VA and MCCR initiatives
--Conducted a cost benefit analysis to ascertain which processes
could be performed more effectively by outside contractors
--Incorporated findings from the best practice survey
These various methodologies are described in more detail below.
b. cost analysis
C&L analysts used activity-based costing (ABC) to assign total
resources (labor, non-labor, and national overhead) for the total MCCR
process. ABC breaks a process down into its components and sub-
processes, and measures the labor and non-labor costs associated with
each activity.
To collect this data, Coopers & Lybrand sent teams consisting of
two to four people to 24 VAMC's across the country. The teams
interviewed VA employees representing the 13 sub-processes in the
current MCCR process to validate the process activities identified by
the VA, and to collect quantitative and qualitative data for each
activity.
Teams gathered data from each sites' financial reports, diagnostic
measurements, and statistical packages. The statistical packages
included information given to us by Central Office on each VAMC site,
which included workload, number of operating beds, budgets, etc.
1. Determining resource costs
Through interviews with VAMC personnel, C&L staff reviewed fiscal
year 1997 actual costs expensed against the MCCR appropriation, Fund
5014A. The 830 financial reports, provided by the VAMC's, contain all
types of costs including: Personnel Compensation; Personnel Benefits;
Equipment and Supplies; Travel; and ADP.
The purpose of our review of fiscal year 1997 costs was to
understand the types of costs that were expensed against the MCCR
appropriation, Fund 5014A. Based on our discussions with the MCCR
Program Office, we had reason to believe that the full cost of
performing MCCR related activities was not charged to Fund 5014A. Our
goal at each of the 24 VAMC's was to first establish the costs expensed
against Fund 5014A. Second, identify the MCCR related costs that were
not supported by, nor expensed against, Fund 5014A. The sum of the Fund
5014A costs and these additional MCCR costs, which were funded by other
hospital appropriations, constitute the full local cost of performing
MCCR.
After establishing the full local cost of MCCR, the C&L staff and
VAMC MCCR employees assigned labor and non-labor resources to the 13
processes. Labor resources were assigned using full time equivalent
(FTE) employees that support each process. Similarly, non-labor
resources were assigned based on the FTE employees that support each
process.
2. Assigning national overhead costs
In addition to the MCCR costs incurred at the local VAMC, there are
costs associated with functions and programs managed at the National
Level. These costs are referred to as National Overhead. Examples of
National Overhead functions are the MCCR Program Office, General
Counsel, and Financial Management Office. The VA requested that C&L
identify a methodology to assign the National Overhead costs to the
processes performed at the VAMC. Without performing a detailed cost
analysis of the National Overhead activities, C&L and the VA MCCR
Program Office determined the most appropriate method of assigning
these costs. The National Overhead costs were assigned to each VAMC
based on the number of bills generated. That is, the National Overhead
costs were assigned to a VAMC in proportion to the number of bills that
the same VAMC generated as a percentage of all bills generated
nationally.
3. Calculating cost to collect
The term Cost to Collect is a measure of operational effectiveness
for the entire MCCR process. This measure refers to the cost to collect
$1 or the full cost of MCCR divided by the total collections achieved
represented by the following formula: Cost to Collect = MCCR full Cost/
Collections
In order to determine the Cost to Collect for each of the six debt
types, we first calculated the unit cost of producing each bill. The
unit cost of each bill was calculated by assigning the MCCR process
costs to the six types of debt. Through interviews with VAMC personnel,
we were able to identify the work steps or activities that comprise
MCCR which support the generation of each type of bill. Therefore, the
costs associated with these work steps would be driven to the
appropriate debt type(s). The MCCR activity costs were driven to the
debt types using the quantity of bills produced. For example, if a MCCR
activity supports two separate types of debt and the quantity of bills
produced for Debt A and Debt B are 200 and 100 respectively; two-thirds
of the MCCR activity cost will be assigned to the production of Debt A
and one-third will be assigned to Debt B. This method supports the
notion that the consumption of resources has a linear relationship with
the quantity of bills produced.
The cost analysis methodology was applied consistently to each of
the 24 VAMC's to ensure data integrity and likeness in the study. The
results of the data collection process and application of activity
based costing (ABC) methodology to determine full local costs of each
process and debt type are presented in Section 4.
c. process analysis
Process analysis was a critical tool to measure the inputs,
activities, and outputs of each of the MCCR core processes. Within this
framework, data were collected and analyzed to use in assessing the
current baselines in the VA, benchmarking performance against best
practices and identifying areas of short-term and long-term improvement
opportunities. In accordance with our Breakpoint BPR methodology, our
process analysis focused on the assessment of the baseline in order to
better determine the points at which improvements would help the VA
capture revenues more effectively over time and consider redesigning
elements of the process to fulfill that mission.
In early 1997, the VA created a basic revenue cycle process map of
its MCCR operation. C&L worked jointly with the VA to validate the sub-
processes and activities involved in each process segment, evaluating
the data according to the four MCCR segments and their associated
processes. Using already existing data compiled through VA diagnostic
measures and supplementing the analysis with our own focus groups and
surveys, we were able evaluate performance in a number of key areas,
both quantitatively and qualitatively, and describe the current
environment's readiness for change.
1. Quantitative Analysis of Process Performance
The following is a group of diagnostics that was chosen in
conjunction with the VA to assess already existing performance
measures.
VA Diagnostic Measures Analyzed: Percent of completed
registrations; Insurance and new registrations; Insurance policies--not
verified; Veterans with unverified eligibility; Bill/payment lag time;
Outpatient workload; and SC Veterans with NSC episode of care.
Given these diagnostics, we were able to determine basic averages
and the range of performance for VAMC's today. These diagnostic
calculations, though manifesting great variation in the data, enabled
the C&L team to identify sites associated with best practices as models
for continuous improvement.
2. Qualitative Analysis to Assess Organizational Culture and Readiness
for Process Improvement
To ascertain the overall quality of performance, the C&L teams held
focus group sessions at each site, during which they asked VAMC
employees representing each process to rate themselves and rate each
other, and to suggest ways the basic process or their performance could
be improved. Employees were asked to rate the following:
--Rework, namely the percent of re-work and redundancy for each
activity, represented in 5 percent increments.
--Performance accuracy, particularly associated with the intake
process, rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).
--Internal customer satisfaction associated with the intake process
and bill generation rated on the same 1 to 5 scale.
As part of this effort, we ran frequency analyses to determine
whether a low, average, or high rating in any one activity affected
performance (cost and cycle time) in a subsequent activity. The
regression analyses showed a high degree of variability in the data,
suggesting that business operations and practices related to the
revenue cycle were not uniform across the VA sample. Some clear
relationships did exist, however, particularly in how inefficiencies in
the front end of the process increased cost, rework, and cycle time in
later phases.
The team also developed a survey which we used to gauge the degree
to which five critical success factors (i.e., strong leadership, clear
accountability, centralized organizational structure, use of
information system technology, and effective human resource
management), were in place at each of the 24 VAMC sites. The C&L site
team leader filled in the survey for each site. The scores were
validated by other baseline measurements related to overall cost and
cycle time. Sites that scored high on the critical success factors
scored higher on overall performance measures and were often the sites
where we observed revenue cycle ``best practices'' of the kind we
observed in private sector hospitals, which validated our observation-
based findings.
d. private sector survey
1. Best practices
To collect data on best practices in the private sector, the C&L
team surveyed 25 hospitals nationwide. We also studied more than 100
articles relating to best practices in all aspects of cost recovery in
the private sector, AR, patient access, best practices, leadership,
coding, analyzed national healthcare financial publications and
databases and conducted interviews with individuals representing
``world class'' hospitals, collection agencies, and patient accounting
operations.
2. Cost and performance
In the private sector, the traditional process of the revenue cycle
represents an expense ranging from 1.5 percent to 9 percent of the
total amount collected, depending on size and scope of the operation,
information systems, overhead allocation, and types of activities
allocated to each segment of the process. Typical expenses associated
with the revenue cycle include:
Labor.--Direct labor for each activity, managerial labor, temporary
or contractual labor and the benefits associated with the direct labor.
Direct expenses.--Supplies, postage, contract services, equipment,
outsourced activities collection agency fees, and training.
Overhead.--Utilities, information systems, senior management
expenses.
Most of the hospitals C&L surveyed for this study do not use a
cost-to-collect metric to measure performance. The percentage is
generally so low that they rely on other key performance measures to
evaluate their processes, such as accounts/receivable days outstanding
and total collections. We used the HARA (Hospital Accounts Receivable
Analysis) cost-to-collect ratio as our benchmark. HARA collects
hospital business office expense data (including admitting/
registration) each quarter. This figure is divided by the total dollars
collected during the same period (not including non-patient revenue) to
determine the ratio.
For each private sector site, we collected cost information by the
four segments identified in the VA MCCR process: intake, utilization
review (UR), collections, and billing. We allocated expenses by labor,
direct costs (supplies and materials), contracts, and overhead. For
each hospital, we calculated total amount billed, total amount
collected payer mix, inpatient/outpatient mix and other variables.
In addition to identifying costs, we compared each of the 13 sub-
processes to determine level and type of resources and whether the sub-
process was part of a centralized or decentralized organization. Our
findings related to comparisons of the VA revenue cycle process with
that of the private sector is described in detail in Section 4: VA
Findings.
e. organizational redesign/optimal configuration
1. Primary considerations
Our primary considerations in designing an optimal VA revenue cycle
process and revenue cycle organization were:
--Our determination that the VA's basic revenue cycle process was
valid. It needed to be improved in a number of ways on a
``transactional'' level, but it did not need to be scrapped
completely.
--The VA can never operate exactly the way private sector healthcare
organizations do. Fundamental differences in overall culture,
patient population, and third-party payers needed to be
factored in to the new revenue cycle process.
--Any recommendations we made for improving either the process or the
basic organization had to relate practical process improvements
to the VA environment.
--We limited our thinking about consolidating certain functions to
not just gains in efficiency and costs but to geographical/
logistical concerns as well. The VAMC's needed to be within a
reasonable traveling distance of any consolidation site.
--In general, we tried to focus on the need of the patient for
quality healthcare and customer service. Part of the intake
segment, for example, involves contact between hospital staff
and the patient, what we call ``front office'' activities that
can make a patient feel less anxious, more informed and better
cared for at the hospital level. In other cases, the best
healthcare and customer service for what we call ``back
office'' activities (pre-registration, bill generation,
collections, etc.) may require that these activities be removed
from the hospital level and consolidated elsewhere. Not all
``back office'' functions are ready to be consolidated, but
many are, and the VA will benefit from having these functions
standardized and centralized.
--We also tried to make the optimal configuration flexible, allowing
the VAMC's and the VISN's to determine their best operating
procedures for each sub-process and activity.
--And finally, in keeping with the VA's own ``30/20/10'' goals, we
focused on creating the most efficient organization that could
be put in place within 24 months and allow VA, in the short
term, to collect as much cash as possible in the short term
while maximizing recoveries for the long term.
2. Cost benefit analysis
The scope of C&L's cost benefit analysis (CBA) is based on our
comparison of the VA's current ``as is'' cost recovery process to the
optimal ``to be'' configuration, which we have termed the Optimum VA
Revenue Cycle. The scope of the analysis includes:
--Capturing process cost and performance data during VAMC site
visits;
--Benchmarking optimal ``to be'' revenue cycle to private sector and
identify practical process improvements;
--Assessing the feasibility of several options that are standard
practices in the health care industry;
--Obtaining cost/performance estimates from vendors;
--Assessing vendor cost projections and determine ``to be''
reasonable indicators;
--Determining future cost using constant dollars (excluding start-up
costs);
--Using existing data to extrapolate potential cost savings and
revenue enhancements; and
--Determining confidence level of the analysis and assessing risks.
This definition of the cost benefit analysis meets the technical
requirements of the statement of work and includes the key assumptions,
which relate to initiatives the VA already has under way. These
include:
--Completing the ``clean-up'' of all insurance and demographic data
in the veterans' files.
--Implementing all technology systems and related interfaces
including: National Patient Care Database (administrative and
clinical attributes), Centralized Patient Accounting System,
Medicare Remittance Advice (MRA), Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI), Lockbox and Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), Point-of-
Service (POS) Collection, Integrated Enrollment, Decision
Support System (DSS) Integrated Claims Tracking System, and
Electronic Coordination of Benefits.
--Completing all Universal Billing initiatives.
--Implementing on-line insurance verification software from major
insurance payers at all VAMC's and VISN's to verify and update
patient insurance information, a critical assumption as these
insurance payers comprise roughly 50 percent of all regional
third-party payments.
--Implementing electronic medical records systems that link SC/NSC
ratings with diagnosis and transmit data electronically to
users across the VA.
3. Outsourcing analysis
C&L's outsourcing analysis was framed by our belief that none of
the sub-processes of the ``to be'' revenue cycle were inherently
governmental. We have identified some sub-processes (particularly those
we term ``back office'') that will benefit from being consolidated and/
or outsourced. In this context, ``outsourcing'' means that the sub-
process is ``done'' by someone other than VAMC hospital administrative
staff. For example, if pre-registration is done very well in Baltimore,
then the VA might consider ``franchising'' all pre-registration
activities to the Baltimore site or to some other Federal Center for
Excellence.
Our preliminary recommendations for outsourcing are included in
Section 6. However, C&L suggests that the VA revisit its outsourcing
options at the end of the 24-month ``to be'' implementation. By this
time, the VA will have incorporated many improvements and changes to
the basic cycle and can weigh outsourcing options against a background
of its own revenue cycle process working as well as it can.
The C&L team spoke with representatives of six contractors that
provide one or more revenue cycle services. Several contractors
offering one or more service supplied their pricing schedule for
discrete sub-processes, pricing for ``turn-key'' services, i.e., from
intake through collections. The site teams also spoke to contractors
used by private sector hospitals located in the same areas in which the
VAMC site visits were made to collect data on the capabilities,
methodologies, and fees of various vendors.
We also analyzed data and literature provided by healthcare and
collections related agencies such as the HARA 1997 (a benchmark report
on hospital accounts receivables), the American Guild of PAT Accounting
Managers, the American Hospital Collection Agencies, and the Healthcare
Financial Managers Association (HFMA).
section 4: findings
C&L visited 24 sites to review and analyze the ``As-Is'' MCCR
process. C&L found the MCCR process, as it currently exists, to be an
overall sound approach to cost recovery. However, MCCR operations
currently suffer from a lack of process standardization across medical
centers and throughout the entire VA. Additionally, many VAMC's are not
utilizing existing procedure guidelines or available technology.
Further, the review identified that there is a critical need to
establish internal controls and performance measurements in all process
areas.
Most important however, is the need for the VA to transform its
current focus on revenue and collections. It is critical that VA shift
its paradigm from cost recovery to revenue generation--that is, their
goal should not be limited to merely breaking even.
Through streamlining processes, structural reorganization and
improved use of technology, we believe the VA can transform its revenue
cycle to achieve the goal of 30 percent cost reduction and 10 percent
revenue generation by fiscal year 2002.
a. va study site profile
1. General data
The following is a brief description of cost and performance data
that C&L identified at each of the 24 VAMC sites. C&L used this data to
measure VA internal performance and to compare the VA with the private
sector. Table 4.1 lists this information by site according to
collections per FTE. To maintain anonymity, the names of the sites have
been omitted and are listed instead A-X.
a. Collections per FTE.--C&L found that the average collections per
FTE for the 24 sites were lower than the national average. Calculations
were made for all FTE that were actually involved in the MCCR process,
including additional FTE that were not part of MCCR's FTE budget
allocations. Because it demonstrates staff productivity and resource
allocation needs, C&L determined that collections per FTE is an
important internal performance measure.
b. Cost-to-Collect.--Cost-to-Collect is a strong measurement of how
well the MCCR processes are working. This cost data measures whether
performance tools currently in place are being utilized, whether the
organization's focus is revenue generation, and whether staff is
utilized in the areas needed. Finally, this measure gives an outlook as
to whether the organization is meeting its internal goals.
c. Collections per VAMC Budget.--In order to meet 30/20/10 goals,
collections must be one of the organization's primary focuses in order
to continue optimal patient care, decrease recovery costs, and increase
revenue. The data are useful internal measures because an operating
budget reflects the return on care provided by the VAMC. However, both
the payer-mix and patient-mix that characterize the particular VAMC
region affect this measure.
TABLE 4-1. FISCAL YEAR 1997 COST AND PERFORMANCE DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collections per
VAMC Operating FTE Collections Collections Cost to VAMC budget--
bed size per FTE collect $1 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N....................................... 470 41 $3,208,589 $78,488 $0.67 1.57
V....................................... 64 12 951,659 79,173 0.61 3.62
L....................................... 59 18 1,695,459 95,197 0.53 3.64
G....................................... 89 16 1,724,923 110,572 0.46 4.71
T....................................... 224 19 2,510,152 134,161 0.43 3.34
W....................................... 405 38 4,986,263 131,252 0.43 2.58
S....................................... 513 45 6,080,114 135,626 0.41 2.58
B....................................... 342 40 5,753,960 143,993 0.39 2.54
D....................................... 475 60 7,446,807 124,113 0.37 3.17
P....................................... 144 22 3,108,006 142,831 0.37 4.18
C....................................... 187 22 2,913,566 131,065 0.35 2.77
J....................................... 172 16 2,437,512 155,058 0.32 3.33
Q....................................... 86 10 1,785,980 180,402 0.32 2.87
H....................................... 659 33 5,826,145 174,540 0.31 2.66
X....................................... 106 11 1,790,920 165,214 0.30 3.13
R....................................... 243 26 4,368,095 169,306 0.29 3.60
M....................................... 93 12 2,165,059 184,732 0.27 4.59
A....................................... 757 32 6,911,594 214,313 0.26 3.02
E....................................... 261 15 3,104,304 203,294 0.26 2.33
F....................................... 240 23 4,647,077 201,959 0.26 3.22
I....................................... 268 22 4,350,111 201,955 0.25 3.67
U....................................... 195 20 3,381,391 172,608 0.24 3.12
K....................................... 128 10 2,177,233 225,854 0.22 3.53
O....................................... 264 19 4,560,051 237,379 0.22 2.70
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Average........................... 269 24 3,661,874 151,552 0.34 2.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of major process findings
During the 24 site visits, C&L identified several common issues in
the operation of MCCR processes. The following are major findings that
were common at 30 percent or more of the sites. In many instances,
these findings are policy issues that need to be addressed at the
National level.
(a) Intake.--Intake is an important segment within the MCCR
process. If intake processes are not performed to optimum levels, then
all MCCR processes are effected. As such, investment in training and
process improvements within the intake process is essential.
(1) Pre-Registration was utilized at only six sites. Pre-
registration is a sound activity if utilized which can significantly
help identify and retrieve patient insurance information.
(2) Insurance identification lacks aggressiveness. If the veteran
answers no to the insurance question, no follow-up questions are asked.
(3) Intake personnel are not properly trained in interview
techniques and customer service issues. Additionally, intake staff at
many VAMC's are not knowledgeable about other MCCR processes or overall
goals.
(4) Organizational structure issues create communication gaps
between intake and other MCCR processes.
(5) Insurance question is often not asked due to excessive points
of entry for the patients.
(6) High turnover rate in intake staff contributes to decreases in
process efficiency.
(7) Software and technology are not being utilized to optimum
levels. For instance, clean insurance databases would increase data
accuracy and process efficiency.
(8) Insurance verification is currently a labor-intensive process.
Manual insurance verification often increases the time and cost to
produce a bill.
(b) Utilization Review (UR).--UR is an important function in the
cost recovery process. Because insurance companies require pre-
certifications and continued stay reviews, information gathered by UR
staff is critical to both bill creation and collections. Additionally,
UR must play an integral role in ensuring that inappropriate care is
not provided.
(1) UR spends little or no time in the appeals process at most
VAMC's.
(2) Claims Tracking software is not being utilized to optimum
levels. This leads to lost communications between UR and billing/
collection staff.
(3) Many insurance companies are now requiring pre-certification
for outpatient psychiatric visits and same day surgeries. There
currently are no mechanisms in place to identify, in advance, these
types of visits for proper certification.
(c) Billing and Coding.--Billing and Coding play a vital role in
collections. Both processes could be automated if accurate insurance,
coding, and billing data is collected.
(1) Service connected and non-service connected determination is
often misapplied and difficult to comprehend. The initial veteran
rating, used to determine SC/NSC, is not specific and does not match up
to medical diagnostic codes. This problem leads to the medical staff
marking service connection for all encounters instead of determining
SC/NSC for each diagnosis.
(2) Encounter forms are not being utilized properly. Many times the
diagnosis uses wrong codes or general codes (referred to as V codes)
which 3rd party payers will not accept. This problem causes a major
rework loop for the billers.
(3) Special consents are not obtained at registration for drug and
alcohol, psychiatric, or HIV related diseases. The billers cannot bill
unless there is a patient signature for these treatments.
(4) Insurance data files need to be updated. Autobiller will not
work well unless insurance data files are accurate.
(5) Autobiller is not being used at some sites.
(d) Collections.--Collections, in many cases, were not a primary
focus.
(1) There is a shortage of collection personnel. In many cases,
collection personnel are used for additional tasks beyond collections.
(2) A/R software package is not regionally linked or compatible
with billing system.
(3) Claims Tracking software was not used effectively.
(4) First party bills for repeat patients are not incorporated into
previously established payment plans.
(5) Many receivables are currently tied up in litigation. Our
survey of the 24 sites identified that an average of $4 million per
site has been referred to General Counsel.
b. va performance vs. private sector benchmarks
1. Primary Benchmarks
(a) Collections to Operating Budget.--The private sector (both for-
profit and not-for-profit) was chosen as a means of comparison because
many billing and collections functions are generic. Also, the private
sector is dependent on revenue generation as a means for hospital
operation. (Figure 4-1). Consequently, the private sector has created
high performing organizations with a focus on revenue generation.
Figure 4-2.--Collections to Budget
Percent
Private sector.................................................... 100
VA................................................................ 3
As shown in figure 4-2, collections as a percentage of the hospital
operating budget demonstrates a major difference between the VA and
private sector. The private sector recovers nearly all of its revenue
through collections, while the VA is funded mainly through
appropriations. The private sector is much more motivated to collect
payments and has been generating revenue longer, which means it can
provide meaningful performance benchmarks and best practice ideas.
According to the 30/20/10 initiative, by the year 2002, 10 percent
of the VA operating budget will need to come from collections and other
forms of non-appropriated revenue. The VA can close the gap between the
3 percent it currently collects and the 10 percent it needs by adopting
some of the best practices used both in the private sector and high
performing VAMC's.
C&L developed four primary and five secondary benchmarks, which are
used to provide comparisons between the private sector and the 24 VA
sites visited. These benchmarks are key indicators of how well an
organization is achieving goals and standards.
(b) Accounts Receivable
Figure 4-3.--Accounts Receivable
Days
Private sector.................................................... 60
VHA............................................................... 239
Accounts receivable is money owed to an organization that has not
been collected. Having money in AR means that you do not have the cash
on hand to use for your operations. Using the VA's ``Date Receivable
Closed,'' this comparison shows that the VA has major room for
improvement in AR. The longer a bill is outstanding, the less likely it
is that it will be collected. This ultimately reduces cash flow. The 60
days in AR for the private sector is the same for inpatient and
outpatient AR. The 239 days for the VA is the average of inpatient and
outpatient AR that is broken out in Figure 4-4.
FIGURE 4-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of care
to date
Bill lag time \1\ receivable
closed \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector....................... 8.9 60
VHA inpatient........................ 82.14 300
VHA outpatient....................... 84.71 177
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Date of care to date claim authorized.
\2\ Data taken from sites visited.
The compilation of all the VA obstacles plus poor process
performance contributes to the extremely long days in AR for the VA.
Even with all the VA obstacles, by improving process performance, the
VA should be able to reduce the days in AR by at least 30 percent.
(c) Accounts Receivable Greater Than 90 days
Figure 4-5.--AR>90 Days
Percent
Private sector.................................................... 28
VHA............................................................... 92
The 92 percent for the VA in figure 4-5 include the 83 days in bill
lag time. The 92 percent was derived from VA diagnostic measurements
because the VA does not measure the AR>90 the same way the private
sector does. The private sector begins their AR cycle at the time of
discharge. The VA starts their AR cycle after the bill has been issued
which does not include the 83 days in bill lag time (figure 4-7).
(d) Bill Lag Time
Figure 4-6.--Bill Lag Time
Days
Private sector.................................................... 9
VHA............................................................... 83
The bill lag time is the amount of time it takes to generate a bill
from the date of patient care. It is important because the sooner a
bill is established, the sooner payment can be collected which
increases an organizations' cash flow.
Two of the obstacles which make the VA's bill lag time so much
longer are the necessary separation of Category A patient records for
which no bills are produced, and the lack of physician incentives for
the timely completion of medical records or accurate SC/NSC
designations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.040
We had to adjust the VA measure to include the 83 days of bill lag
time in order to have a true comparison. A primary goal of the medical
centers is to increase cash flow. Reducing the days in AR encourages
that. The longer a claim takes to get paid, beginning from the date the
care was provided, the more difficult it is to collect. Long standing
claims increase re-work, denials, and chances for bad debt.
2. Secondary Benchmarks
(a) Collections per FTE
Figure 4-8
Collections per FTE..................................... $3,077,492
VHA..................................................... 151,552
The reason for showing the collections per FTE is to illustrate
that there is a tremendous difference in performance between the
private sector and the VA. Even though there are obstacles in the VA
(e.g. Payer mix) which prohibit the VA from matching the private sector
performance, the VA should be able to increase their collections per
FTE by at least 30 percent through process and performance
improvements.
(b) New Patients with Insurance Identified
Figure 4-9
Percent
New patients with insurance identified............................ 100
VHA............................................................... 16
The private sector survives by identifying insurance to ensure that
everyone treated has a means for paying their bills. The VA is fairly
new to the reimbursement process, and the majority of the veterans who
use the facilities do not have billable insurance. Improving the intake
process however, should help close the identification gap. Identifying
veterans with billable insurance will be crucial for meeting the 30/20/
10 initiative.
The VA has several obstacles in the insurance identification
process. As discussed in Section 2, veteran's perceptions and
misconceptions hinder the VA's ability to get insurance information. In
addition, there is little or no risk to the veteran for not providing
insurance information.
In addition to collecting patient insurance information, the VA
must also identify and verify veteran eligibility and service connected
conditions. The VA has to conduct income screens and financial means
tests. All of these additional requirements increase the complexity of
the intake process and the possibility of collecting incomplete or
inaccurate information.
(c) Cost-to-Collect
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.041
The cost-to-collect results of the 24 VAMC's are shown in the debt
tree. These results represent the average cost to bill and collect $1
for each of the six debt types (1st and 3rd party) for the 24 sites.
The costs included in these measures are labor and non-labor costs
associated with all 13 processes that perform MCCR activities.
The costs assigned to the six debt types were divided by the total
fiscal year 1997 collections for each. It is apparent that the costs
associated with generating and collecting prescription co-pays are
greater than the $2 revenue per prescription.
Figure 4-10.--Cost-to-Collect
PS................................................................ $.023
VHA............................................................... .34
Cost-to-Collect is primarily used as a measure by the VA. The
private sector generally does not use this as a major diagnostic
because cost-to-collect measures an end result of the process and the
value is very small. Once again, the huge disparity in the values is
illustrated. As before, the obstacles faced by the VA, such as payer
mix and patient mix, can be used to explain a portion of the
performance difference, but there is still obvious room for improvement
in the VA. Financial incentives have only recently been provided to the
VAMC's (e.g. the VAMC gets to keep its collections). The lack of
financial incentives had been an obstacle that contributed to higher
costs to collect in the past. The use of these incentives should help
reduce the Cost-to-Collect, but only through process improvement.
d) Resource Allocation.--The resource allocation of MCCR personnel
is different between the VAMC's and private sector (Figure 4-11). The
Intake process in the VA will most likely continue to consume a higher
percentage of resources than the private sector even with process
improvements because of the additional information they are required to
collect.
Figure 4-11
Percent
Private sector:
Collections................................................... 31
Billing....................................................... 25
Intake........................................................ 30
UR............................................................ 14
VHA:
Collections................................................... 25
Billing....................................................... 31
Intake........................................................ 37
UR............................................................ 7
The resource allocations, which should be corrected in the VA, are
the resources in Billing (31 percent) and Collections (25 percent)
which are the exact opposite of the resource allocations in the private
sector. The VA resources are results of re-work for the bill coding and
bill generation staff caused by poor insurance identification, poor
outpatient coding, and delinquent discharge summaries. These factors
and others contribute to the inverse resource allocation of the VA.
Organizational and performance improvements in the registration and
billing processes will allow more resources to be allocated to the
collection process for the collection of outstanding payments.
(e) Net Collections
Figure 4-12.--Net Collections to Total Billing
Percent
PS................................................................ 62
VHA............................................................... 32
Net collections to total billings measures the amount of dollars
collected as a percentage of the total dollars billed. There are
several reasons why the private sector is nearly twice as efficient as
the VA in the percentage of net collections to total billings. Two
significant reasons are that the private sector has aggressive
collection practices, and the private sector also makes contractual
adjustments prior to bill generation (figure 4-13). Both of which are
discussed in further detail in the best practices section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.042
Many private sector hospitals make their contractual adjustments
before a bill is generated. This makes their AR much more accurate and
gives them a more realistic idea of what they will actually collect.
The VA does little in the way of contractual adjustments until
remittance, a practice that artificially inflates collectable accounts/
receivable.
section 5: best practices review
In our review of cost recovery programs, C&L identified Best
Practices in both industry and VA hospitals. The four major process
segments (Intake, Utilization Review, Billing, and Collections) were
used to categorize our examination of these best practices. Although
some best practices were identified in both the private sector and the
VAMC's, in certain cases, duplication of industry best practices by the
VAMC's are not feasible, given the various organizational and
operational constraints discussed earlier.
Additionally, C&L identified some best practices during the site
visits that are unique to the VA alone. Specific VAMC's are identified
for many of these best practices as discussion examples. However, this
does not indicate that other sites not mentioned in the following
discussion do not also utilize these same best practices.
a. best practices
1. Intake
Best Practices in intake maximize the speed and accuracy of data
capture. The following table summarizes the best practices C&L
identified in both the private sector and the VA. Following this table
is a description of the positive benefits of each best practice.
best intake practices in the private sector and the va
Private sector.--Preregistration; Limited points of entry;
Insurance cards are copied or scanned; Online insurance verification;
Certification program and formal training; Single process owner for
intake process; Copay information communication at registration;
Performance measures are utilized; Drop-down lists for insurance
companies/policies; and Aggressively capture data.
VA.--Preregistration; Registration teams; Insurance cards are
copied or scanned; Online insurance verification; Formal training; and
Single process owner for intake process.
Pre-registration processing.--The private sector uses pre-
registration to capture patient demographics for 95 percent of
scheduled patient visits prior to the hospital encounter. Conducting
this process has allowed hospitals to cut their registration cycle time
at the medical center to less than 2 minutes per patient. VAMC's that
have implemented pre-registration have realized similar benefits,
including increased insurance identification and customer satisfaction.
For example, the Tucson VAMC conducts pre-registration using a customer
service telephone line called ``Telephone Linked Care'' (TLC). Patients
can use TLC to update demographic information, make or change
appointments, or register in the VA system. Tucson's ``percent of
insurance coverage question unanswered'' was one of the best (2.49
percent) among the 24 surveyed sites (17 percent average).
Limited points of entry for registration.--In the private sector,
patients may only check-in at two or three specific registration areas
before they can proceed to their final destination. This reduces the
opportunity for missing important registration information. To limit
their points of entry, some VAMC's have assigned patients to
registration teams. Patients must register with their team at the
initial visit and for all subsequent visits, linking accountability for
patient information directly to an intake team. For example, Walla
Walla has four registration teams, A, B, C, D, which correspond with
the patient care teams. Each registration team serves assigned patients
and updates patient data at each visit. Walla Walla has the highest
rating in ``percent of insurance question unanswered'' at .01 percent,
where the mean of the 24 sites is 17 percent.
Aggressively capture registration data.--In the private sector, the
registration software screens have mandatory fields that cannot be
bypassed; this requires entry of 100 percent of the registration data.
These fields must be verified with a driver's license, insurance cards,
and/or other forms of identification. The accuracy and efficiency of
the VAMC registration interview could be improved with these types of
software modifications.
Insurance cards are scanned or copied.--In the private sector,
copies of insurance cards become part of the medical record. This step
helps to identify all of the patients who have medical insurance;
identifies people in need of government assistance; and keeps the
number of self-pay patients under 1 percent. Some VAMC's have also
adopted this practice, and registration clerks now make copies of
patient insurance cards during the registration interview.
Insurance companies and policies are chosen from drop-down lists.--
Insurance information can only be selected from the data provided on
the registration system. Registration personnel cannot change any
information; any insurance information unrecognized by the system must
be placed in a pending file for later verification. The VAMC's
currently have no such software capabilities. However, this type of
modification would reduce the input of erroneous insurance information.
Online insurance verification.--Private sector hospitals are online
with 67 percent of the medical center's insurers. This capability
greatly decreases the cycle time needed to verify a patient's insurance
coverage. When selected, 98 percent of the online policies are verified
within seconds. Those policies that are not in the system are put in a
pending file and later verified by online insurance file maintenance
personnel. Some VAMC's have contracted with payers to go online for
insurance verification as well. West Haven and Togus are online with
their major provider, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and have decreased the
amount of time spent on insurance verification.
Co-pays (deductibles) are calculated up front and communicated to
the patient; arrangements for payment are made at registration.--When a
policy is verified at a private sector medical center, the payment
parameters are described. All co-pays and deductibles are targeted for
collection up front, with the goal of capturing them upon discharge. It
is approximately eight times more costly to collect co-pays and
deductibles after a patient has left the facility than it is at
registration. VAMC's do not currently communicate any payment
information to the patient at registration.
Performance measures are used to provide feedback, incentives or
discipline.--A number of measures are used to assess performance in the
private sector, including (1) keeping a count of incomplete/incorrect
registrations, (2) setting performance goals, (3) conducting patient
satisfaction surveys, and (4) returning claims which have been denied
for technical reasons to the responsible party for correction and
resubmission. Rewards and discipline are clearly linked to measurable
goals and objectives. The VAMC's currently do not have any formal
compensation programs for staff based on registration performance
measures.
Certification programs and formal, mandatory training are
utilized.--A minimum of two or three formal, annual training courses
are required for raises and promotions. Personnel can become Certified
Patient Account Technicians through the American Guild of Patient
Accounts Managers (AGPAM). At some VAMC's, formal training programs
have been developed specifically for training intake staff in
identifying insurance, in utilizing VISTA software, and in improving
customer service. Houston uses the incentive of upgrading intake
personnel one GS level upon successful course completion.
A single process owner for intake and MCCR.--C&L found that medical
centers that have aligned the entire `MCCR' organization under one
process owner have improved information flows and process
communications. According to an observation survey, 45.8 percent of the
VA sites visited lacked a system where management of intake and MCCR
were coordinated under one unit. Some medical centers, however, such as
Omaha, did organize intake processes under the same business unit as
MCCR, and reported improvements in communication and data collection.
2. Utilization review
Best practices in utilization review aid the rest of the cost
recovery process by maximizing collections through information
validation. The following table summarizes the best practices C&L
identified in both the private sector and the VA. Following this table
is a description of the positive benefits of each best practice.
best ur practices in the private sector and the va
Private sector.--Aggressiveness in processing; Use of claims
tracking software; UR participates in medical staff meetings; UR
conducts forums with cost recovery personnel; Precertification is
performed in preregistration; Certifications conducted 7 days, 24
hours; and Denials are appealed within 48 hours.
VA.--Aggressiveness in processing; Use of claims tracking software;
UR educates medical staff; UR staff dedicated solely to MCCR; and UR
function located in MCCR business office.
Aggressiveness in processing.--An aggressive UR staff is critical
to successful collections. Once it is determined that a patient
undergoing inpatient treatment has insurance, the next vital step is to
ensure that the required procedures will be covered by the insurer's
policy. Because UR is a link between the medical care and business
administration, UR staff is versed in medical terminology, patient
treatments, and cost recovery information. Both private sector and VA
medical centers that have aggressive UR personnel confirm more pre-
certifications and successfully overturn more denials. For example, in
Brooklyn, the UR nurse aggressively pursues and resolves most appeals
in favor of the VA. Brooklyn has one of the lower percentages of
dollars and number of bills outstanding to regional counsel at 13.57
percent and 6.43 percent, respectively.
Pre-certification for scheduled events is done in pre-
registration.--This private sector practice is beneficial because it
speeds up the admission process (for both inpatient and outpatient
care) and gives advance warning of any insurance problems that might
arise. The VAMC's currently do not perform any pre-certification during
pre-registration activities.
Pre-certifications and certifications for unscheduled events are
conducted 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.--Patients may need emergency
admissions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and may need pre-certification
or certification for certain procedures. In private sector medical
centers, UR is a continuous participant in the patient care process and
can immediately confirm the need for care and the case for
reimbursement.
Denials are appealed within 48 hours.--The faster the turnaround
time on denials, the greater the possibility of fiscal recovery, and
the lower the days in A/R. In the private sector, this is one of the
final steps of an aggressive UR presence in the collection process,
directly increasing the cash flow of the hospital.
Use of claims tracking software.--In all private sector medical
centers and in some VAMC's, documentation of all reviews for admission,
extended stays, and appropriateness of care are entered into claims
tracking databases. The use of claims tracking and other support
software creates an easy-to-understand record of all the activities
handled by UR staff. By maintaining records in a database, personnel
outside the UR function can easily access information captured by UR.
Traceable patient care episodes and certification records from the
third party payers result in reductions in rework and denials. The use
of claims tracking software makes it easy for other cost recovery
personnel to refer to specific cases. This way, personnel in
collections are able to quickly recall and review records during the
appeals process, rather than depending on written notes or commentary
from UR staff.
UR participates in Utilization Management Committee meetings with
hospital administration, medical records, and medical staff to provide
feedback and information about insurance and hospital environments.--In
both the private sector and the VA, UR is the liaison between the
clinical staff and the collection staff. Private sector UR staff
conduct quarterly (or monthly) UMC meetings with medical staff to
explain any changes in the insurance environment, such as changes in
insurance companies' coding policies, explanations for medical denials,
and instructions on how to avoid denial situations in the future. In
the VAMC's, UR staff try to overcome the lack of medical staff
involvement by educating clinical personnel on MCCR functions and the
importance of timely PTF write-ups and cost-effective or certifiable/
insurable treatment.
UR conducts regular forums with registration, billing, and
collections to discuss changes in insurance policies, reasons for
denials, and so forth.--In both the private sector and the VA, UR is
also a liaison between collection processing and the insurance
companies. Private sector UR staff conducts quarterly meeting with the
people in collection processing to share information on any changes in
insurance, types of denial, effects of missing or changing medical
information, and ways to avoid denials in the future. In the VAMC's, UR
nurses that are dedicated solely to MCCR can improve communication
between insurance companies and collection staff, as well as assist in
the overall collection process. For example, Cleveland and Marion
VAMC's have UR nurses whose jobs are dedicated to the cost recovery
process, enabling a strong working relationship within MCCR and with
insurance providers.
UR function is located in an MCCR business office.--Unique to
VAMC's, C&L found that medical centers that located the UR function in
the same business office as the rest of the cost recovery team
benefited both the UR staff and the billings and collections personnel.
UR is readily available to confer with billing and collections on
particular cases, and collection staff is able to assist UR with
appeals. UR also has closer access to insurance verification and
documentation, thus allowing a smooth process from pre-certification
through the appeals process. For example, Seattle has located its UR
nurse directly adjacent to the billers and collectors, thus enabling
strong ties among the three functions.
3. Billing
Best Practices in billing increase the revenue stream for the
medical center. Best practice efforts include human resources,
processing, use of technology, and communications issues. The following
table summarizes the best practices C&L identified in both the private
sector and the VA. Following this table is a description of the
positive benefits of each best practice.
best billing practices in the private sector and the va
Private sector.--Hiring and/or training qualified coding personnel;
Use of technology; Innovations for timely bill coding; Interim billing;
Electronic bill generation; Specialized payer teams; Scanning software;
and Relationship building with major payers.
VA.--Hiring and/or training qualified coding personnel; Use of
technology; Innovations for timely bill coding; Interim billing;
Electronic bill generation; Flagging inpatient files with insurance;
and Scanning software.
Hiring and/or training qualified coding personnel. The private
sector regularly hires certified Medical Records personnel for bill
coding activities. This practice has several advantages, including: (1)
ensuring consistency in the bill coding information; (2) removing the
burden of coding from the clinical clerks and freeing up their time to
concentrate on their other primary functions; and (3) reducing the
number of mistakes and amount of re-work. In the VAMC's, training bill
coding staff has resulted in more increased staff competency levels,
more accurate bills, and less denials from technical errors. Accurate
coding reduces the amount of re-work required in bill generation and
increases the billable amounts by capturing more reimbursable care
episodes.
Use of Technology.--The private sector establishes and maintains
Chargemaster technology to improve its billing process. Chargemaster is
a centralized electronic repository of contractual information on each
insurance company and contains information on what each company would
pay for various ICD-9's; on requirements for processes like pre-
certifying level of care; on what tests are allowable under a certain
policy's coverage, and so forth. The Chargemaster also contains
insurance policy codes, insurance policy coverage, ICD-9 codes and CPT-
4 codes that are used to electronically produce clean bills. The
Chargemaster is updated with the latest information from the insurance
companies and the rules for patient encounter reimbursement. It also
requires constant maintenance because policies change on renewal and
because all of the policy packages are not standardized. Similarly,
some VAMC's maintain a master insurance database to house all insurance
information. C&L found that those VAMC's that use a single point of
data entry and file maintenance retained high levels of data integrity
in their master insurance file. This practice is used in Reno, where a
single MCCR staff member is devoted to maintaining the insurance files.
The result is a low volume of rework for both billing and collections,
and the ability to use autobiller with little technical difficulty.
Innovations for timely bill coding.--The private sector uses
certified medical records staff to prepare bills correctly for the
Chargemaster system. MR staff prepares bills accurately and quickly by
pulling the codes from patient charts and matching them with
information in Chargemaster. The MR staff are specifically responsible
for pulling out all of the chargeable codes from the patient file or
forms, making sure the codes are present in the billing information for
the Chargemaster, and moving the bill out of A/R within two days. In
some VAMC's, coders reduce bill coding time by using the discharge
instruction sheet to code inpatient encounters rather than waiting for
the doctors to dictate and transcribe their discharge summary. The time
it takes physicians to complete the summary can create a considerable
amount of bill lag time. In Fayetteville, HIMS uses this practice and
is able to close the PTF before the physician summary is completed. The
result is a reduction in the time between discharge and the close of
the PTF.
Specialized payer teams.--In the private sector, teams are set up
according to payer type to handle inquires from specific groups,
resulting in claims correspondence turnaround time of less than 48
hours. The team concept also allows collections personnel to specialize
in a particular area of inquiry and to learn the various rules and
reimbursement policies of a target group.
Relationship building with major payers.--Private sector hospitals
have regular meetings with their primary payers and develop strong
lines of communication. This gives two-way feedback and helps to avoid
potential denials by better understanding where the payers are headed.
Interim bills for long-term and nursing home care.--In the private
sector and in some VAMC's, long-term and nursing home care services are
billed at regular intervals as opposed to one large bill at the end of
the stay. Interim billing provides the cost recovery team with an
opportunity to increase collections while alleviating the fear,
confusion, and discomfort that patients often experience when receiving
one large bill. Interim bills allow patient to better comprehend what
they are being charged for and help in planning for their payments.
Electronic bill generation.--In the private sector, inpatient bills
are produced within three days of discharge and outpatient bills are
produced within 24 hours of discharge. The bills are sent
electronically to the payers either through a clearinghouse or through
EDI. This cuts down on postage, mail lag time, and review and denials,
since the bills are produced in the payer's billing format and can run
through their system. Only a few VAMC sites are currently using
electronic bill generation, and in all cases, this is performed through
use of an outside contractor.
Flagging inpatient files with insurance.--A practice unique to the
VAMC's, flagging insured files allows the coders to give those files
priority and complete them first. In Brooklyn, this practice
significantly decreased bill lag time and resulted in an average of
only three days for coding insurable cases.
Scanning Software.--Both the private sector and the VAMC's use
scanning software to capture medical documentation needed for the
billing process. For example, Reno developed a software system called
Scan Man that can scan two sides of a document. This software allows
encounter forms to be scanned into the billing records, thus speeding
process time and reducing rework. In Reno, the use of Scan Man has
allowed billers to focus their attention on producing and auditing
bills rather than entering information off the encounter forms.
4. Collections
Best practices in collections were identified in the areas of
processing, technology, and organization. The following table
summarizes the best practices C&L identified in both the private sector
and the VA. Following this table is a description of the positive
benefits of each best practice.
best collections practices in the private sector and the va
Private sector.--Outsourcing to collection agencies; Use of payer-
specific teams; Prioritization of bills by dollar value; Aggressive
follow-up on past due bills; Electronically posted payments; Copays and
deductibles collected at patient discharge; and Receivable
automatically posted at bill generation.
VA.--Outsourcing to collections agencies; and Billing and
collections in the same location.
Receivables automatically posted at bill generation.--In the
private sector, when a bill is produced it is automatically posted as a
receivable. There is no lag time between bill production and posting,
therefore, the days in A/R is reduced. The likelihood of human error in
processing is reduced as well.
Co-pays and deductibles are collected upon patient discharge.--The
private sector utilizes this practice extensively. It costs about eight
times as much to collect co-pays and deductibles after a patient has
left than it does if the patient pays the money at the time of
discharge (or encounter). Labor costs, processing, paperwork, and
postage are reduced or eliminated when collection is made ``up front.''
There is also a much lower risk of default on payment if it is
collected upon discharge.
Prioritization of bills according to dollar value.--High-dollar
claims are given higher priority in private sector collection processes
since they pump more cash into the revenue cycle if collected. Lower-
dollar claims are given lower priority, but are still pursued.
Aggressive follow-up on past due bills.--Private Sector collections
department calls four to six times at scheduled intervals to pursue
delinquent payments. The national average for bad debt is about 1.3
percent. Aggressive follow-up reduces the Accounts Receivable greater
than 90 days to about 10 percent.
Payments are electronically posted through bank lock boxes or
electronic funds transfer.--Payments are sent to a contractor, or to
the facility via electronic file transfer; at either destination the
payment is matched to the bill and the account is closed or payment
variances are identified. Payment processing is updated to A/R within
24 hours. Electronic correspondence speeds up the processing turnaround
time, reduces labor costs, and removes the potential for human error.
Use of payer-specific teams.--Private sector collections teams are
set up according to payer type, in order to utilize a specialization of
knowledge about a payer group and to provide consistency of response
for the hospital.
Outsourcing to collection agencies.--Low-dollar-value, delinquent
claims are outsourced, as their recovery becomes cost-ineffective.
These claims are contracted out on a ``percentage of claims recovered''
basis. In the VAMC's, Houston contracted out with a collection agency
called Transworld that in 1997 brought in approximately $459,000 in
collections for a cost of $10,125.
Billing and collections in the same physical location.--C&L found
that placing billing and collections operations in the same location
allows workers to easily confer with one another on particular cases.
Collections has closer access to billing records and medical files than
when the two processes are in separate locations and may easily draw
upon the knowledge of billers familiar with a bill in question. Marion,
IL, employed this principle: the billing and collections staff were
located in connecting cubicles and were able to use one another as
quick and easy resources.
b. critical success factors
During the 24 VA site visits, private sector interviews, and
industry research, C&L identified recurring characteristics in
successful revenue generating organizations. We were able to categorize
these characteristics into 5 Critical Success Factors. They are:
Leadership; Organizational; Structure; Technology; Accountability; and
Human Resource Management.
The best practices C&L identified in both the private sector and
in the VA have strong ties to these five critical success factors. In
both cases, these high-performing medical centers utilized the critical
success factors to develop best practices and effective cost recovery
programs.
However, during VAMC site visits, C&L determined several areas in
which the VA demonstrated shortcomings or difficulties in mastering the
critical success factors. C&L performed an internal survey to identify
these apparent shortcomings. The following discussion illustrates
examples of the areas in which the VAMC's must improve as a group to
increase their levels of performance.
areas for va improvements in the critical success factors
Leadership.--Internal marketing; leadership communication;
leadership innovations; and external marketing.
Organizational structure.--Business office model; facility-level
integration; and seamless operation.
Technology.-- Local technical support; use available software; and
technology integration.
Accountability.--VISN accountability; internal controls;
performance measurements; and rework.
Human Resources Management.-- Cross training; formal training;
incentives or rewards; and overall MCCR knowledge.
1. Leadership
Leadership is the foundation and driver of successful revenue
operations. It provides the strategic direction, planning, and
standardization to make the process work. National, regional, and local
leadership promotes process initiatives, develop goals and performance
measures, and continually evaluate the process and make course
corrections when needed. In addition, leadership is the initiator and
manager of cultural change. Leadership areas in which the VAMC's can
improve are:
Internal Marketing.--As a group, the VAMC's lacked strong
leadership within MCCR and the VAMC administration. In more than 60
percent of the VA sites surveyed, it was not apparent that the
Director, CFO, Chief of Staff or the Chief of MAS were involved in
promoting the MCCR mission within the hospital.
Leadership Communication.--More than 70 percent of the sites
reported that upper-level management did not hold regular meetings to
discuss MCCR issues and concerns. Additionally, communication between
MCCR segment leaders and staff, such as UR and Collections personnel,
was minimal at most VAMC's.
Leadership Innovations.--In more than 65 percent of the MCCR
programs, it was perceived that innovative ways of improving cost
recovery were not being sought. Additionally, when process changes did
occur, they were poorly communicated. According to our survey, only 40
percent of process changes were communicated to the MCCR staff via
memos, emails, newsletters, etc. In most instances, these changes were
simply discovered while personnel performed their jobs.
External Marketing.--In 83 percent of the sites visited, neither
the MCCR coordinator nor the CFO had ongoing working relationships with
major payers. In addition, communication with leaders of local veteran
groups, which could bolster veteran perceptions of the VAMC's as well
as inform and educate the veterans of VA changes, rarely occurred.
2. Organizational structure
Successful operations have cross-functional, centrally managed
organizations that enhance quality information by integrating sub
processes into seamless operations. These organizations have single
reporting structures that reduce instances of re-work, reduce
fragmentation, and increase effective communication. Areas for VAMC
improvement are:
Business Office Concept.--According to our survey, it was apparent
that a single reporting organization was in place at only 25 percent of
the sites. All other sites had two to three decentralized management
structures.
Facility-Level Integration Across Processes.--It was apparent that
only 20 percent of the sites had process integration throughout the
medical center. Most sites were disconnected across cost recovery
processes, with little or no cross-functional activities.
Seamless Operation.--At the sites visited, it was apparent that
only 20 percent of the VAMC's displayed a seamless cost recovery
operation. In most cases, both processes and activities were broken and
disconnected, and lacked the communication necessary to provide
seamless information flows.
3. Technology
Technology is the enabler that supports revenue processes. It
increases data integrity and accuracy, and supports the access and flow
of information. The successful use of technology helps to streamline
business operations through automation.
Local Technical Support.--It was apparent that only 50 percent of
the sites visited had adequate technical support, although the MCCR
program office does provide technical assistance for the MCCR process.
Use of Available Software.--It was apparent that 70.8 percent of
VAMC's were currently using claims tracking software to communicate
between cost recovery functions. However, this also means that almost
30 percent of the VAMC's visited are not utilizing such software.
Communication through available software and data sharing through
integrated technology are critical to the successful recovery of both
inpatient and outpatient dollars.
Technology Integration.--Interfaces between IB and A/R software
need to be upgraded so that VISTA, IB, A/R, and FMS all communicate
with one another and effectively link patient data and billing
information.
4. Accountability
Accountability is the means of tracking and measuring the people,
activities, and systems involved in the revenue generation process.
Management and staff are held responsible for their actions through
performance measures and processes are monitored through control
points. Areas for VAMC improvements are:
VISN Accountability.--Fewer than half of the VAMC's appeared to
have a definitive sense of accountability to the VISN.
Internal Controls.--For 58 percent of the sites visited, no
internal controls for data accuracy and staff accountability seemed to
be in place.
Performance Measurements.--It was apparent that 52 percent of the
MCCR coordinators did not use performance measurement tools to assess
progress on a regular basis.
Rework.--Almost 50 percent of the MCCR employees interviewed agree
that there is a high percentage of rework (> 10 percent) in many of the
front-end cost recovery activities.
5. Human Resource Management
The investment in people which facilitates the success of the
process by developing programs, clarifying employee roles, and
instilling a true sense of the revenue generation process. HR either
develops formal training or provides access to training and
certification. They monitor evaluations and distribute incentives or
discipline in conjunction with management. Areas for VAMC improvements
are:
Cross-Training.--In more than 70 percent of the sites visited, it
was apparent that they did not cross-train staff across cost recovery
activities or provide other professional development opportunities.
Formal Training.--In the private sector, people are certified in
AGPAM (American Guild of Patient Accounting Managers) and other
organizations such as HFMA (Hospital Financial Manager Association). In
contrast, 75 percent of the VAMC sites had no formal training or
certification programs in place. However, some did report using CD-ROM
training materials or periodic telephone calls to learn procedures.
Incentives or Rewards.--In more than 90 percent of the sites, no
incentives or reward programs were in place.
Overall MCCR Knowledge.--It was apparent at 72 percent of the sites
that, overall, cost recovery staff was not knowledgeable about all MCCR
processes.
If the VA can successfully enhance their efforts and maximize these
five critical success factors, then its cost recovery program will
realize significant decreases in costs, increases in revenue,
improvements in process efficiency, and increases in customer
satisfaction. In the following section, C&L describes how the VA can
realize these goals.
section 6: the optimum va revenue cycle
Coopers & Lybrand's recommended design for the optimum VA revenue
cycle encompasses two of the fundamental VA goals of the ``30/20/10''
program-reduction of costs and increases in revenue. The fundamental
process improvements and organizational realignments will enable the VA
to better recover the costs of NSC veteran health care from private
health insurance and the veteran. At the same time, C&L's revenue cycle
model creates a ``most efficient organization'' (MEO), reducing costs
through process improvements, consolidation, and outsourcing options.
Further, through the process improvements recommended in this report,
C&L estimates that the revenue cycle will realize a 33 percent increase
in collections; and estimates collections over $700 million by the year
2000. These estimated increases are derived from the revenue cycle's
process enhancements and VA initiatives currently underway. However,
these increased revenues do not account for any additional increases
from initiatives such as the production of Medicare Remittance Advice
or developments of reasonable charges for billing rates.
C&L based the optimum VA revenue cycle on the data gathered from
both the activity based cost study and the best practices identified in
Section 5. Additionally, while planning the optimum VA revenue cycle,
we also considered the several other issues that are important to the
successful redeployment of MCCR as discussed in earlier sections.
C&L recognizes the obstacles to the VA's revenue process. These
include a declining and aging veteran population, increased HMO
penetration, changes in how insurers process VA claims, shifts from
inpatient to outpatient settings, and difficulty identifying care
provided to veterans with service-connected disabilities for treatment
of nonservice-connected conditions. The recommended revenue cycle is
designed to mitigate the impact of these obstacles.
Further, C&L also acknowledges the political momentum to outsource
the entire MCCR process. The motivation behind this momentum is the
belief that private sector contracting would significantly enhance
collection effectiveness. The ``most efficient organization'' does
recommend centralizing some collection activities to internal or
external specialists. However, C&L maintains that it is difficult to
draw a true cost comparison between MCCR and private sector contractors
until an MEO is established in place of current operations.
Additionally, outsourcing can be in the form of either private sector
contractors or VA franchising, whereby a VA center of excellence would
provide a service for all the VAMC's. Because of issues such as
procedural compliance, cultural changes, and lack of data integrity,
the VA is not operating its cost recovery program at its optimum
performance levels. Only after this optimum VA revenue cycle becomes
operational within the next 24-month period can a formal cost benefit
analysis be conducted.
Finally, C&L also considered the importance of the ``critical
success factors'' described in Section 4. These five factors,
leadership, organizational structure, accountability, technology, and
human resource management must be the foundation of a high-performing
organization.
a. scope and methodology of the new revenue cycle
Overall, MCCR is a sound process very comparable to the private
sector revenue cycle. Therefore, C&L's recommended design for the
optimum VA revenue cycle represents ``fine tuning'' of the existing
cost recovery processes through process enhancement, organizational
realignment, process consolidation, and outsourcing of critical
processes. Improvements will significantly increase collections and are
practical enough for the VA to implement within the next 24 months.
The highlights of the new revenue cycle are:
--Focuses on decreasing costs and increasing revenues
--Leverages process improvements currently underway
--Standardizes processes across VAMC's
--Institutes pro-active insurance/veteran follow-up
--Consolidates crucial processes
--Improves front-end processes at VAMC's and VISN's
--Improves back-end processes by centralizing, franchising, or
contracting
As we identified opportunities for process enhancements and
reorganization, C&L considered the need for improvements in the five
critical success factors as discussed in Section 5. The optimum VA
revenue cycle promotes and sustains significant changes in these
success factors.
Leadership.--The revenue cycle provides a standardized,
comprehensive, and strategic business process that flows from a single
executive management group. It establishes local, regional, and
national integration of process leadership and provides mechanisms for
continual process innovation by both executive management and program
staff. Additionally, the revenue cycle installs uniform goals,
objectives, and performance measures from a top-down process-driven
approach.
Organizational Structure.--The revenue cycle installs a results-
driven ``business office model'' that is cross-functional, centrally
managed, and seamlessly integrated. In addition, it creates an
accountable reporting organization, process action teams, consolidated
process, and options for outsourcing to VA Centers of Excellence or
private venders.
Accountability.--Above all, the revenue cycle standardizes
processes across the VISN's and VAMC's. It installs control points to
monitor the quality of work by staff and in the process with clearly
communicated performance measures. In addition, it establishes
priorities to reduce re-work, identify weaknesses, and eliminate errors
in the process. Finally, the revenue cycle maps projected goals for
improved performance metrics to be used as benchmarks for future
performance and hold staff and the process responsible for accurate and
efficient data flows.
Technology.--The revenue cycle utilizes significant Departmental
investments in information technology. It integrates information
technology at the national, regional, and local levels, assisting
process consistency and standardization. Additionally, the revenue
cycle streamlines business operations and communications throughout all
process areas.
Human Resources Management.--The revenue cycle calls for the
installation of standardized job descriptions for Business Office staff
and incorporates orientation/training requirements for various process
leaders to encourage the increase of knowledge capital. Further, it
establishes employee incentive programs and performance measures at
every process level. In addition, the revenue cycle creates a standard
and consistent set of training and performance tools for all VA staff
to reinforce the use of critical skills and core competencies.
Overall, these critical success improvements, process enhancements,
and organizational realignments ensure that the revenue cycle is a
practical yet optimal approach to decreasing recovery costs and
maximizing revenue gains.
b. key roles and responsibilities
C&L was tasked to recommend an ``Optimal Configuration'' for the
MCCR operations with consideration to the analyses performed during our
study. The five critical success factors, discussed previously, are the
essential components of the optimal configuration, named the Year 2000
Revenue Cycle. The process flow shown in Figure 6-1 represents a
program that can be achieved by the Year 2000 by implementing process
improvements, adopting best practices from the VA and private sector
and organizational realignment. This optimal configuration stresses the
various roles and responsibilities that each of the participants must
take, and the cooperative working relationships that they must nurture
to succeed. The participants in the Year 2000 Revenue Cycle are as
follows: Veteran, VA Medical Center, VISN, VA Franchising/Private
Contractor, and National Program Office.
The roles and responsibilities of each participant incorporate VA
initiatives currently underway. These initiatives target improvements
in current MCCR sub-processes as well as the development of new sub-
processes to effectively increase revenues while reducing operational
costs. These initiatives include, but are not limited to:
--Increased Insurance Identification of Patients
--Full implementation of an Electronic Data Interface (EDI) for
billing and collections
--Proactively pursuing third party claims
--Improving the accuracy of data capture through automation and
training
--Production of medicare remittance advices
--Establishment of reasonable charges billing rates
--Centralized database for the management of 1st party debt
--Centralized 1st party debt management at VA's Debt Management
Center
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.043
Note.--1st party follow-up for debt under 90 days is performed at
the VAMC/VISN level; follow-up for debt 90 to 180 days is performed at
the centralized VA Debt Management Center; and by law, debt over 180
days is referred to the Department of the Treasury.
the veteran
Increased identification of billable insurance cannot happen
without the willful cooperation of the Veteran. GAO pointed out that
increasing the identification of Veteran insurance is dependent on
``(1) the willingness of veterans to give VA complete and accurate
information * * *, and (2) the thoroughness of VA efforts to obtain and
verify the information provided.'' \1\ While the efforts of the VA to
improve the methods used to identify and identify insurance can be
achieved, the Veterans have a responsibility to be forthright and
provide any employer, income or insurance information when asked.
However, the VA can influence the Veterans cooperation through
increased communication and marketing efforts concerning the importance
and benefits of providing private insurance to the VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ October 1997, GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vamc
Registration
Each VA Medical Center within a VISN will have a decreased
responsibility in registration as compared with today. Most patients
will be registered through ``pre-registration'' operated by a VISN
level group that will obtain and verify all necessary information prior
to a patient's visit. VAMC's will need to be properly trained and
staffed to handle registration activities for a small amount of
patients that have not been pre-registered by the VISN. It will be the
responsibility of the VAMC to continue providing the service of
greeting the veterans upon arrival and ensuring that they receive the
proper care and treatment.
Certification and Case Management
Certification and Case Management will be performed at each VAMC in
the VISN. Pre-certification of patients, performed by a VISN group,
will be available across each VISN to enable a seamless flow of
responsibility between the VISN and VAMC. Patient medical records and
SC/NSC status will be available on a VISN wide database to facilitate
the transition between pre-certification performed by the VISN and Case
Management performed locally by the VAMC.
Point of Service Collections
Currently, the VAMC's have responsibility to collect first party
(Veteran) co-payments at the Agent Cashier or by mail. The Year 2000
Revenue Cycle suggests that the VAMC continue to collect first party
co-payments, however, a systematic approach to collecting prescription
and other co-pays at the point of service or distribution should be
developed. The point of service collections is its own sub-process to
stress the significance of performing this activity. It is significant
because prescription co-pays represent small amounts of revenue but
constitutes a significant cost to collect once the veteran is
discharged. In other words, it costs more to bill and collect for
prescription co-pays than the $2.00 per prescription co-pay. The
collection at the Point of Service is typically a low dollar value,
approximately $8 on average in fiscal year 1997, and will reinforce to
the Veteran their responsibility to the VA.
Charge Capture/Medical Documentation
The data capture for patient care provided will continue to be
performed at the local VAMC. The quality and speed of medical care and
bill coding data capture must be improved. Based on the 24 VAMC visits,
a significant difference in culture exists between the VAMC and private
sector medical staff surrounding the emphasis on accurate and timely
medical documentation. VAMC physicians are not provided incentive to
perform this portion of their daily activities that will contribute to
increased hospital revenues. One method of changing this culture is to
develop a performance rating system which measures physician
performance and compensation to the accurate and timely completion of
outpatient coding and inpatient discharge summaries. Additionally, it
is the responsibility of the VISN and the National Program Office to
improve the technologies and tools necessary for better charge capture
and medical documentation.
visn
Processes performed by VISN-level groups represent those that can
benefit from consolidation. These benefits come in the form of (1) cost
savings since fewer staff, in total, will be required to perform the
consolidated processes; and (2) standardization of processes.
Standardizing the manner in which processes are performed, the method
and frequency of training, and the use of technology will prove easier
at the VISN level than at each individual VAMC within the VISN.
Additionally, the necessary process improvements and implementation of
new processes at VISN level groups may occur at a faster pace than at
the VAMC's.
VISN consolidation does not imply one regional office where all
consolidated MCCR sub-processes are performed. VISN consolidation can
be performed at any of the VAMC's that will be responsible for
performing a sub-process for the entire VISN. Therefore, it is possible
to have VISN consolidated sub-processes performed at several VAMC's
nationwide.
Pre-Registration
Pre-registration for the majority of patients, estimated at 80
percent, will be performed at the VISN-level. Pre-registration is the
process of contacting scheduled Veterans two weeks prior to their
appointment to gather income, eligibility, employment and insurance
data. Unfortunately, much of the data currently being captured is for
patients that have already received care at the VAMC. However, this
process has proven to be a cost effective, customer friendly service
that will result in increased revenue. The nature of the pre-
registration process, in addition to the technology needed to verify
insurance on-line and provide VAMC-wide access of this information,
makes it an ideal candidate for VISN-level consolidation.
Pre-Certification
VISN-level consolidated of pre-certification leverages the pre-
registration process by collecting pertinent medical information during
the pre-registration interviews with the patient. A staff of
Utilization Review Nurses or Technicians will obtain pre-certification
from private insurers prior to the patient's visit to the hospital.
This will lessen the burden placed on the VAMC's to complete pre-
certification for inpatient and outpatient services. Additionally, a
VISN-level group focused on pre-certification should be able to
establish strong relationships with the large insurers in the VISN,
which will reduce denied claims. For instance, in a recent study by the
GAO \2\ it was determined that most of the bills that the VA was unable
to recover was appropriately denied. One of the reasons cited was care
provided that was medically inappropriate. The Utilization Staff
typically is responsible for determining whether care is deemed
appropriate by the insurer to preclude the hospitals from generating an
unrecoverable claim. Through continued training, consistent application
of policy and procedures, and a better understanding of appropriate
care; VISN pre-certification will have a positive impact on revenues
and MCCR costs by eliminating the billing and potential appeal of
inappropriate care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ October 1997, GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veteran (1st Party) Follow-up
Veteran follow-up is a proactive process of contacting veterans
concerning 1st party co-payments for care provided. Assuming the point
of service process is in place, these follow up calls concern means
test and per diem co-pays. For 1st party follow-up on debt under 90
days, the customer service focus of the VA dictates that any contact
with veterans concerning payment of co-pays should be from VA
personnel. It is likely that this sub-process can be incorporated into
a VISN-level initiative such as pre-registration. However, 1st party
debt greater than 90 days should be referred to a nationally
centralized franchiser/contractor for collection. The VA Debt
Management Center could fulfill this role. Finally, per the Debt
Collection Act of 1996, delinquent debt over 180 days must be referred
to the Department of Treasury for cross-servicing and administrative
offset.
va franchising/private contractor
In C&L's determination, none of the current 13 MCCR sub-processes
are inherently governmental. Therefore this claim provides the
opportunity for any or all of the MCCR sub-processes to be contracted
to a commercial vendor. Alternatively, the same sub-processes could
also be performed by a VA Center of Excellence or ``Franchise'' that is
responsible for providing a service for MCCR nationally. However, both
quantitative and qualitative analysis is necessary to determine which
sub-processes should be outsourced or franchised. C&L spoke with
several contractors who provide service for some or all of the MCCR
sub-processes. Several of these companies provided rates at which they
will provide these services; however, these companies are accustomed to
providing their services to hospitals whose patients have billable
insurance. The mere fact that the VA can only bill for a fraction of
its patients may significantly alter the rates that they would charge
the VA. Without detailed discussion or negotiations with the
contracting companies taking place, the determination of contracting
and VA franchising was analyzed with the perspective of cost avoidance
and adherence to current industry standards.
The capabilities, methodologies and prices of various vendors were
obtained through discussions with six contractors (All Med, Trans
World, Medaphis/BSG, Payco and, NEIC) as well as private sector
hospitals (profit and not-for-profit) and their contractors.
Additionally, C&L researched data and literature provided by healthcare
and collections related agencies such as HARA, The American Guild of
PAT Accounting Managers, The American Hospital Collection Agencies, and
The Healthcare Financial Managers Association (HFMA).
Only three of the contractors contacted, Medaphis, NEIC, and Payco
provided price estimates for the Revenue Cycle processes under
consideration. The estimates provided were for performing either the
billing and remittance functions or the entire process referred to as a
``Turn-Key'' solution. The contractor costs presented in Figure 6-2
are:
--Billing generation and distribution fees quoted as $0.49 for
electronic and $0.89 paper compared to VA estimate of $1.69
(includes bill creation and audit)
--``Turn-Key'' (covers entire process cycle, from pre-registration/
registration through appeals) fees range from 8 percent to 12.5
percent of collections compared to 17 percent VA Revenue Cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.044
Three contractor estimates indicate Turn-Key Solutions and
individual process alternatives:
Billing; Payment Processing; Collections
The Year 2000 Revenue Cycle recommends the outsourcing of 5 sub-
processes: Billing, Payment Processing, Collections, Insurance Follow-
up, and Appeals. These activities center on the bill generation and
eventual deposit of dollars collected. These activities are standard
hospital procedures that are easily transferable to a contractor.
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is currently being used by several VA
hospitals and is planned for deployment in several others. By using a
contractor at the National or VISN level, the VA can avoid the
additional costs of hardware and software integration necessary for
successful implementation of EDI. At present, several contractors are
electronically linked to private insurers to provide billing and
remittance services for customers.
Appeals
Outsourcing the Appeals sub-process will require clear
communication among the VISN, Medical Centers and contractor. Patient
medical records including SC/NSC status, special consent and
certification will be electronically stored and available to the
contractor for their assistance with appeals.
3rd Party Follow-up
A contractor will perform follow-up with insurance companies for
high dollar value claims. A case tracking system will be in place to
provide the contractor with claims that represent a large portion of
the accounts receivable. Follow-up is a measure that proactively
attempts to collect revenue before it is delinquent.
Veteran (1st Party) Follow-up
Veteran (1st party) debt greater than 90 days should be referred to
a nationally centralized franchiser/contractor for collection. The VA
Debt Management Center could fulfill this role. Per the Debt Collection
Act of 1996, delinquent debt over 180 days must be referred to the
Department of Treasury for cross-servicing and administrative offset.
national program office
The National Program Office will be required to provide leadership
to the VA field staff particularly during the establishment of the Year
2000 Revenue Cycle. National policies that affect the operations of the
VAMC's as well as the contract negotiations with contractors and 3rd
party providers will require the wisdom and experience of the senior
leadership at the National Program Office. The local VAMC's and VISN's
can benefit from National Office guidance with respect to:
Standardization of a business office model; Establishment of incentives
and rewards for VAMC personnel; Development of standardized performance
measurements; Implementation of technological solutions; and Providing
professional training nationally.
c. performance improvements and cost benefit savings
A cost analysis of the Year 2000 Revenue Cycle was performed to
estimate the potential cost savings from the recommended process
improvements and organizational realignment. Cost savings have the
equivalent impact of increased revenues on the VA system since any
reduction in operating costs reduces the amount of collections needed
to offset 10 percent of the total hospital budget.
Process improvements will translate into reduced cycle times to
complete work activities. These same process improvements will improve
the accuracy of work performed, which will have a significant positive
impact on the percentage of re-work that consumes the MCCR staff.
These positive impacts to MCCR operations will also enable the VAMC
and VISN to reach their primary objectives such as: Increased
identification of insurance; Reduced accounts receivables; and
Increased revenue.
The current cost to generate a bill (unit cost: $17.19) is
projected to be reduced by 37 percent to $10.75 per unit. Unit cost
represents the average cost to bill and collect for all types of
claims, 1st and 3rd party. The projected unit cost reflects the roles
and responsibilities as recommended previously in Section 6. The effect
of outsourced sub-processes using private contractors and/or VA
franchises are represented. At this point, the basis of this effect is
from labor cost savings realized through centralization and
streamlining of a sub-process. The projected costs for each sub-process
represents the optimal cost that the VA MCCR should be experiencing
through VA franchising or contracting.
Improvement in qualitative performance measures such as percent of
re-work, performance accuracy, and internal customer satisfaction,
which were collected through C&L surveys, reflect the projected cost
savings. As processes are improved and organizational realignment
realized, the accuracy of work will increase, re-work will be minimized
and internal customers' (MCCR staff) satisfaction levels will go up.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.045
d. revenue enhancement
Increasing revenues in the short term, (fiscal year 1998), can be
accomplished by leveraging key elements of the revenue cycle that will
provide significant impact without major process or organizational
changes. The key elements for this short-term revenue increase are
defined as Leverage Points.
Leverage points represent basic, simple changes in the Revenue
Cycle that have significant impacts on the overall goal of enhancing
revenue. Based on fiscal year 1997 revenue data, C&L was able to
project potential gains in collection dollars through utilization of
these leverage points. C&L contends that VA can dramatically improve
its collections nationwide by 33 percent and decrease ``old'' A/R
dollars by 20 percent if it can: Identify Billable insurance; Reduce A/
R days outstanding; and Produce accurate bills.
Identify Billable Insurance
As described in earlier sections, identification of billable
insurance will allow for increases in billable episodes of patient
care. Pre-registration is the best opportunity to identify 100 percent
of registered veterans with insurance coverage. Consequently,
establishing this process in every VAMC creates significant potential
increases in collections.
reduce days a/r outstanding
Reducing the amount of days of A/R outstanding will both increase
overall collection amounts as well as decrease the amounts of old A/R
dollars and overall collection costs. The revenue cycle, by improving
processes vital to this leverage point's outputs, can potentially
reduce dollar amount waiting to be collected. By focusing on activities
such as reducing bill lag time, insurance follow-up, collection of co-
pays, and aggressive A/R collections, the VA can realize these gains.
Lower A/R days will increase the potential for maximum collection.
Produce Accurate Bills
Producing accurate bills will not only increase timely collections
and reduce technical/medical denials, but it will also decrease billing
cycle time and rework. In addition, C&L projects significant increases
in overall collections. By improving bill coding activities and
encouraging responsiveness from clinical staff, the revenue cycle will
allow the VA to utilize this leverage point and its significant
benefits.
Figure 6-4 illustrates the three leverage points and their
estimated benefits. Additionally, the chart also describes the various
actions necessary for the realization of these estimated goals.
Figure 6-4
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.046
e. potential risks and considerations
Due to uncertainties in the analysis of the optimal configuration
of VA cost recovery (assumptions, estimates, outside factors, etc.), it
helps to know potential risks that may be associated with the new
model. There are five major areas of consideration that the VA must
examine in determining possible risks. These areas of consideration
are: Customer Service, Political Influences, Costs, Technology, and
Timing.
The following are possible risks that may affect the success of the
optimal configuration as related to these five areas of consideration.
customer satisfaction
1. Adverse Impact on Veterans.--Because a main goal of
reconfiguration is to increase revenues to provide better and increased
services for veterans, one of the most crucial aspects of the optimal
configuration is to continue the VA's high level of customer service.
In order for reconfiguration to be successful, patients must continue
to receive high quality care, accurate bills, timely financial advice,
and a high level of customer service throughout the entire cost
recovery process. The lack of any of these components of customer
satisfaction would potentially be a serious risk to the overall success
of the optimal configuration.
Extensive customer service training inter-woven with revenue cycle
training as well as patient marketing and continuous quality
improvement programs will mitigate this risk.
political pressures
1. Public Relations Concerns.--Veteran's Service Organizations
(VSO) and Federal employee unions are the two groups that compose a
large public relations concern for the VA. As an organization that
primarily serves veterans, the VA is continually under the scrutiny of
Veteran's groups to provide high-quality services to veterans. Under
the new optimal configuration, it is possible that veteran
organizations may misunderstand the efficiency changes as a swing in
VA's primary motives from the health of the veteran to revenue
enhancement. These groups may feel that they need to step in during
reorganization to ensure that the veterans' needs are still met and
services are not cut. Additionally, because reconfiguration will mean
the reallocation of labor resources, Federal employee unions may also
be concerned with the reorganization of its members to new job
positions.
2. Negative Congressional Feedback.--As a Federal Institution, the
VA must always remain accountable to Congress. Congressional leaders
may become concerned about the scope and intent of reconfiguration if
interest groups and the general public in their districts raise
questions about the VA. The health and happiness of the veteran is a
major concern within Congress and the entire Federal Government, and
therefore it is possible that negative Congressional feedback could
occur if reorganization of VA cost recovery is not promoted and
explained in light of its positive impact for the veteran and the
entire VA.
Aggressive internal and external marketing, integrated with
continual VA leadership communication with interest groups will
mitigate these risks.
costs
1. Technology Costs not Absorbed by Current VA Initiatives.--The
optimal configuration includes new technology not currently in use by
the VA. However, there are several current VA initiatives to improve
cost recovery technology that should absorb the costs associated with
reconfiguration technology improvements. If these initiatives do not
absorb the bulk of the new technology costs, there is a potential risk
for increased technology costs. Additionally, any costs associated with
upgrades and systems maintenance not absorbed by other initiative
surpluses will also be a potential cost risk.
2. Overhead Costs Cause the ``Cost to Collect'' Amount to
Increase.--Reconfiguration will include some overhead costs from the
MCCR Central Office to manage new policy, training, and prototype
systems development. Because these costs are necessary expenditures to
improve cost recovery processes, they are included in the total ``cost
to collect'' amount for the VA. Once implemented, these overhead costs
should decrease from lack of need; if not, then there will be a
potential risk of an increased ``cost to collect'' amount for VA.
Continued reviews of overhead costs and detailed technology cost
assessments to minimize the impact on ``cost to collect'' will mitigate
these risks.
technology
1. Information Technology Integration May Prove Difficult.--In
order for reconfiguration to flow smoothly, the transition to a
completely integrated information system must occur. However, as with
any large technology integration, problems may occur when systems are
integrated. If such problems arise during integration, technology
difficulties could prove to be a potential risk.
2. Software May Prove to be Unreliable or Unavailable.--The optimal
configuration heavily relies on agreements with third party payers to
provide software to increase the efficiency of the cost recovery
process. If in the future this software does not fulfill the needs of
the VA or necessary upgrades become unavailable or incompatible with VA
systems, such issues would pose serious risks to the success of the
optimal configuration.
Sound development of systems requirements and proven implementation
techniques and methods will mitigate these risks.
timing
1. The Consolidation Process May Prove to be more Time Intensive
than Perceived.--The optimal configuration calls for some consolidation
of cost recovery activities at the VISN level. In part, the success of
this consolidation depends on a timely and seamless process adaptation,
including technology integration, with little disruption to needed
business dealings. If this consolidation does become increasingly time
intensive, then timing becomes a potential risk to cost recovery
reorganization.
Extensive planning to map out time restrictions and minimize
business process disruption will mitigate this risk.
f. summary of the optimum va revenue cycle
Coopers & Lybrand's proposed design for the optimum VA revenue
cycle enables the VA to better recover the costs of veteran health care
from private health insurance. Additionally, the revenue cycle reduces
health care recovery costs through process improvements, consolidation,
and outsourcing options. As such, the revenue cycle fulfills two of the
VA's goals as described in its ``30/20/10'' program. If implemented,
C&L contends that the VA will realize an estimated goal of over $700
million in collections by the year 2000. Additionally, these gains can
be realized while improving the overall customer service provided to
the veteran. The following summarizes the major benefits of the revenue
cycle.
Cost Reductions
--37 percent cost decrease
--42 percent cycle-time decrease
--50 percent reduction in cost-to-collect
Revenue Enhancements
--33 percent net revenue increase
--40 percent third-party revenue increase
--15 percent first-party revenue increase
Process Improvements
--Focus on revenue
--Utilize new point-of-service collection at VAMC's
--Initiate pro-active insurance/veteran follow-up
--Create accountable charge capture process
-- Emphasize VISN centralization of pre-registration, pre-
certification, insurance follow-up
Customer Satisfaction
--Register veterans more quickly and efficiently
--Use telephone pre-registration to give veterans more privacy when
discussing medical/financial information
--Develop first-party bill payment process that is easier for
veterans to use
--Reduce rework and increase accuracy percentages
section 7: recommendations
a. cash, process compliance, redesign (cpr)
Coopers & Lybrand recommends that VA pursue a three-phased program
to remedy its lagging revenue cycle process. Known as CPR, the program
is an effective approach for prioritizing corrective actions,
leveraging resources and addressing all aspects of the revenue cycle
process. Based on our preliminary recommendations on this subject, VA
and its VISN's have begun planning for a CPR initiative across all
VAMC's.
1. Cash.--With VISN sponsorship, immediately launch at each
hospital a 6-month blitz on existing receivables (for services already
billed) as well as a concentration on UR and charge capture (for
services provided but improperly billed or not billed at all). Collect
funds due VA and prevent further revenue losses. This will help VA
accomplish its 1998 collection goal.
2. Process Compliance.--Through VISN leadership and action,
immediately take corrective actions to bring hospital programs into
full compliance with VA revenue cycle guidelines and regulations, as
well as with established best practices such as those identified in
this report. Also begin VISN-level consolidation of applicable front-
end processes. This will help standardize operations, reduce costs, and
strengthen all processes in the revenue cycle.
3. Redesign.--VA should continue the development of several
consolidated applications, systems and operations. Attention should
also be focused on removing some of the policy and institutional
barriers that inhibit optimum performance. Depending on the results of
the second phase, move toward greater reliance on contractors to
perform back-end processes. This will help VA realize MEO status by the
Year 2000.
b. roles and responsibilities
We recommend that VA require the full commitment, participation and
leadership of VISN and hospital executives in CPR. It has begun
planning for this involvement through the creation of VISN revenue
teams. In addition, central office executives must provide program
support and continue the development of common tools and technology to
leverage revenue operations. VA can no longer afford to abdicate
revenue responsibilities to collection units alone. Revenue performance
is everyone's business--in the same manner that delivering quality
healthcare to the veteran is everyone's business. VA leaders should
make the same investments in business functions that they have in
clinical functions--leadership, innovation, human capital and
technology.
The VISN's, central office and medical centers should all have
clear roles in the CPR initiative. VA should assign the following roles
and responsibilities for follow-up action.
VISN's
1. Take more active leadership roles in revenue cycle operations.
2. Hold hospital directors fully accountable, and incentivize them,
for program compliance and revenue results.
3. Consolidate, as appropriate, revenue cycle front-end operations.
4. Adopt central business office models of organization.
5. Charter and appoint VISN Revenue Cycle Teams.
6. Train Revenue Cycle Teams.
7. Conduct VISN-wide CPR planning workshops.
8. Deploy Revenue Cycle Teams to medical centers to focus on:
Realizing quick hit opportunities that will accelerate fiscal year 1998
cash flow; Implementing process compliance and long-term improvements
toward achieving 30/20/10 goals.
9. Communicate activities to all stakeholders, including veterans,
VA staff, third partypayers, VSO's and unions.
Central Office
1. Develop financial/revenue performance scorecard for VISN
accountability.
2. Sponsor training for VISN Revenue Cycle Teams.
3. Support VISN CPR roll-out planning.
4. Provide technical expertise to VISN Revenue Cycle Teams, as
required.
5. Continue technical assistance and training support for all
revenue cycle operations.
6. Continue development of common tools and technology.
7. Press for full implementation of the MEO by the Year 2000.
Medical Centers
1. Hold all executive leadership and department heads accountable
for revenue performance.
2. Assure program compliance by establishing internal control
systems in accordance with Circular A-123.
3. Use the Diagnostic Measurement System to establish
accountability.
4. Begin implementation of the central business office model.
5. Send top management team (financial, clinical, administrative)
to VISN-wide CPR planning workshops.
6. Participate on VISN Revenue Cycle Teams.
7. Implement corrective actions.
c. milestones
The timing of VA's revenue cycle improvements is critical for a
number of reasons. First, considerable amounts of revenue are being
forfeited because of ineffective MCCR performance. This is costing VA
millions of dollars each day. Second, there are many quick-hit
opportunities that Revenue Cycle Teams could realize in a few months.
These should not be jeopardized. Third, the longer that VA permits
insurance companies, as well as some veterans, to default on their
financial obligations to the agency, the more entrenched this behavior
will become. Fourth, with each passing day VA continues to lose
credibility with even those payers who normally honor their
obligations, but find it too burdensome and costly to do business with
VA. Finally, VA is petitioning for the right to bill Medicare for NSC
treatment to Medicare-eligible veterans. The Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) has very stringent claims filing requirements as
well as regulatory compliance standards. VA must soon correct many of
its revenue cycle deficiencies in order to qualify for Medicare
billing.
Given these circumstances, we recommend the following action
milestones for VA to initiate both transformational and transactional
improvements to the its revenue cycle operations. These milestones
should be implemented in a cascading manner in order to produce maximum
results.
MILESTONES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timing Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately.............................. Comply with established MCCR
program requirements and
standards
Immediately.............................. Announce an aggressive
revenue streams follow-up
initiative (completed)
Winter 1998.............................. Create VISN Revenue Cycle
Teams (in process)
Early Spring 1998........................ Train VISN Revenue Cycle
Teams, each plan VISN-wide
initiatives (in process)
Spring-Fall 1998......................... Deploy Teams to medical
centers
Summer 1998.............................. Report progress to
Undersecretary for Health
Summer-Fall 1998......................... Realize quick-hit revenue
opportunities
Fall/Winter 1998......................... Redesign VISN and medical
center revenue cycle
operations
Winter 1999.............................. Implement Universal Billing
System, Reasonable Charges,
other national revenue
initiatives
Continuous............................... Negotiate preferred provider,
sharing, other revenue
generating contracts
Spring 1999.............................. Internally franchise and/or
contract appropriate revenue
processes
Year 2000................................ Implement MEO
Year 2002................................ Achieve 30/20/10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
medicare subvention
Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you want to
proceed in more detail, and I am going to yield that to you. I
know there is a series of followup questions.
In the minutes I have before I need to depart, I think we
need to know more about this and I do know that ultimately VA
wants Medicare subvention to pay at least 10 percent. We have a
whole lot of infrastructure issues. We have the computer issues
and so on. But I think we all want to be in alignment with you.
Particularly then, what are the consequences by looking to
Medicare when we are going to be deeply concerned about the
solvency of Medicare? So, while we are looking to you and you
go to Medicare, that is one issue. And the consequences on
Medicare. And then there are the consequences on the collecting
of private insurance which many veterans have. So, I think this
takes more conversation.
processing claims
Mr. West, could you share with me, though, what we are
doing to reduce both the backlog and the time to apply for
benefits, particularly in the area of disability?
Mr. West. Well, the process is at a point where, in
addition to trying to reduce the time, we are also trying to
pay attention to the accuracy of the processing of the benefit
claims, Senator, because otherwise it takes twice as long.
There has been retraining. There has been an effort to have the
processors take what I will call lifetime responsibility for
the claim. Instead of it proceeding along a sort of an assembly
line effort----
Senator Mikulski. Some take a lifetime to process.
Mr. West [continuing]. From one person to another, we ask
the same person to be responsible for all parts of processing
the claim. That allows us to have accountability. It is like
the independent calendar for a judge. But it also allows that
processor to take responsibility.
If I might ask Joe Thompson, our Under Secretary for
Benefits, to say a little more about the details of exactly
what we are doing. Would that be helpful?
Mr. Thompson. Senator Mikulski, there are a couple of
things in the short term that are impacting our ability to get
faster in a hurry. No. 1, is the business process
reengineering, which is a complete restructuring of the
regional office and the way they do business. That has an
impact because the same people that process claims are now
undergoing fundamental shifts. That is a transitory thing but
it takes roughly 1 year for one regional office to complete
that process.
The second thing--and this is past, but we still feel some
of the residue of it--are the additional reviews for gulf war
cases which were injected into the system through most of last
year. That was a resource drain on the claims processing
system.
And the third thing--and this is more of a long-range
problem--is that the data was not as accurate as it could have
been. We have begun to insist that regional offices report
things exactly as they are, and that has been reflected in a
higher count. Now, I do not think it is reflected in more time
to process the claim, but the counts themselves are higher
although I think they are more accurate than they were.
As we have gone through this and tried to get these claims
done more quickly, we have also found that in some cases we
have tried to do them too quickly because we have a serious
quality problem. When we reconstructed our quality review
program late last year and focused exclusively on disability
evaluation type claims, our core business process, we found
that the error rate was 36 percent. It is totally unacceptable.
Senator Mikulski. Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson. So, we are trying to push a lot through, and
in the process of doing that, we are running into a quality
problem.
As the Secretary mentioned, one of the keystones of what we
are trying to do is put in place a series of measures that do
not just look exclusively at how fast you are doing things.
They also look at the quality with which you do it and how
veterans feel about it, customer satisfaction, at the real
costs of doing that business, and also how employees are
developing in this process. Those five measures combined, we
call a balanced scorecard.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we look forward to getting actually
progress reports on this.
Mr. Thompson. Exactly.
Senator Mikulski. Again, we would like to talk in more
detail.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy of letting me go
first, and I will submit additional questions for the record.
Thank you very much.
processing compensation claims
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
While we are talking about veterans' benefits, the original
estimate for fiscal year 1998 for processing compensation
claims was 106 days. I understand the current estimate is about
150.
Talking about the quality problem, I understand that
remands from the Board of Veterans Appeals continue to be very
high, about 44 percent, which does emphasize the quality
question.
Are these facts accurate in your opinion?
Mr. Thompson. Those are correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Given that it is currently taking about 150
days to process an original compensation claim, do you really
believe that VA can meet its goal of 53 days by 2002?
Mr. Thompson. Not at the rate we are proceeding, no, I do
not.
vba's road map to excellence
Senator Bond. In a draft VBA report, Road Map to
Excellence, it notes there has not been a consistent sense of
urgency, of the need to change the way VBA does business. Mr.
Thompson, can we count on you to bring that sense of urgency
and get us into the 21st century?
Mr. Thompson. Yes; you can, Mr. Chairman. I certainly feel
it myself and I would say anyone within striking distance of me
will feel it equally as well. We have asked a number of people,
close to 100 in total now, that work within VBA to get engaged
in improving this system. We have one-half century old business
process, and it served our Nation well for many years, from the
Second World War to the present, but it does not work any
longer. To bring about the change we need, we absolutely need
that sense of urgency, and I promise you I will convey it.
processing tobacco-related claims
Senator Bond. I hope to be back here again and talk with
you next year at this time and we will be following up.
If legislation is not enacted disallowing tobacco related
claims, how much additional funding do you need both for fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to process such claims?
Mr. West. Let me say a word about that, Mr. Chairman, if I
might, before Joe tries to answer. Obviously we have not made a
calculation to that on the assumption that the legislation
would pass, so that there is nothing in our budget or in our 5-
year projection that shows the FTE's and the cost of those
FTE's. There is also nothing in our budget for the projection
that shows the cost of additional medical care that would
result from a determination of service-connected disability.
I think that if one assumes that the $17 billion savings
assumes about one-half million claims and for about every 1,000
claims or so--this is not the kind of calculating my folks want
me to do. They would like to take a little more time on it, but
if you assume what I understand to be the working assumption
that it will take about 6 FTE's for each additional 1,000 of
these claims, I think you begin to see rather quickly that we
get up to a sizable number of FTE's and the dollars to support
them. I think that is before you consider the additional kinds
of infrastructure and support needed as well.
Joe?
Mr. Thompson. A real ball park figure would be about $5
million for every 10,000 claims.
Senator Bond. $5 million for every----
Mr. Thompson. Every 10,000 claims.
Senator Bond. There are about 500,000 claims. You are
talking about 50 times that?
Mr. Thompson. Correct. That is over 5 years.
Senator Bond. A 5-year cost? If my math is correct, $250
million over 5 years.
Mr. Thompson. Correct.
Senator Bond. OK.
reducing patient costs
Let me go back to the bigger question, Mr. Secretary. I
noted the goals where you seem to be on track, but the
objective of reducing per-patient cost by 30 percent by 2002--
do you believe there continues to be enough inefficiency in the
system that VA can, with no increase in appropriations, provide
quality care and still increase the number of patients served?
Mr. West. I think we can accomplish the goal of not just
maintaining care at the right level, but increasing the
quality. In fact, I think realizing these efficiencies is
essential to that.
To the specific question of is there room for those
improvements to be made, I am going to ask Dr. Kizer to respond
on the efficiencies.
Dr. Kizer. Senator Bond, I would just comment that many of
the efforts that are underway to produce efficiencies are also
directed at improving quality. I think health care is not
unlike a number of other activities where high quality costs
less. I also think that what we will see as a result of a
number of efforts, that are directed at improving the quality
of care, is, as a side effect if you will, reduced costs. So, I
actually feel considerable confidence in the ability to get to
that 30-percent reduced expenditure per patient over the next 4
or 5 years.
processing tobacco-related claims
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Dr. Kizer.
I just wanted to say that we are very pleased, at my
request, to have the Budget Committee chairman drop by. I just
wanted to fill him in briefly on the tobacco claims, the
tobacco program. The Department of Veterans Affairs has not
included a request for funding which would--just to process the
claims would be about $250 million over 5 years. So, that is
not included in the budget request.
We have in the VA some very bold statements about how we
can serve more patients more effectively at less cost and stay
within the numbers. So, in your continuing drive to make sure
that we get the most for our money, we have the promise of
these very able and distinguished representatives of the
Department of Veterans Affairs that they are going to be doing
that job.
I stated earlier that some of the assumptions in the budget
were that research would come out of the tobacco settlement,
which we know it will not. So, we are going to have to do some
things to restructure the normal revenues to make sure that VA
is taken care of.
I appreciate your great interest in this subject. I know
you have other committee hearings to attend, but this is such
an important area, I do appreciate your dropping by.
Senator Domenici. Well, Senator, let me just comment and
not take the time of the professionals who are here and the
Secretary. All of us within our distinctive value system insist
that we take care of our veterans, and one of the most
important aspects of it is the VA hospital system and the care
it gives the veterans.
Frankly, we all know that there is lots of pressure
everywhere on anything that is health related, and as the
demographics of the Nation change, they change for you all too.
We know what those demographics are going to do to Medicare. We
know what it is going to do to Social Security 10, 15, 20 years
out. We are going to have a bulge that is very, very big, and
you are going to have added number of very, very old veterans
obviously that are going to be coming along.
We want to do our share in the budget process, but
ultimately it is left up to people like this chairman heading
this subcommittee to work with Chairman Stevens to get an
appropriate allocation from the total budget pie for what they
have to do, and then do some real magic because it is very hard
for people to understand how this committee has to pit veterans
against space----
Senator Bond. The environment is where we keep getting
beaten up.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. If they get $20 billion, $40
billion, $50 billion for their entire appropriations, then he
has to do the balancing between these very tough competitive
issues.
But that is the way it is in the appropriations process. Do
not ask me why. It is not terribly rational, but any
alternative is not so easy either because if you try to put
certain items all alone in the appropriation bill, sometimes
they do not get treated as well as they do when they are in a
bigger committee with more exchanges and tradeoffs available.
But, Senator, thanks for all you are doing and we look
forward to working with you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We very
much appreciate your interest and concern in this area. I know
of your longstanding commitment. We are delighted to have your
concern.
access to care
Returning to the question, Mr. Secretary, the Veterans
Health Administration has downsized over 20,000 employees, and
I just would ask you or Dr. Kizer, is the work force downsizing
adversely affecting access, the needed care or the quality of
care, and what actions have you taken to ensure that the
quality and access are not compromised? The reason I ask this,
we have heard some complaints that we will be forwarding to
you. Some of the referral systems may not be working as well as
they could. What is your overall assessment of that?
Mr. West. Well, I would note at the outset, Mr. Chairman,
that, of course, we are reaching more veterans, 134,000 more.
We are reaching them in more places. Outpatient clinics
continue to open. My impression from my brief visits--I have
already been out to, I think, three or four in the brief time I
have been here--is that we are getting good reports.
But specifically let me ask Dr. Kizer to respond more fully
to you.
Senator Bond. Please, Dr. Kizer?
Dr. Kizer. I would reaffirm what the Secretary has said, is
that last year we treated more patients than the VA has ever
treated in the past. That would suggest, at least as one
barometer, that access is getting better.
As you know, over the last 2 years, we have sited or are in
the process of siting now close to 200 new community-based
clinics, and I might add for no additional cost to the
taxpayer, all from redirected savings.
I would also note that the quality of care, as measured by
the same indices that are used in the private sector, has shown
unprecedented improvements. Indeed, I can say, for example, on
the health plan employee data and information set [HEDIS]
measures that are commonly used, that on the comparable
measures of VA and non-VA providers, that the VA is not only
consistently and uniformly above or higher than what is
provided in the private sector, but on most measures markedly
higher than what is provided in the private sector.
So, I think that if you look at the numbers, not only has
access improved substantially, but quality has improved
substantially as well.
As far as the number of people or staff, as you know, for
many years Congress and the budget specified a particular
number of individuals that the VA had to employ, and it has
only been in the last couple of years that we have actually
built our budgets up from the ground determining, based on
local input, what the right number of employees would be to
provide that care. I think that you are seeing that reflected
in the numbers of staff that are currently on board.
Senator Bond. It certainly makes sense.
closing medical facilities
Let me turn to another issue, broader issue. I requested
the General Accounting Office last year to look into whether
four VA hospitals were really needed in Chicago to provide
medical services. I trust you have seen this draft report in
which they said VA could effectively serve the Chicago veterans
with three hospitals and save some $200 million over 10 years
in reduced operation and maintenance costs.
It seems clear at some point that the VA must close
hospitals in order really to reduce the cost. As the provision
of services on an ambulatory basis increases, it gets
increasingly difficult to justify the number of inpatient
facilities VA operates today.
What is the position of the VA with respect to GAO's
conclusion to close one hospital, and does VA have any long-
range plans to close hospitals and other facilities?
Mr. West. Mr. Chairman, I have something to say on both of
these. I am not sure, but Dr. Kizer may want to be more
specific in his reaction to the GAO report.
Let me say that with respect to the specific recommendation
of closing the hospital in Chicago, we do not have any plans to
go close a hospital. Indeed--and this now goes to the long-
range plans--as I read the efforts that have been underway in
VHA, the emphasis is on needed or unneeded hospital beds. The
question is making the best use of the resources we have,
looking at what we need to do to in place outpatient clinics.
Will there some day be a closure of hospitals? I am not in
a position to say that. I am in a position to say we will
continue very carefully to examine hospital beds, and where
they are unneeded or unused, we will close those. We are using
the centers in different ways. We are trying to be more
flexible, give ourselves more flexibility to accommodate the
needs. As you know, we are opening the outpatient clinics.
Let me, let my expert say a word on that. Otherwise, my
amateur explanation will be the only one on the record.
Dr. Kizer. It is a good one.
Mr. West. OK, then we will go with it. [Laughter.]
No, go ahead.
Dr. Kizer. The GAO report, as you probably noticed, while
they came to that conclusion, really only looked at the two
institutions, Westside and Lakeside, and they I think even
acknowledged, if not in writing, certainly verbally that they
really did not assess the other two institutions there. So, we
have had this discussion with them.
We agree with them that we can provide care with fewer
hospital beds, and the real issue is with the assets we have
there--how do we get the best return on investment. We do not
believe that the GAO report provides a complete enough
evidentiary base to come to any conclusions. However, our take
on it is to actually do a more thorough assessment. We expect
to engage a consulting firm to actually look at the total array
of assets in that area and come up with some recommendations
for us.
Senator Bond. Gentlemen, you have been doing an excellent
job of rationalizing the system of care. Obviously, closing a
hospital, wherever it is, is a political hot potato, and
unfortunately, I see a little bit of dancing rather than a
willingness to take this head on. I agree that you have to look
at your asset base, the utilization of those assets, but the
GAO report does suggest and common sense would indicate and in
a time when we are moving to more outpatient care, there may be
some big, old hospitals in the system that need to be shut down
or converted to another, better use.
I am asking you not to short circuit the analysis, but by
next year, assuming we are all still here, give us an answer as
to your plans to do the big slice and cut off unneeded
hospitals or other facilities wherever they are needed.
Mr. West. Senator, I come from an institution that has
closed facilities all over the world. I will not shy away from
that if we have to.
Senator Bond. Closing a veterans' hospital is not easy.
Mr. West. But it is an emotional thing.
Senator Bond. Oh, clearly.
Mr. West. And for us, much more importantly, it is a
question of the flexibility. Right now our attention is focused
on beds.
Senator Bond. And I agree. I applaud you for going in that
direction, but I notice because of the sensitivity, there is
some reluctance to take the big step. I am suggesting that to
continue on your path, you had best look at that, and the GAO
gives us a general guideline.
veterans equitable resource allocation
Let me move quickly through some other questions. If you
want to answer more fully for the record, do that.
But under the resource allocation system, the funds are
distributed based on workload. We are hearing from other
sectors that there are in managed care some tradeoffs between
quality of care and the need to increase numbers of patients
treated and the size of budget allocations. How are you
ensuring that that does not happen in VA?
Dr. Kizer. Let me respond to that because I think those
concerns--and I have also heard them--miss a few really basic
and important points. We are measured by how well we provide
care. We do not pay shareholders. If we increase patients, we
do not get any increased funds for it unlike in the private
sector. The more patients you recruit, the more premiums you
get and the better you do fiscally. That whole financial
dynamic does not apply in the VA. Whenever more patients are
treated, we are treating them out of the same appropriation
with perhaps some increased revenues from third party
reimbursement, but all those go back into taking care of more
patients.
There is a fundamentally different financial dynamic at
play in the VA, and I think that changes the implementation and
practicality of some of those same principles. I do not think
many of the people who have voiced those concerns have thought
through the situation fully and understand that whatever we do
as far as savings, all that does is go back into care for more
patients or doing a better job of taking care of current
patients. It is a fundamentally different financial dynamic.
Mr. West. I would add something else, and that is
throughout this process, especially VERA, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, Dr. Kizer and the VHA have built in protections. If
there were an indication that at a particular VISN has a
special need for resources beyond those allocated, to assure
quality VHA will intervene. So, we have a fail-safe. VHA has
maintained a reserve.
Second, I would say we talk about savings because we have
said that we expect to realize savings in terms of being able
to finance health care in the future. But, in fact, this is
about effective management of a system, of a center, of
outpatient clinics, of VISN's. Effectively managed, better
managed facilities give better health care.
Senator Bond. Bringing more users into the system, how are
you ensuring that the new users are the ones most in need of
the services?
Dr. Kizer. Well, again under VERA, the only funds that will
be appropriated are for category A users. There is a priority,
if you will, to bring in the service connected or the poor
veteran.
Now, the strategy of bringing in the higher income veterans
who may come with some revenues we think is really a win-win in
the sense that we think, for example, with Medicare, that we
can provide care to those dual-eligible Medicare/VA
beneficiaries cheaper than their care can be provided in the
private sector--indeed, that is why we have agreed to that
being part of the law--but still provide enough margin that we
can use that to take care of more category A veterans.
So, the net effect should be not only a benefit to the
Medicare trust fund, but also a benefit in that we can take
care of more of those poor veterans who are not going to get
care otherwise.
Senator Bond. I appreciate your description of the
utilization of available resources. I was a little bit stunned
to see a copy of the letter from one veterans hospital. It
probably has already been brought to your attention. The
letters went to local businesses encouraging them to send their
employees who were veterans to the VA for drug testing,
background screening, flu shots, and the like.
The letter said, ``We would like to help you find ways to
keep your money in your business where it belongs.'' They
listed the outpatient clinic services with a really stunning
statement that said, ``Please consider what you are currently
spending for these services. For eligible veterans, these
services will cost you nothing.''
Now, we want to make sure that everybody who needs service
gets it, but do we need to be telling businesses to stop
providing services so we can build our body count in VA? Would
you like to comment on that practice, Dr. Kizer?
Dr. Kizer. Since that letter was brought to our attention,
we have had some discussion with the individual involved and
have hopefully oriented his thinking.
I think whenever you encourage people to be entrepreneurial
and innovative and do things differently--and we certainly
appreciate your support in encouraging that dynamic in the VA--
that can be manifested in a number of ways, some of which need
guidance before it gets operationalized.
Senator Bond. I think that is a good idea. [Laughter.]
monitoring workload increases
In the testimony that GAO presented for the record last
year, they said, ``We are concerned that some networks may be
inappropriately increasing their workload numbers to get more
resources under VERA. Networks may be increasing workload by
increasing the number of one-visit patients.''
I know that this is an anecdotal--I hope this is the one
anecdote, but how are you monitoring workload increases
throughout the system to make sure there are not similar
problems?
Dr. Kizer. Basically we are looking at the workload,
looking at the numbers, as well as what the utilization of
services are by those veterans. Insofar as VERA is predicated
on an historical 3-year user base, whatever may have occurred
and triggered the specific response by GAO last year, there is
time to look at it and adjust accordingly. That is part of what
we are doing right now as we look at VERA in fiscal year 1999,
what the impact and actual subsequent utilization by some of
those individuals will be.
Senator Bond. Do you see any danger? Do you have any
concern of over-enrolling veterans, promising care to more
veterans than you have resources for? Do you have some
mechanism to ensure that the networks do not overenroll and
that you still will have sufficient resources available?
Dr. Kizer. A couple of things I would say. Concern. Yes,
there is always concern certainly in this agency or in
Government in general.
One of the reasons why we are doing what has been
characterized by some as a, quote/unquote, dry run with the
eligibility this year is to actually inform us so that, when we
go on line in October 1998, that we will have a pretty good
assessment of exactly what the numbers will be and how far down
the statutory priority list we can reasonably go.
Having said that, I would also note, as the Secretary
commented a moment ago, that we also maintain a reserve at
headquarters, and each network is required to maintain a
reserve, 2 percent of their operating budget. So, there are
some mechanisms built into the system that should expenditures
exceed projections, as we move through the year, there are some
ways of dealing with the problem.
Senator Bond. The good news is we are going through the
long list of questions to see those which do not need to be
asked here. The bad news is we intend still to ask them for the
record.
But thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Secretary, do you wish to make a comment?
medical research
Mr. West. I just wanted to note one thing for the record,
Mr. Chairman. You have expressed several times about our
research program and how it will be funded. I think I
particularly owe you an apology since in my written testimony I
refer to the increase in research funds as being part of the
President's fund for research and thus in some way tied to more
unsure sources. In fact, our request for $300 million in our
budget is a request for an appropriation that does not change
with respect to how that works. This is a part of our regular
budget request to you.
Senator Bond. We intend to work to get everything we can to
do that. I was delighted to see--the figures that I saw show
the NIH grants going up from $220 million to $250 million.
Mr. West. Yes, sir.
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski and I believe very strongly
that the research component is vitally important, not only for
the direct benefits or the research, but for the caliber, the
quality of physicians and health care providers that it
attracts to the VA.
Additional committee questions
I thank you, Mr. Secretary, gentlemen. It is good to see an
old friend again, Togo. Glad to work with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
veterans health administration staff reductions
Question. For fiscal year 1998, VHA will be cutting its workforce
4,317 FTE more than originally planned for fiscal year 1998. How much
are you saving as a result of these additional staff reductions, and
what is VA doing with the savings? For fiscal year 1999, VHA projects
additional staffing reductions of 2,589 FTE, according to the budget
justification. Is it expected that VHA will, in fact, reduce staffing
more than 2,589 estimated in the budget?
Answer. The reengineering of our VA healthcare system has resulted
in improved service delivery and improved quality through shifting from
inpatient to more clinically appropriate care settings. In doing so,
the VISN's have retailored their workforce. Since 1994, VHA staffing
has been reduced by 11 percent. During the same time it has treated
more patients than ever before (including 8 percent more psychiatric/
substance abuse patients and 19 percent more homeless patients), and
VA's quality of care has dramatically improved. VISN's have placed
continued emphasis on reaching strategic management improvement
targets, which include reducing per patient costs and increasing
workload. The impact on FTE exceeded original budget estimates for both
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. Reflecting the field's latest
spending patterns, the revised estimate for fiscal year 1998 moves $177
million originally estimated in personal services to other operating
costs areas such as drugs and medicines, communications, prosthetic
appliances, equipment and maintenance. In developing the fiscal year
1999 estimate, we took this into consideration, and, at this time,
stand by our budgeted estimate for FTE. We do not know when the total
employment will level out, although we do expect improvements to
continue and healthcare delivery to change in the future. Because of
the 5-year straightlined appropriation, we can and must increase our
reliance on alternative revenues in the future. As we progress through
this 5-year period, it is anticipated that the changes will become more
predictable. So, for the next year or two, we believe our budget
distributions, although estimated as precisely as possible at the time,
are likely to change.
veterans equitable resource allocation (vera)
Question. Fiscal year 1998 is the first full year of implementation
of the new resource allocation system, VERA. In some networks there are
concerns about the adequacy of resources, as network budgets may
decline as much as 5 percent. Do the ``hard-hit'' networks have
adequate plans in place to accommodate the proposed budgetary
reductions for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. VHA has a strategic planning process. Each network receives
budget projections that form the basis for planning. Networks use this
information to formulate plans for the target year as well as future
years. VHA expects to release projected network allocations for fiscal
year 1999 in June 1998 so that networks have ample opportunity to
adjust their plans. For fiscal year 1998, VHA has taken several steps
to cushion the impact of funding shifts. In addition to capping the
amount of funds shifted out of a particular network, the Under
Secretary for Health has retained a reserve and has required that each
network maintain a reserve so that networks or facilities that are
``hard-hit'' can continue to meet patient care obligations. For fiscal
year 1998, all Network Directors have indicated that, with the release
of the reserve, their networks will be financially able to implement
their plan for the current fiscal year.
Question. What is VA doing to address concerns that VERA may not be
an equitable method of allocating resources, and what ``fine-tuning''
of the model is anticipated for the future?
Answer. First, GAO has conducted an extensive review of VERA. Their
September 1997 report stated that ``* * * VERA allocates more
comparable amounts of resources to the 22 networks for VA health
services users * * * than the resource allocation process it replaced''
and VERA ``improves equity of regional allocations''. Secondly, the
Under Secretary for Health has taken steps to ensure that VERA is a
sound basis for allocating VHA's healthcare resources and to refine the
methodology for future years. In this regard, the Chief Financial
Officer has retained Price Waterhouse LLP to evaluate whether VERA is
sound and is meeting its stated objectives. The contractor has
presented a final draft report to the Under Secretary for Health.
Findings indicate that: VERA's conceptual underpinnings are sound;
VERA's methodological underpinnings are sound; and overall, VERA is
meeting its specified objectives. Price Waterhouse made several
recommendations concerning technical and process issues and offered
suggestions for immediate and long-term improvements. VHA is reviewing
these recommendations in tandem with recommendations put forth by
several workgroups that will ``fine-tune'' the VERA model for fiscal
year 1999 and beyond.
Question. Will the current VERA model be used for allocating
resources in 2000 and beyond?
Answer. VHA plans to use the VERA model for allocating resources to
the 22 networks in 2000 and beyond and will continue to make necessary
adjustments and refinements.
Question. In testimony for the record last year, GAO said ``we are
concerned that some networks may be inappropriately increasing their
workload numbers to get more resources under VERA. Networks may be
increasing workload by increasing the number of one-visit patients.''
How are you monitoring workload increases to ensure they reflect
changes that are consistent with VA policy?
Answer. Efforts are ongoing to accurately identify and monitor
workload changes in the various networks across the country. First,
upon the implementation of VERA last April, the Under Secretary for
Health directed that quarterly special care patient workload tracking
be immediately undertaken by the VHA Chief Financial Officer. These
quarterly reports are analyzed to ensure that special care patients are
not being adversely affected by VERA funding shifts. This information
is shared with the Network Directors. Also an analysis was conducted on
the number of basic care patients that used the VA once during a 3-year
period fiscal year 1994-1996. The analysis showed that for this 3 year
period, there is little variation among networks from the average
number of single encounters and the number of single encounters seem to
have little bearing on VERA funding shifts for the fiscal year 1998
network allocations.
Question. How do you ensure that networks have a common
understanding of VA wide goals and legislative requirements?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Health has widely distributed
throughout VA, and to various stakeholders, several publications that
present goals and legislative requirements, for example, ``Vision for
Change'', ``Prescription for Change'', and ``Journey of Change.'' Goals
and requirements are also disseminated via regular system-wide
conference calls, monthly Network Director meetings, and through Policy
Board issuance, directives, and performance measures.
Question. What is the key information that VA headquarters receives
concerning network activities to identify problems or potential
problems?
Answer. VHA has established a performance-based measurement system
in which all Network Directors are held accountable for specific
performance measures. These measures address factors, such as cost,
access, quality, customer satisfaction, patient functional status,
workforce development, and research. These measures have been
incorporated in Network Directors' performance agreements for fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. This measurement system is designed to
assure that VHA provide quality service, in the most appropriate
setting, and in a cost efficient manner. The measures are monitored on
a quarterly basis. As an example of the type of information that VHA
Headquarters tracks, the results for 1997 show a reduction of 29
percent in acute bed days of care per 1,000 users and a decline in
operating beds of 21 percent along with an occupancy rate of 78
percent.
Question. What steps is VA taking to ensure that networks allocate
resources to facilities so that veterans have equitable access to care?
Answer. While VERA is a mechanism to allocate the Medical Care
budget to the 22 networks, the Under Secretary for Health has also
issued guidance to the Network Directors regarding resource allocations
to facilities. A VHA Directive, published in October 1997, establishes
that the allocation of resources at all levels should be guided by
principles that move the organization toward accomplishing its system-
wide goals and objectives. Network allocation systems must incorporate
these principles:
--Be readily understandable and result in predictable allocations.
--Support high quality healthcare delivery in the most appropriate
setting.
--Support integrated patient-centered operations.
--Provide incentives to ensure continued delivery of appropriate
special care.
--Support the goal of improving access to care.
--Provide adequate support for the VA's research and education
missions.
--Be consistent with eligibility requirements and priorities.
--Be consistent with the network's strategic plans and initiatives.
--Promote managerial flexibility and innovation.
--Encourage increases in alternative revenue collections.
The networks have used these principles in providing fiscal year
1998 allocations below the network level.
Question. Inspector General audits have found that key data in VA
in financial and management systems is often erroneous, including
inconsistent or inaccurate reporting of such basic information as
patients treated in VA medical centers. Allocation of resources under
the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) model is
fundamentally workload based. Given the history of inaccurate workload
reporting, and the potential that hospital management may exaggerate or
inflate workload reports to obtain additional funding, has VHA
established controls to ensure they have accurate data?
Answer. We have had an ongoing data validation process under the
VERA system that is being strengthened with the establishment of a new
technical data integrity workgroup for the fiscal year 1999 VERA
allocation process to validate the VERA workload and expenditures in
the 22 networks. This work group comprises members from various
networks and facilities across the country. We have no indication that
medical center management is exaggerating or inflating workload reports
to obtain additional funding. We acknowledge that our data is not
perfect and we are constantly working to make data validity
improvements for a credible resource allocation process.
Question. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system
allocates funds based on two prices--a basic price and a special care
price. The special care rate--which was about $35,000 last year--is
provided for a number of categories, including long-term care. Yet VA
cannot care for veterans in VA or community nursing homes at this rate.
I understand that as a result, in some areas access to nursing home
care has been reduced. Do you believe the VERA model adequately
addresses the need for long-term care services?
Answer. The VERA model itself is not causing a reduction in access
to nursing home care. In the fiscal year 1998 VERA process, the
national price for Special Care is $36,960 per patient per year. There
are 29 special care workload classifications in the VERA model,
including several classes that have long-term care patients in them.
The fiscal year 1996 expenditures per patient for the 29 special care
classes ranged from a low of $15,161 for AIDS Category III to a high of
$246,916 for Heart/Lung Transplants. Under VERA, resources are
allocated to the twenty-two networks and system-wide the aggregate
funding is adequate to meet the special care needs of the veterans who
use the VA healthcare system. As VHA continues to review and refine
VERA, appropriate study and consideration will be given to adjustments
in workload classifications and/or workload pricing in the Special Care
component, as well as the Basic Care component of the VERA model.
long-term care for veterans
Question. What is VA's strategy to ensure adequate capacity for
long-term care as the need for nursing home care for veterans
increases? VA's long-term care spending represents about 13 percent of
VA health care expenditures. Is this adequate to meet the long-term
care needs of Category A veterans who seek VA nursing care?
Answer. In November 1996, VA established the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Future of VA Long-Term Care to make recommendations to
the Under Secretary for Health on the issues raised in this question.
The Committee has completed a comprehensive review of VA's extended
care programs and has studied the alternatives for meeting the
increasing care needs of the aging, chronically ill and disabled
veteran populations. Presently, the Committee is finalizing its report,
which will be issued next month. Following a broad study and review of
the Committee report by VA stakeholders, the department will be able to
outline a national policy for all long-term care services.
unique patients
Question. VA underestimated the number of patients who would be
served in fiscal year 1997 by 200,000. Also for fiscal year 1998, it
appears more veterans will be treated than originally anticipated. How
did VA manage to increase patients 7 percent above the estimate? How
were the patient increases financed?
Answer. The actual number of unique patients in fiscal year 1997
increased by 205,000 over the original estimate for fiscal year 1997.
More than 91,000 of the 205,000 increase represented an improvement in
our ability to count unique patients. For the first time, the fiscal
year 1997 actual count includes CHAMPVA--40,000--and Readjustment
Counseling--51,000--patients not previously counted. Now the patient
count is more in line with the dollars for these programs which have
always been included in the budget. The remaining increase of 114,000
patients is mainly due to increased primary care patients treated on an
outpatient basis. Savings generated from faster than anticipated
inpatient care reductions and shifted to more clinically appropriate
care settings have financed the increase in primary care patients.
healthcare enrollment system
Question. VA is in the process of developing an enrollment system.
Apparently there is a great deal of confusion as to what enrollment
will mean. Some veterans believe they could lose their eligibility for
health care benefits if they do not enroll by October 1st. Could you
explain VA's enrollment system, and whether any veterans will lose care
if they don't sign up by October 1, 1998?
Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is required by law
to establish an enrollment system for health-care services to be in
place by October 1, 1998. While most veterans must be enrolled to
receive care, it does not mean that veterans who have not applied for
enrollment by that date will lose their eligibility for VA health care.
Veterans can apply and be enrolled at the time they are in need of VA
health care. Veterans who have received VA health-care services since
October 1, 1996, will have an application processed automatically on
their behalf. The ``rolling enrollment'' system being implemented means
that any veteran can apply for enrollment at any facility at any time
during any year. There is no deadline for applying for enrollment.
Veterans can make application for enrollment at any time that they come
to a VA medical facility for care, even after October 1, 1998. Further
details of the VA enrollment system will be included in proposed VA
Regulations to be published in the near future.
After October 1, 1998, some veterans may still be treated without
being enrolled. Veterans with service-connected disabilities may be
treated for those disabilities, veterans who are rated with 50 percent
or greater disability may be treated for any condition, and veterans
who were discharged or released from active duty for a disability
incurred or aggravated while on active duty may be treated for that
disability within the first 12 months after their discharge.
Question. Is there any danger of over-enrolling veterans next
year--and promising care to more veterans than resources will provide
for? How will you ensure that the networks don't over-enroll and that
sufficient resources are available to serve all enrolled veterans?
Answer. VHA will closely monitor the applications for enrollment
this year and every year thereafter. We will consider a number of
factors, e.g. number of applicants by priorities, their estimated
utilization and expenditures, as well as resources available for their
care. Veterans will be enrolled from the applicants this year starting
with priority one through successive priorities as far as resources
permit. The Under Secretary and Secretary will decide through which
priority veterans will be enrolled nationwide and this will be
announced in the Federal Register each year.
Question. How will the enrollment system be used to ensure that the
highest-priority veterans receive care?
Answer. If resources appear to be short, or unusual demand for
enrollment occurs at times for the higher priorities, VHA will continue
to enroll the higher priority veterans and may not continue enrollment
of the lower priority veterans. VHA will also establish a contingency
fund to cover unpredictable events.
Question. How many veterans have enrolled during the first 6 months
of the enrollment season (October 1997--March 1998)?
Answer. No veterans have been formally enrolled as yet. VHA has
been accepting enrollment applications since October 1, 1997. VHA is
currently analyzing information on applications for a report to
Congress due April 30, 1998. Veterans will be enrolled beginning in
June.
Question. Will VA use priority group status to turn away enrolled
veterans if VA determines during fiscal year 1999 that resources are
insufficient to serve all enrolled veterans?
Answer. VA does not plan to turn away enrolled veterans for care.
Once enrolled, veterans will be provided the same comprehensive range
of services. If resources become constrained or increased new demand by
higher priority veterans occurs, VA may not continue enrollment of the
lower priority veterans. VA expects to give veterans 60 days notice
before their enrollment is terminated.
worker's compensation in the department of veterans affairs
Question. At about $140 million per year, VA has the second largest
expenditure of all government departments for worker compensation. What
efforts are being made to substantially decrease the amounts paid and
get undeserving or fraudulent recipients off the rolls and thus make
more money available for medical care?
Answer. While VA's expenditures for workers' compensation are
larger than those of most other government departments, it should be
noted that VA's costs are consistent with its larger number of
employees.
VA shares the concerns of Congress and has for many years
aggressively pursued reductions in the cost of workers' compensation.
VA's OWCP costs and the number of cases receiving compensation have
decreased each year since 1994. In 1994, we had 18,054 cases at a cost
of $145.5 million; in 1995, 17,339 cases at a cost of $143 million; in
1996, 16,514 cases at a cost of $140.7 million; and in 1997, 15,724
cases at a cost of $136.6 million. This is a decrease of nearly $9
million and 2,330 cases in 3 years.
This decline is attributable to aggressive pursuit of cost
awareness in the form of charging the expense back to the employing
facilities rather than funding the payments centrally; extensive
training of field site personnel in detecting the warning signs of
fraud and abuse; and better, more timely information through VA's WC/
Safety Tracker (a computerized tracking and management information
system).
VA's WC/Safety Tracker is recognized as one of the best OWCP/Safety
tracking systems available and has been purchased by GSA, NASA, DOJ,
and the Army Medical Command. The Army Medical Command alone operates
approximately 170 medical centers. Other Federal agencies have also
expressed an interest in purchasing the system.
A comprehensive workers' compensation training program is conducted
quarterly for 40 students per session at VA's Little Rock Education
Center. This 40-hour seminar consists of face-to-face training with
expert faculty from VA Central Office, DOL, and field facilities.
Additionally, on-site training is also provided to various employing
facilities for managers and supervisors.
third-party collections
Question. VA's budget depends heavily on the collection of third-
party payments, estimated to total $677 million in fiscal year 1999.
For fiscal year 1998, VA is behind estimates by 10 percent. Do you
stand behind your fiscal year 1998 and 1999 estimates?
Answer. Yes. VA believes it will meet recovery targets for these
years. It is expected that the 10 percent will be collected in later
quarters.
Question. What will happen if you do not meet your targets in
fiscal year 1999--is there any danger that VA will not be able to care
for the number of veterans you have projected, or that quality will
suffer?
Answer. VA will be closely monitoring the collections in fiscal
year 1999. If at any time we do not believe that we will reach these
goals, we will take immediate action to notify, and work with, the
Administration and the Congress to ensure that adequate funding is
provided for the healthcare of our nation's veterans.
Question. According to GAO, reaching your long-term collection
goals will be difficult for a number of reasons--including VA's
increasing reliance on less-costly outpatient care, and veterans
increased enrollment in HMO's, from which VA cannot recover costs.
Further, GAO found that VA was unable to provide an analytical basis
for its recovery projections. How can we have confidence in VA's
ability to recover these costs?
Answer. GAO completed their review in July 1997. GAO's analysis is
largely based on reviewing bills from fiscal year 1996. Since that
time, VHA has made a great deal of progress toward the goals of
implementing efficiencies. Physician education, and strengthened
utilization review of patient care procedures based on healthcare
industry standards will help to reduce the cost of care by 30 percent.
The result of increased efficiency is that fewer claims are denied by
insurers as inappropriate. Also, the Networks are placing greater
emphasis on appealing denied claims.
VA is also pursuing Medicare remittance advice, which will provide
adjudicated claims to supplemental carriers.
With respect to HMO's, VHA is placing emphasis on providing a
seamless continuum of care through better integration of VA resources
and strategic alliances allowing VHA to participate as a provider in
other health care systems. In addition, traditional HMO's recently
began offering their enrollees point of service contracts allowing
enrollees to obtain health care outside the HMO network if the
enrollees agree to bear larger copayments. Aggressive identification
and recovery from these HMO plans is being pursued. VHA is moving
aggressively to become the provider of choice.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) allowed VA to
retain the medical collections formerly returned to Treasury. There is
an important culture change occurring, resulting in increased
motivation to collect. VHA also received authority to implement
reasonable charges. One of the major opportunities for increases in
third-party recoveries resides with the ability to implement billing
rates based on reasonable charges. This will allow market prices for
actual services provided and the development of a Diagnosis Related
Group (DRG)-based per diem rate schedule for inpatient care to be used
with an automated multiple rate schedule pricer. Outpatient procedure
rates are planned for late in fiscal year 1998.
Question. The Inspector General (IG) has issued reports pointing
out that VA is not effectively using the authority it has now for
collections. For example, the IG found in its report on Means Testing
and Income Verification that staff is failing to collect income
information, actually inserting ``zero income'' in many instances to
get workload credit but failing to identify patients who should be
billed for medical care. What actions are you taking to identify
veterans who should be billed and improve your rate of collection?
Answer. Both national and local initiatives are underway to improve
insurance identification. The Networks are implementing efficiencies in
the patient intake process, and utilizing preregistration procedures
developed for nationwide use. VHA is also pursuing data matches of
Medicare and VA records to identify primary payer data.
Question. GAO acknowledged that VA has some initiatives underway to
improve collections, but identified several additional things VA could
do, such as contacting State insurance commissioners to obtain their
help in removing exclusionary clauses in insurance policies that appear
to preclude payment to VA. What are VA's plans to follow GAO's
recommendations?
Answer. In addition to initiatives that we have previously
mentioned are being undertaken, the following responds to other GAO
recommendations with which we agree:
``We believe it now is generally recognized that exclusionary
clauses in private health insurance policies that attempt to
discriminate against Government furnished healthcare are
unenforceable as a matter of law. Therefore, in our view,
removal of such clauses, mostly relics of outmoded practice,
would have no appreciable effect on VA collections.
Nevertheless, we plan on contacting state insurance
commissioners, as GAO recommended, to request their assistance
in a technical ``clean up'' of such policies (other than self-
funded ERISA plans, which are not governed by state law) in
this regard.''
Question. Given that VA's expertise lies in health care, but not in
debt collection, wouldn't it make sense to contract out the collections
function?
Answer. It would appear so at a quick glance. However, this issue
is complex as VA must adhere to rules and regulations the private
sector doesn't have to deal with. Nevertheless, we are currently
evaluating what functions could be effectively done by a contractor.
Question. Has any cost-benefit analysis been performed of
contracting out this activity?
Answer. Recent outsourcing analysis performed by Coopers and
Lybrand indicated that the VA's approach to cost recovery is inherently
sound, but indicated that VA should consider some outsourcing. We are
currently considering these recommendations.
medicare subvention
Question. By 2002, VA's plans are for third-party collections to
increase 75 percent over the fiscal year 1998 estimate, assuming
enactment of authority to collect from Medicare for certain veterans.
How dependent is your goal upon the Medicare ``subvention'' authority
you are seeking?
Answer. VHA's goal is to reach 10 percent of total funding from
alternative revenues by fiscal year 2002. This would include, Medical
Care Cost Collections (principally third party), sharing (VA/DOD,
TRICARE and enhanced sharing) and Medicare subvention. Medicare
subvention is an important part of the strategy to meet the 10 percent
alternative revenue goal. If legislation is not passed or is delayed,
our goal still remains 10 percent by fiscal year 2002, but achieving it
becomes significantly more difficult.
Question. Absent enactment of this proposal, what is VA's
contingency plan for increasing funding?
Answer. We have confidence that Medicare subvention will be
enacted, and that the test will show dual eligible veterans prefer to
come to VA to use their Medicare benefits and that VA will provide
excellent cost-effective healthcare at reduced expenditures to the
Medicare Trust Fund. If not, other revenue alternatives (e.g., VA/DOD
sharing, enhanced sharing, TRICARE and Medical Care Cost Collections)
would need to be expanded further to fill the gap to meet the 10
percent target by fiscal year 2002.
Question. What is the status of Medicare subvention authority, and
can you describe what has been so controversial about this proposal?
Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of
Health and Human Services have prepared and co-signed a Memorandum of
Understanding that will govern the VA Medicare project when it is
authorized. Although enabling legislation has not yet been introduced
in Congress, the VA Under Secretary for Health and members of his staff
are working with Congress, OMB, and HHS in support of legislation to
authorize a Medicare pilot. The Memorandum of Understanding conforms to
the requirements and guidelines contained in legislation which the
Administration submitted last year, and resolves many difficult issues
that could have been obstacles to a successful project. The Agreement
contains an evaluation effort to ensure neither VA nor the Trust Fund
are adversely affected.
Opposition to the VA Medicare project has stemmed primarily from
concerns that it would increase costs to the trust fund. The
controversy appears unfounded to VA, as VA agrees to reimbursement
rates lower than what Medicare pays in the private sector. Therefore,
the Trust Fund will benefit by reducing expenditures for dual eligible
veterans.
Medicare beneficiaries who are veterans are entitled to equity of
access in health care just as non-veteran Medicare beneficiaries. Many
veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities and are not
financially needy are now denied access to VA care because
discretionary funding does not cover the cost of their care. The VA
Medicare program would allow them to use their Medicare benefits to
obtain care in VA. We believe veterans will benefit by having the
freedom of choice.
Question. Given that VA seems to have excess inpatient capacity but
little or no excess outpatient capacity, how will VA ensure that
veterans using VA outpatient facilities are protected from reductions
in services, longer waiting lines, or quality of care problems,
assuming enactment of Medicare subvention authority?
Answer. VA is committed to providing high quality care for all
patients. Waiting times, service capacity, and appropriateness of care
are routinely monitored at all VA facilities and will be closely
monitored at VA Medicare sites as part of the pilot evaluation and to
ensure that high quality is maintained. Additionally, the Medicare
funds collected from providing services to dual eligible veterans may
be used to extend hours of operation, contract for services, or other
enhancements to expand capacity.
primary care accessibility
Question. VA over the past several years has established scores of
new community-based outpatient clinics to improve accessibility of
primary care. GAO has expressed concerns that VA may be currently
improving access for thousands of lower priority new users (non-
service-connected) while thousands of higher priority current users
must wait several years for reasonable geographic access to care.
Networks' business plans and clinic proposals do not contain
information needed to assess these concerns.
Answer. The Veterans' Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 has changed
all the underlying ground rules concerning this issue. There are only
two eligibilities for VHA care: those for whom VA ``shall'' provide
care and those for whom VA ``may'' provide care. Low income non-service
disabled as well as the service-disabled fall into the first category.
Congress has required that VA use specified priorities only to enroll
veterans into the VHA healthcare system should resources be
insufficient to cover all veterans who want to receive VA healthcare
services. An important concept in the new law, which GAO has not
recognized, is that once veterans are enrolled, there is no distinction
now between service-connected or non-service-connected veterans or the
services they receive. All are treated equally. ``Enrollees'' are the
appropriate population for planning services and the community-based
outpatient clinics will improve access for all enrollees.
Question. Does VA have a goal for equalizing veterans' access among
the 22 networks? If so, what is VA's target percent of veterans that
should have reasonable geographic access?
Answer. VA does have a goal to equalize and improve veterans'
access among the 22 networks, although no target percent exists. Under
the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) methodology, VA is
able to meet its goal of treating the greatest number of veterans
having the highest priority for healthcare and allocate funds in an
equitable, understandable and predictable manner. This allocation
methodology corrects past geographic funding imbalances and helps make
sure equitable access to care is available to all eligible veterans
within the overall funding availability. Within their allocations,
VISN's are shifting resources to more clinically appropriate care
settings such as Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC's) and
improving access to care.
consolidated mail outpatient pharmacies (cmop's)
Question. What level of success has VA's Consolidated Mail
Outpatient Pharmacies (CMOP's) initiative had in reducing costs
associated with mailed outpatient medication refills?
Answer. A conservative estimate of raw cost savings for the
physical act of dispensing a mail prescription through CMOP's is $1.50
per prescription. Currently, at a rate of approximately 30 million
annual prescriptions processed through CMOP's, estimated annual savings
are $45 million. The CMOP program has provided VA medical centers the
opportunity to redirect pharmacists to patient centered activities.
Additional cost savings in drug costs and total health care costs have
been and are being achieved through the more efficient and effective
management of individual patient's pharmacotherapy by using clinical
pharmacy specialists as facilitators with other health care providers
and patients in the medication use process. The concept of reinventing
the role of pharmacists (through the use of automated outpatient
dispensing technology) into more direct patient care activities was an
important consideration when the CMOP program was initiated in the
early 1990's.
Question. Has VA's Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacies
initiative met with any reluctance or direct competition by VISN's or
individual VA medical centers, which have adversely affected cost
reductions?
Answer. There has been some reluctance by some VISN's or individual
VA medical centers before those facilities were served by a CMOP. The
VA CMOP program has had to prove the value of the program to VISN's and
individual VA medical centers on a case by case basis and must continue
to demonstrate that value on an ongoing basis. None of the reluctance
has adversely affected cost reductions. In January 1998 the seventh
CMOP became operational; therefore, capacity to process current system-
wide mail prescription workload was finalized. Since the capacity now
exists to process mail prescription workload across the system and
outpatient prescription workload continues to increase due to the shift
from inpatient to outpatient care and new patients entering the system,
facilities, in general, have realized that CMOP's impact positively on
customer service issues such as waiting time at the pharmacy window and
mail processing time. Based on an ongoing analysis of private sector
mail order pharmacy systems, these same facilities also realize that
our average overhead cost of $2.10 per prescription for each
prescription processed by CMOP is substantially less than private
sector rates.
Question. How effective has the mailed refill program been at
providing faster delivery to veterans?
Answer. For the variables that are under the control of the
Veterans Health Administration, CMOP's have been very effective at
reducing mail backlogs at individual VA health care facilities. Each
CMOP monitors, tracks and evaluates mail delivery times routinely. If a
mail delivery time problem occurs, there are software processes, which
can be activated by the medical centers, to allow the CMOP to ``pull''
suspended mail prescriptions ahead of their scheduled release date.
Generally, each CMOP takes approximately 36 hours to process work
received from their participating medical centers. This is not true of
each medical facility (some are greater and some are less on any given
day). The key here is the consistency the CMOP program brings to the
distribution portion of the outpatient prescription process.
Question. How have the successes in automated dispensing of
inpatient medications?
Answer. The use of automated dispensing equipment first began for
inpatient medication. VA tested one of the earliest automated
computerized dispensing systems (Unit Dose) in 1987 to improve the
accuracy and quality of inpatient medications use systems. VA has
installed over 110 of these Unit Dose systems throughout the nation. In
addition, the same company and others have adapted the inpatient
technology for use in VA's outpatient clinics.
medical and operating supply inventory
Question. VA's fiscal year 1997 expenditures for supplies (such as
drugs, medical supplies, operating supplies, prosthetics, and
provisions) totaled $2.6 billion. In 1995 the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) issued a report (Review of Operating Supply Inventories
at VA Medical Centers) which concluded that medical center operating
supply inventories on hand were excessive and most inventory items were
not recorded on supply control records. Have VA medical centers
eliminated their excess operating supply inventories?
Answer. Many medical centers have exercised the option to record
operating supply inventories under the Generic Inventory Package
(GIP)--an automated system which tracks inventory and supplies from
receipt to issue at point of use. This system enables medical centers
to control and manage optimal inventories. Not all VA medical centers
have elected to use the GIP and it is unknown whether those VA medical
centers have excess inventories.
Question. Are VA medical and operating supply inventories
adequately controlled by inventory records or automated systems?
Answer. Medical and operating supply inventories are recorded and
adequately controlled through the Generic Inventory Package (GIP). The
GIP, which is not mandatory, also is used to record and control the
warehoused supply inventories that are owned by the VA Supply Fund.
Medical Centers that have not elected to use GIP have supplies that
have been issued to the using services which are not recorded as
inventories. In those instances, local VA using service management is
responsible for establishing and maintaining reasonable supply
inventory levels and controls. Since these supplies are unrecorded,
there are no inventory records or automated systems to monitor local
supplies.
Question. In 1997, GAO reported that the Department of Defense
prime vendor program for medical supplies along with other inventory
reduction efforts resulted in savings of over $700 million, eliminated
unnecessary layers of inventory, and emptied warehouses. Are there any
VA efforts to apply a prime vendor approach to managing medical supply
inventories?
Answer. VA was among the first Government agencies to award a
medical/surgical prime vendor contract. Previous to that, VA had
awarded successful pharmaceutical prime vendor contracts that
dramatically reduced inventories and were instrumental in the
Department's decision to close its depot system. For pharmaceuticals
alone, inventories at the depots and at medical centers were reduced
$30 million. Recently, prime vendor contracts were awarded for
subsistence items. This has reduced inventories for this commodity by
$6-$8 million. VA is now in the process of developing an improved
medical/surgical contract that could significantly reduce the amount of
inventory of medical supplies at medical centers. This contract, in
conjunction with VA's active product standardization program, should
markedly reduce inventories, improve product utilization, and reduce
costs.
Question. VA initiated a prime vendor program for pharmaceuticals a
few years ago. What lessons have been learned from the pharmaceutical
prime vendor program that should be applied to a medical supply prime
vendor program?
Answer. The VA Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor (PPV) Program has been
highly successful since it was established in 1991. Several aspects of
the PPV program can be assumed to apply to the Medical-Surgical Prime
Vendor (MSPV) program as well. Significant factors that influenced the
positive outcome of the PPV program are:
Inventory Costs
Storage costs were dramatically reduced because inventory levels
dropped from a 30-120 day cycle to a just-in-time (JIT) cycle.
Stock on-hand was reduced to seven to 10 days.
Emergency delivery service for life-threatening situations ensured
the pharmacist had the right product on time.
As the number of days of stock on-hand decreased, the inventory
turnover rate increased, and the likelihood of receiving outdated stock
was significantly diminished (product quality and freshness was
preserved).
Storage Space
Over the past six years, the physical inventory space of VA medical
centers has decreased substantially due to implementation of the VA
Pharmaceutical and Prime Vendor programs.
Using a Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor system reduced warehouse and
ward space, and this available space was converted to use for revenue-
generating activities, such as leasing the property to neighboring VA
facilities, other government agencies, or affiliated hospitals.
Today, approximately 75 percent of VA inventory space is used to
store bulkier medical and surgical supplies, that are purchased in
larger quantities than pharmaceuticals. Fully implementing a MSPV will
decrease this stock on-hand and increase inventory turnover by 3 fold.
The available warehouse space will be better utilized by the medical
facilities for additional revenue-generating activities. Because
warehouse and storage space (square footage and overhead costs) varies
by facility, an actual saving is difficult to predict without
performing a more detailed analysis.
Personnel and Administrative Time and Costs
PPV orders are placed electronically.
Using a pharmaceutical prime vendor enables the pharmacies to place
one order for the medical facility and have the flexibility to choose
from over 21,000 products available from over 300 manufacturers.
Since orders are placed daily and up to five times a week, the
total number of orders placed is approximately 260 orders per year per
medical facility.
Previously, a medical facility had to place multiple orders with
many suppliers. This practice required the medical facility to receive,
inspect, certify, and pay vendors individually. At that time the
transaction costs were $75 per delivery order and $150 per purchase
order.
Electronic ordering, inventory bar coding, confirmation, and
electronic funds transfer (EFT) payment reduced the number of personnel
and administrative time and costs used to support the VA's manual
system procedures.
Once the PPV program was implemented, facilities had to evaluate
the program's impact on its organization. FTE previously responsible
for purchasing, warehousing, distribution, and fiscal functions, became
available for reassignment to a different responsibility area/service,
and most importantly, were available for reassignment to more critical
direct patient care areas.
Payment Process
Next day payment provisions utilize a better payment method than
International Merchant Purchase Authorization Card (IMPAC) card.
There are nominal transactions fees because the ghost credit
account program is congruent with wholesale industry rather than retail
industry.
Payment reduction from 15 days (initial Prompt Payment Act
deviation) to approximately 24 hours positively reduces the cost of
money.
The VA will continue negotiations with the prime vendors to
decrease distribution fees.
It is anticipated that cost savings will exceed the initial
projection of hundreds of thousand of dollars in annual savings.
Other
The PPV program is mandatory for all medical centers, outpatient
pharmacies, and mail-out pharmacies--this ensures total ownership by
VHA customers and competitive distribution fees.
Single award for each region (regions are contingent upon VA
business strategies, both current and anticipated)--permits lower
distribution fees and enables region to obtain consistent and uniform
service.
Lockout mechanism on product groups or classes enables VA to meet
its standardization goals and contract compliance objectives--economies
of scale are successfully achieved.
Pharmacy Directors have been able to improve operations because the
JIT method enables them to budget and forecast more accurately.
telephone personal identification number (pin)
Question. In 1997, the IG concluded that installing telephone
Personal Identification Number (PIN) access systems at VAMC's could
significantly reduce long distance costs. VHA agreed with this. What
has been VHA's progress in installing PIN systems?
Answer. In keeping with his policy to give field facilities as many
operational responsibilities as possible, implementation of personal
identification number (PIN) access systems was decentralized. The Under
Secretary for Health encouraged the Veterans Integrated Service
Networks (VISN's) and the VA Medical Center (VAMC) Directors to install
PIN systems at their facilities and/or integrate PIN systems into plans
for their new telephone systems or upgrades to existing systems. In a
memorandum, dated April 11, 1997, the Under Secretary for Health
advised the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing (52) that he was
hopeful that installation of the PIN system at all hospitals would be
completed by September 30, 1998.
just-in-time (jit) inventories
Question. What level of success has VA had in reducing staffing and
warehousing costs associated with the implementation of just-in-time
inventories and the use of prime vendors?
Answer. Each VAMC activity has undergone reorganization or
realignment. In many cases, some or all logistics functionalities were
transferred to other programmatic areas such as Engineering,
Environmental Management or Dietetic Service. While exact numbers are
unknown, there has been a reduction in personnel devoted solely to
logistics functions.
addictive and high cost drug inventories
Question. What level of success has VA had in safeguarding
inventories of addictive and high cost drugs?
Answer. Both GAO and VA OIG have reviewed the actions taken by VA
to safeguard inventories of addictive and high-cost drugs and conclude
that the actions taken addressed the vulnerability. Understanding that
no system is foolproof, the vulnerability has been removed from the
list of the Departments material weaknesses.
Question. What initiatives are being implemented to prevent theft
and conversion of drug inventories?
Answer. Since 1992, VHA has implemented a number of actions
designed to both protect supplies of controlled substances and high
cost drugs and to detect any unexplained losses. In 1992 VHA
established the requirement that all VA pharmacies limit access to
controlled substances to a few authorized individuals. In addition,
pharmacies are required to maintain a perpetual inventory of controlled
substances in all areas of the pharmacies.
VHA also requires pharmacies to have electronic access locks in
addition to manual lock requirements for all controlled substances
areas. These electronic systems record the time, date and person
entering the storage areas.
Over the last six years VHA has developed and released three
versions of Controlled Substances software to track the ordering,
distribution and dispensing of controlled substances on inpatient
wards. The most recent version supports automated dispensing equipment
and a wireless system to document inventory on the wards using bar
codes. VHA also requires a perpetual inventory of controlled substances
on all nursing wards.
In September 1997 VHA released version 3.0 of the Drug
Accountability software. This software allows pharmacy managers to
automatically track the receipt of pharmaceuticals from pharmaceutical
prime vendors into the master inventory of the pharmacy and throughout
the different dispensing areas of the pharmacy. This software also
enables pharmacy officials to audit discrepancies in inventory about
established tolerances.
Currently, VHA is reviewing proposals to automate medication
administration at the inpatient ward level. This action, when
implemented, will reduce medication errors, enhance the quality of
patient care and provide for the complete tracking of pharmaceutical
utilization from the wholesaler (prime vendor) to the medical facility
to the patient.
community based outpatient clinics (cboc's)
Question. Does VA require networks to improve access first for
higher priority veterans before lower priority veterans?
Answer. Improved access in the form of community based outpatient
clinics is based on providing the best quality and array of healthcare
services to eligible veterans using existing funds. One of the reasons
for establishing new CBOC's is to provide more convenient access to
healthcare for currently enrolled users, and to improve access
opportunities for eligible veterans not currently served within
existing resources. Category A Veterans continue to receive the highest
priority for appointments, even at the CBOC locations.
Question. Are newly established clinics being systematically
evaluated so that consistent and comparable data are available to
monitor performance and make adjustments, if warranted? If so, what do
the results show?
Answer. When proposals for new CBOC's are developed, the VISN and
parent facility identify the criteria by which the clinic activities
will be evaluated upon activation. The criteria address the business
plan and the overall goals and objectives identified for the clinic.
While some data collected may be unique to a particular clinic or
Network, most of it is the same as that collected for all CBOC's.
patients' deaths
Question. There have been several reports over the past couple of
years of inappropriate deaths of patients and serious misadventures;
what assurances do we have that the requisite resources are being
devoted to ensure that these ``adverse events'' are consistently and
accurately reported and that corrections of deficiencies are
effectively implemented?
Answer. Requisite resources are being devoted to ensure consistent
and accurate reporting of adverse events and the correction of
deficiencies.
--VHA Handbook 1051/1, ``Patient Safety Improvement'', published on
January 13, 1998, establishes policy on the identification,
reporting, review and analysis of adverse events. Staff
responsibility for the Patient Safety Improvement (PSI) program
is delineated at the facility, Network and Headquarters levels.
Oversight responsibility to ensure accurate reporting and
follow-up is delineated at the Network as well as Headquarters
levels.
--A Sentinel Event Registry to track and monitor adverse events
reported to Headquarters within 48 hours is maintained by the
Office of the Chief Network Office (CNO). In addition, computer
software is being enhanced to allow facility entry of reports
of Focused Reviews and Administrative Boards of Investigation,
thus ensuring timely entry as well as access to appropriate
Headquarters offices.
--A Patient Safety Oversight Committee with membership from the Chief
Network Office, the Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ),
the Office of the Medical Inspector (OMI) and the Office of
Patient Care Services is meeting every two weeks to review each
facility's analysis of adverse events, Boards of Investigation
and Focused Reviews for appropriate actions and the
identification of lessons learned.
--In addition, a Quality Management Integration Council (QMIC),
chaired by the Under Secretary for Health, has been formed to
provide oversight of quality and patient safety improvement
activities. The Office of the Medical Inspector (OMI) monitors
Focused Reviews and Boards of Investigation for the correction
of deficiencies and conducts independent focused reviews,
investigations, and site visits on quality of care issues.
Recently, both the OMI and the Office of Performance and
Quality have been authorized to hire additional staff to
conduct these activities.
--A Quality Management Officer has been appointed at each of the 22
networks. One of their roles is to facilitate the reporting and
analysis of adverse events at each medical center and to assure
follow-up.
validation of data
Question. The information and data systems on adverse events, such
as Occurrence Screens (OS) and Patient Information Reports (PIR), have
often been criticized for lack of accuracy in VHA; what processes are
there for validating this data, and the information contained in
reports derived from the data, concerning quality assurance issues, and
how effective are they?
Answer. Reports of adverse events and assessments of those adverse
events are reviewed at both the VISN and at Headquarters to assess the
validity of the data and the appropriateness of the assessments and the
actions being taken. At Headquarters this review is performed by both
the Office of the Medical Inspector and the Patient Safety Improvement
Oversight Committee. The latter body, in particular, frequently
requests additional data from the facility if the original information
seems questionable. While no data are available regarding this issue,
we believe that these mechanisms are quite effective in improving the
validity of patient safety information reported from field facilities.
Question. You have partnered with several other organizations and
established a select group of expert advisors on quality assurance and
you are seeking improved ways of identifying medical errors and their
reporting by employees in VAMC's; how do you propose ensuring the full
extent of these medical errors are reported and analyzed for their
frequency and any trends that can be evaluated for making improvements
throughout the VHA system?
Answer. Based on our consultations with safety experts, we have
decided to improve the reporting and review of medical errors and other
safety related incidents by adopting procedures based on the Aviation
Safety Reporting System (ASRS), which has been successful in improving
aviation safety over the last 23 years. The key feature of the ASRS is
confidential, voluntary reporting with the reports being used to enrich
knowledge of the factors that need to be addressed to improve safety.
This new system will complement, not replace, our current internal
management system that involves mandatory reporting and review of
adverse events causing significant injury to patients. Currently, VHA
is developing plans to pilot test and implement this new system. We
believe the ASRS model will substantially increase the proportion of
medical errors and adverse events that are reported by front-line
staff. In addition, the ASRS based system should provide a quality
check on our internal management system regarding the frequency with
which adverse events that involve significant injury are reported.
business process reengineering (bpr)
Question. A draft report produced by the Veterans Benefits
Administration--``Roadmap to Excellence'' notes ``there are widely
divergent and often unproductive approaches to BPR implementation being
taken in the field stations.'' How will you improve implementation of
business process reengineering and other initiatives aimed at improving
the quality of work in VBA?
Answer. VBA is field testing the major process change initiatives
that compose a significant part of the reengineered system in a series
of test sites prior to full national deployment. The aims of these
tests are threefold. First we wish to validate and measure the positive
outcome and underlying assumptions of each of these process changes
prior to full-scale national deployment. Second, we want to fully
develop the actual field process from the theoretical concept so that
field stations will be able to deploy successfully. Finally, we want to
be able to successfully capture the costs in terms of workload
management as well as the new opportunities for improvement produced by
these changes in a systematic and maintainable way. These lessons will
be shared throughout the organization. Likewise, we seek to capture the
success stories and the problems encountered by regional offices and
assure that the information is available to all stations so that they
can leverage the knowledge gained by other facilities.
accountability measures
Question. Last year in testimony the National Academy of Public
Administration stated ``VBA nationally operates in too permissive a
manner with little accountability for the achievement of specific
results across all 58 of its regions.'' Have appropriate accountability
measures been implemented to ensure managers are held responsible for
meeting quality and timeliness goals?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Benefits was confirmed by the
Senate in November 1997. In just 5 months under his leadership, the
Veterans Benefits Administration has taken dramatic steps to change its
way of doing business. Among these steps are a number of strategies
specifically related to improving quality and timeliness and holding
managers accountable for meeting performance goals.
Accountability will be achieved primarily through: (1) strategic
planning, which will be outcome based with measurable goals and based
on a Balanced Scorecard, and (2) the restructuring of our 58 regional
offices into consortiums which will require managers to meet team goals
tied to strategic planning.
The balanced scorecard is a method of performance measurement that
facilitates planning, setting targets, and alignment of strategic plans
with our vision and goals. The VBA is presently developing systems and
processes to implement the Balanced Scorecard.
The consortiums will provide the framework for the managers of the
VBA's 58 regional offices, working in teams, to pursue performance
goals linked to strategic plans and monitored and evaluated using the
Balanced Scorecard. The performance evaluation system for managers will
tie individual performance to team goals aligned with the strategic
plan, thus assuring accountability for achieving specific results.
Question. The National Academy of Public Administration in its 1997
report called for consolidating VBA's 58 regional offices. Are your
plans consistent with NAPA's recommendation? Will any regional offices
be closed?
Answer. To some extent, our plan for creating consortiums is
consistent with NAPA's recommendation. For example, member benefit
offices within a consortium will identify economies in operation
generally associated with consolidation. Certain activities will be
consolidated as a means of reducing costs and redundancies. There will
also be opportunities for sharing resources which, in turn, will help
to increase service access points and the delivery of benefits.
The VBA prefers the option of consortiums to the alternative of
closing regional offices. The consortiums enable VBA to maintain a
presence in each State which helps in building partnerships with the
Veterans Health Administration, community organizations, local and
State governments, and veterans service organizations. In addition, a
presence in each State is important in fulfilling our outreach mandate.
Personal interaction with our customers at walk-in units, medical
centers, military installations, and itinerant offices in every State
is an integral component of this mandate and is consistent with our
service philosophy.
impact of tobacco-related claims
Question. If legislation is not enacted disallowing tobacco-related
claims, and no additional funds are provided above the budget request,
how will VA accommodate the increased caseload?
Answer. This answer assumes that the issue is increased workload,
rather than increased caseload. VBA's discretionary budget request is
based on the Administration's policy to not award compensation for
tobacco-related illnesses acquired after military service and based
solely on nicotine dependence that began in the military.
VA surveys suggest that if legislation is not enacted, over 500,000
veterans will apply for and ultimately receive compensation payments.
Without additional resources to process these claims, VA will be unable
to accommodate the increased workload without backlogs.
Question. Will VA give special priority to tobacco-related claims?
Answer. VA will not give special priority to tobacco-related
claims. These cases, just like other claims, will be assigned work
priority based upon the date they are received by VA. However, VBA has
recently placed an emphasis on working older claims, which comprise a
significant portion of our pending claims workload. Since many of the
tobacco related claims are among our ``older'' claims, they will
receive appropriate attention.
Question. What impact will the tobacco caseload have on timeliness
and quality of compensation claims adjudication?
Answer. VA surveys suggest that over 500,000 veterans will apply
for and ultimately receive compensation payments. Tobacco-related
claims will overburden VA, causing backlogs. Claims processing
timeliness and accuracy of claims adjudication will deteriorate. The
increased workload will impact not only tobacco-related claimants, but
others with more traditional claims.
Question. When will VA decide a supplemental and budget amendment
are needed and when will the administration send up the request?
Answer. VBA's discretionary budget request is based on the
Administration's policy to not award compensation for tobacco-related
illnesses acquired after military service and based solely on nicotine
dependence that began in the military. If legislation is not enacted,
additional discretionary resources will ultimately be needed. We are
hopeful that the Administration's proposal to not pay these benefits
will be enacted sooner rather than later to avoid the need for a
supplemental request in fiscal year 1998 and an amendment to the
President's fiscal year 1999 Budget request.
claims processing
Question. A total of $38 million is requested for VBA initiatives
to improve claims processing, such as computer-based training. Have
these initiatives been prioritized, so that in the event that we cannot
meet your full budget request we can fund the highest priority
initiatives? Could you provide this prioritization to the Committee?
Answer. Of the $37.8 million requested by VBA, $22.6 million is for
Compensation and Pension (C&P) initiatives. Claims processing
improvements will be realized from each of these C&P initiatives.
Although funding for all of the initiatives is needed in order to
realize our vision, the C&P Service has prioritized them. C&P
prioritized initiatives are:
Initiative Funds
Computer Based Training................................. $6,373,000
Pre-Discharge Exam...................................... 5,000,000
Claims Processing System (CPS).......................... 1,000,000
Conversion to Service Centers........................... 5,983,000
Information Technology C&P BPR.......................... 2,400,000
Outreach/Surveys........................................ 512,000
Outbased Decision Makers................................ 138,000
Personnel Information Exchange (PIE).................... 500,000
Partner Assisted Rating and Development System (PARDS).. 250,000
Enhanced AMIE........................................... 462,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 22,618,000
The remaining $15.173 million is identified by business line.
Business Line Funds
Education............................................... $4,493,000
Loan Guaranty........................................... 3,364,000
Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling................ 1,000,000
Insurance............................................... 1,751,000
Crosscutting............................................ 4,565,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,173,000
year 2000 compliance
Question. What is the status of VA's efforts to address the Year
2000 issue, and what steps remain to ensure systems will be compliant?
Answer. We are following the standardized, government-wide Year
2000 best practices phases established by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in conjunction with the Federal CIO Council Subcommittee
on Year 2000. These Year 2000 phases are: (a) assessment (inventorying
systems); (b) renovation (making the systems compliant); (c) validation
(verifying the fixes); and (d) implementation (placing systems into
production). Progress is measured as a percentage completed for each
phase. These phases overlap and are not consecutive. For example,
systems can be implemented before the renovation of all systems are
completed. We have completed our assessment phase. Our current
timetable and percentage completed for Year 2000 compliance is below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Renovation Validation Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion Date............................................. 1/1998 9/1998 1/1999 3/1999
Percent Complete............................................ 100 74 53 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, 74 percent of VA's systems have been renovated and made
Year 2000 compliant. This represents a substantial increase from the 61
percent VA reported to OMB in November 1997.
Question. How much is included in the budget request to address the
requirement that computer systems be ``Year 2000 compliant?''
Answer. Our estimate for resolving Year 2000 problems in fiscal
year 1999 is $67 million. This estimate includes such costs as
personnel, hardware, software and contractor expenditures.
smoking cessation
Question. When will the administration submit its proposal for a
smoking cessation program for veterans? What details can you provide on
how this program will work?
Answer. We expect the authorization language for smoking cessation
to be submitted to Congress by the end of April. The VA will develop a
program guide once congressional authorization has been provided.
Private sector contractors will provide the smoking cessation program.
The guide will address the responsibilities of the contractors as well
as the monitoring and reporting process of the program. The program
will be offered to any honorably discharged veteran who claims to have
started smoking while in the military.
vetsnet
Question. What is the status of the Department's effort to develop
a corporate level database as part of the Veterans Service Network
(VETSNET) program? A recent OIG Summary Report on Claims Processing
highlighted VETSNET's key role in supporting the Veterans Benefits
Administration corporate model and database and the Compensation &
Pension (C&P) reengineering efforts. In addition, the report
highlighted the fact that VETSNET is the sole means by which the
Department is addressing two material weaknesses identified under the
Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act: (1) Aging, Antiquated,
Obsolete, and Proprietary Hardware Systems, and (2) C&P Systems--Lack
of Adaptability and Documentation.
Answer. The VBA Corporate Database has been established. It
supports all VBA program areas and the following VETSNET application
development efforts: VETSNET C&P, Loan Service & Claims, Automated Loan
Production System (ALPS), Expanded Lender Information (ELI) System, and
Education Chapter 1606. ALPS and ELI are the first applications
scheduled for production (during 1998) that will use the VBA Corporate
Database as a production database. When all VETSNET applications have
been completed the VBA Corporate Database will be the central
production database supporting all VBA business lines and will replace
many of VBA's disparate databases currently supporting systems such as
BDN. The VBA Corporate Model and Database provides VBA with a central,
standardized view of its business that is fully documented and easily
changed and maintained.
veterans benefits administration performance
Question. How is the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
assuring that it can effectively track, measure organizational
performance, and assure effective use of staff resources?
Answer. VBA is refining a strategic management process that
integrates comprehensive performance measures with the resources
formulation and execution processes. VBA is using a balanced scorecard
of performance measures in each business line. This scorecard of
measures will be used to develop the request for resources and the
scorecard will be used to track organizational performance. VBA has
linked performance measures to the annual budget request, by developing
integrating business line plans and the budget request, as required in
the Government Performance and Results Act. The scorecard performance
measures will be regularly monitored by the business lines and the
leadership of VBA to assure the resources used by VBA deliver the
desired performance.
franchise fund/supply fund
Question. What results can the Department identify under its pilot
test that established franchising fund operations?
Answer. The Department successfully converted the six organizations
selected for VA's Franchise Fund from appropriated to self-sufficient
fee-for-service activities, established a customer based board of
directors, and improved service delivery to its customers. The
franchise effort has established a buyer seller relationship within the
Agency that fosters a closer look at cost by the providers as well as a
closer look at usage by the customers.
Through the operation of the Franchise Fund, VA customers are
billed each month for services received, resulting in improved cost
awareness for both the customer organization and the service provider.
A monthly individual service activity and consolidated fund level
income statement is produced by the Franchise Fund office, further
improving management cost awareness. This process has resulted in unit
cost reductions for Franchise Fund customers, more efficient use of
common administrative resources, and better budgetary resource planning
and usage by customers.
Examples: CPU rates have been decreased from $654/hour in 1997 to
$524 in 1998, with additional reductions anticipated for both fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
Disk Storage rates have been decreased from $246/gigabyte month to
$153/gigabyte month.
Rates for the records storage facility have dropped from the
anticipated $7.00 per square foot in fiscal year 1997, when the project
began, to less than $5.00 in fiscal year 2000. Additional decreases are
anticipated as the customer base increases.
Question. The Department retained $89 million for investment
purposes in its Supply Fund, what is the status of that revolving fund?
Answer. Rather than retain $89 million for investment purposes in
its Supply Fund, the Department actually returned $89 million to the
Treasury. These funds were savings resulting from the Supply Fund's
closure of its three depots and the subsequent sale of Supply Fund
inventory.
Question. How is income in the Supply Fund used to supplement VA
appropriations?
Answer. Supply Fund income is not used to supplement VA
appropriations. The Supply Fund, which does not receive appropriated
operating funds, must recover all program operating costs through fees
and charges recovered from internal VA customers, other Government
agencies (OGA's), and other sources in exchange for the full range of
products and services provided. When the business volume from non-VA
sources exceed projections, the Supply Fund appropriately reduces the
collection of fees from VA customers, but does not supplement
appropriations.
Question. How much income has VA generated from franchising
activities?
Answer. In our first year of operations, the VA franchise fund's
fiscal year 1997 income exceeded $59 million. Focus during fiscal year
1997 has been on redefining the way these operations conduct their
business, and the way VA customers view the services. VA does
anticipate growth each of the next three years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.047
Question. How is this income used?
Answer. Fiscal year 1997 income was used to pay for the costs of
all operating salary, depreciation and equipment expenses of the six
service activities and the fund office. In addition, almost $2 million
was applied to retained earnings for future capital investments,
financial management, and other improvements not related to current
operations, as is appropriate under fiscal year 1997 appropriation
language.
quality of care
Question. The OIG report demonstrates a great variation in the
staffs at VAMC's and the VISN's devoted to monitoring and correcting
deficiencies in the quality of care received by veterans; what are your
plans to rectify the situation and bring about some more consistent
assignment of roles and responsibilities?
Answer. Quality Management Officers have been appointed in every
VISN Director's office to oversee the QM activities in the VISN. VHA's
efforts to ensure that our patients receive the highest quality of care
have never wavered.
computer software procurement
Question. The procurement of new and updated computer software is
often a very costly and time consuming process for government agencies.
I understand that the Defense Department has implemented a new means of
procuring software that has made the process much easier and saved the
defense Logistics Agency $50 million (over 50 percent) on one contract
alone. I am told the new approach involves what is called a ``per user
fee'' contract. In addition to saving money, the ``per user fee''
method has reportedly made it easier and less of a security risk to
install and upgrade computer software. Can you tell me how VA makes
software procurement decisions, and whether this new more efficient
method is being considered?
Answer. VA acquires most of its software today through GSA Federal
Supply Schedule channels. Software may be a separate commodity or is an
integral part of a broader solution that also includes hardware and
services. Before Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA)
legislation relaxed regulations governing schedule purchases, VA
acquired software or solutions through full-and-open competition. It is
our understanding that the Department of Defense contract relates to
the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) Electronic Software Distribution
(ESD) contract. Under ESD, Agency end users download software product
updates via the Internet from a Microsoft channel supplier, such as
CyberSource in the case of the DLA contract. We recognize that Federal
agencies are expected in the future to adopt ESD into their acquisition
strategies to shift software administration costs to industry. We
understand that some issues still need to be worked through. Late last
year the Software Publishers Association issued industry ESD policies
and procedures to member software companies, distributors, and
resellers. We will be looking into this option as the process improves.
Question. I understand that in an effort to capitalize on the
Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) successful efforts to lower software
procurement costs, the Navy's Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) in
Philadelphia is attempting to expand this new software procurement
model to other government agencies as well. In a time of tight budgets,
innovative and cost-effective procurement strategies should be
encouraged. Is VA considering joining FISC and DLS in this effort?
Answer. In advance of the ESD marketplace having matured
sufficiently, VA has already taken certain steps to leverage its buying
power to drive down software-related costs. VA's Procurement of
Computer Hardware and Software (PCHS) contracts, competitively awarded
in January 1997, have resulted in the lowest product pricing in the
Federal market on certain software packages widely used in VA. The
Department-wide PCHS contracts provide software maintenance options to
permit VA facilities to better administer software media and
documentation at lower costs. In the future, VA will introduce to their
computer acquisition strategies other approaches including ESD and
product service (also known as seat management).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Craig
state extended care construction grant program
Question. As you know, the request for construction and maintenance
of extended care facilities has been almost cut in half from a request
of $80 million (fiscal year 1998) to a request of $37 million (fiscal
year 1999). This substantial decrease brings to mind questions about
the VA's commitment to meeting its construction requirements.
Currently, there are $237 million in ``Category One'' projects, for
which States have come up with 35 percent of the costs, and are waiting
for the Federal Government to meet its obligation to provide the other
65 percent. Thirty seven million dollars will barely cover the costs of
five projects. How do you plan to meet the VA commitment to fund 65
percent of the ``Category One'' projects with $37 million.
Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request of $37
million is consistent with the original fiscal year 1998 President's
budget request of $41 million. Although this SEC grant program is an
important element of VA's plans for meeting long-term healthcare needs
of eligible veterans, the request level reflects the consideration
priorities for funds both within the Department and throughout the
Administration.
state cemetery grants program
Question. For a number of years, Idaho has tried to provide a
national cemetery for our State's veterans. As you know, the VA has
proposed to cover the entire cost of constructing veterans cemeteries
around the country, if in return, the States agree to pay all required
maintenance. Do you believe this is a fair burden for the States to
incur for a veterans cemetery?
Answer. The State Cemetery Grants Program is a complement to VA's
system of national cemeteries. Through a Federal/State partnership, the
State Cemetery Grants Program allows veterans in less densely populated
areas to also be served by a burial option. The development of new
national cemeteries has targeted areas with a large concentration of
veterans currently without access to either a national or State
veterans cemetery. For example, the four new national cemeteries in the
NCS strategic plan are being constructed near the large metropolitan
areas of Chicago, IL; Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX; Cleveland, OH; and Albany,
NY.
Currently, VA funds 50 percent of the construction of a State
veterans cemetery and contributes a $150 plot or interment allowance
for each eligible veteran interred to partially defray State cemetery
operating expenses. VA has proposed legislation to expand the State
Cemetery Grants Program by increasing the Federal share of funds to
States from 50 percent to 100 percent of the costs of construction,
plus 100 percent of the initial equipment costs, along with the
continuation of the $150 plot or interment allowance. With this
additional incentive, the Department hopes that new burial space could
be provided to our Nation's veterans. State veterans cemeteries can
also be used to ensure the continuation of service delivery. For
example, the States of Tennessee and North Carolina have opened new
State veteran cemeteries as the national cemeteries in the areas being
served no longer had space for new casketed interments.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
education
Question. I was very pleased to see that this year's budget request
begins to address my concerns of providing lifetime learning
opportunities to our veterans.
As I understand, one of the barriers to the utilization of
educational benefits is the gap between the increasing cost of
education and the level of the GI benefits. In this year's budget there
is an increase to the Montgomery GI Bill education benefit that would
raise the active duty benefit to more than $500 a month.
What analysis was performed to determine that this amount would
provide sufficient funds to encourage/increase the use of the education
benefits?
Answer. We compared the cost of education to increases in the full
time monthly rate for Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty benefits from
1985. Using the Digest of Education Statistics to track tuition and
fees paid by students at public four year institutions during each
academic year, we assumed a similar growth in the original full time
rate of $300 monthly. The monthly rate would have been $648.25 during
the 1995-96 school year had it kept pace with rising tuition costs.
That represents more than a 45-percent increase over the current rate.
The Administration determined that a 20-percent increase, while not
fully restoring the lost purchasing power, provides adequate incentive.
Question. The increase in the Montgomery GI Bill education benefit
is linked to the tobacco legislation which would restrict payment of
service-connected disability compensation for tobacco related
illnesses.
Answer. The Administration's budget identified many savings
opportunities. As a complete package, in the balanced budget
environment, this proposed increase is consistent, and it demonstrates
the President's commitment to veterans' education.
Question. If legislation is not approved where does the Department
propose that the increase for active duty benefits (GI Bill) would come
from?
Answer. The department has not identified a funding source outside
the Administration's budget package of spending and savings.
Question. If there is not an increase in the active duty benefit
how will this impact the percentage increases proposed by the
Department with respect to utilization?
Answer. No detailed analysis is available at this time to show the
direct correlation between a rate increase and usage. However, we
believe that rising costs in tuition, fees and living expenses without
adequate funding sources serves to discourage usage.
I understand that a recent Business Process Re-engineering analysis
on the manner in which education benefits and services are delivered
was recently completed. You are considering several fundamental changes
to enable VA education beneficiaries to receive financial assistance
and information in a more effective and efficient way.
Question. Can you detail some of the changes you are considering
and how they tie into lifetime learning opportunities?
Answer. The Education Business Process Reengineering (BPR) team
addressed issues that inhibited veterans from beginning a program of
education or training. For example, ``program of education'' is defined
in title 38 in a way that prevents many high quality programs from
being approved for VA benefits. Many are skills enhancement courses, or
courses necessary to upgrade professional or technical skills.
Modifications to the definition are being explored which expand
educational and training opportunities while maintaining the integrity
of all VA approved course offerings.
The team suggested VA also explore alternatives to the current
restrictions on payment, such as accelerated payment. At present,
payment is calculated based on a student's training time and months of
entitlement. For instance, a veteran training full time will receive a
monthly rate no higher than the equivalent to one month of entitlement.
For a high cost program of short duration, that veteran would be forced
to assume a debt for the difference between VA payments and the cost of
the course, even though his or her total entitlement could cover all
course costs. Of course, the costs and benefits of each alternative
would need to be carefully examined before formal proposals could go
forward.
Question. How will the changes increase the utilization of
education benefits before they are lost?
Answer. Veterans who delay or decline educational or training
opportunities because VA payments do not cover enough of the expenses
may pursue those programs. They might also use more of their earned
entitlement before their eligibility expires.
Question. When will you be making a decision on which changes you
will be implementing?
Answer. There are potential cost implications for many of the
recommendations. Our strategic planning process will assist us in
developing and prioritizing proposals beginning with the 2000 budget
cycle.
Question. What improved education opportunities does the Department
foresee through the improved coordination efforts with DOD, Department
of Education and education institutions?
Answer. We will enlist the aid of these partners to increase the
awareness of opportunities available. With DOD we will provide service
personnel with more information on educational and training
opportunities before they leave military service. With the Department
of Education we hope to heighten the awareness of other forms of
financial assistance to better leverage VA benefits. Institutions will
guide veterans through the educational process by offering pertinent
programs and coordinating the various forms of financial assistance to
better serve the needs of veterans and other eligible beneficiaries.
medical education
Question. As a result of the recommendations of the Residency
Realignment Review Committee sited in the budget justifications the
Department will be making a shift of 1,000 specialty resident
positions; 750 will be filled as primary care positions and 250 will be
eliminated. In addition, VA is redirecting educational resources to
primary care and reviewing its academic affiliations agreements to
ensure they match the goals and objectives of VA.
With this new focus on primary care how will VA equip itself to
handle unique patient care needs, say for example homeless veterans who
must have their healthcare needs addressed in one single encounter?
Answer. VA's patient mix provides a rigorous test for both new
systems of care and education of the nation's future physicians. By way
of illustration, when an ill homeless veteran presents to a VAMC for
healthcare, he/she must be provided in that single encounter with
accessible care that accommodates all his/her principal healthcare
needs. Referral appointments to several consulting specialists at some
later date reflect practice that is inadequate and unrealistic.
Resident trainees must have experience in systems of care that combine
ready access and continuity with high levels of medical expertise if
they are to be prepared to give effective care to patients and
populations in a more systematic and quality-focused healthcare system
in the future.
For example, to accommodate this need, VA initiated two new
programs in October 1997--Access and Continuity in Education of
Specialists (ACCESS) and Psychiatry Primary Care Education (PsyPCE).
ACCESS provides a targeted experience within medical subspecialty
residencies that focus on the development of primary care management
skills. These residency-training experiences take advantage of patient
care settings where physicians trained in medical subspecialties serve
as the primary care physicians for patients with complex health
problems. Similarly PsyPCE is an example of primary care that employs
psychiatrists as the primary care physicians for patients with major
mental health problems. In both programs, comprehensive primary
healthcare will be provided by specialists. It is the intention of this
program to provide as much expert care as possible in each encounter
with a veteran patient.
Question. How can VA and its academic affiliates take advantage of
the pressures building in the graduate medical education reform to go
beyond the labels of ``primary care'' and ``specialist'' to align
educational programs with the best systems of patient care?
Answer. Confining definitions strictly to ``primary care'' and
``specialist'' limit the opportunities for improvement that are
available in the residency realignment process. An improved future
health professions workforce will require models of care and education
that embody the best aspects of both the primary care physician and the
specialist.
One such strategy is the Primary Specialist Program. As mentioned
above, VA and its affiliates are pursuing a strategy that defines
criteria for specialties that provide the patient and population
management skills of primary care together with specialty expertise for
severely ill patients. These two new VA-sponsored programs, ``Access
and Continuity in the Education of Specialists'' (ACCESS) and
``Psychiatry Primary Care Education'' (PsyPCE), place emphasis on the
role of future specialists in the primary care of chronically seriously
ill patients.
VA is engaging appropriate stakeholders and opinion leaders
regarding this issue including the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education, specialty organizations, the American Medical
Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the
Association of Academic Health Centers. Given the broad implications of
graduate medical education reform for the future physician workforce,
VHA must explore information and advice from all willing and valid
sources as this process goes forward.
Question. Can you briefly describe the review process of your
academic affiliations agreements?
Answer. The review of VA-medical school partnerships differs from
other accreditation and standards based reviews. It is not so much a
``report card'' as a foundation for planning and the establishment of
goals. The guidelines for review of affiliations encompassed six
domains. These included the mission and vision of the partnership,
physician faculty issues, medical care of veterans and the education
and research partnership, business relationships, network-wide issues,
and VA/university governance.
In most of the VISN's, the review of academic affiliations was
coordinated by the leadership of the VA medical center and the medical
school. The review was valuable on several fronts. First, the process
helped to provide an accounting of the strengths and weaknesses of the
partnership. Second, it provided an agenda for the future, which should
serve to strengthen the affiliation over time. Third, and probably most
important, the process strengthened new lines of communication and
working relationships that should benefit VA's patients, students, and
faculty staff as these affiliations move through this period of rapid
change in medicine and medical education.
Question. How are you ensuring that innovative academic
affiliations, which will create healthcare programs that best meet
patient needs, will be established as a result of these reviews?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Health's Academic Partnership
Instruction, titled ``The VA-Medical School Partnership: Guidelines for
Review of Affiliations'' dated February 26, 1997, included guidelines
and questions to assist in the development of educational programs that
best meet patient care needs.
It is informative to consider some of the assumptions that underlie
VA affiliations to ensure that education and patient care programs are
focused on providing the best care to the veteran patient. First,
health care workforce training, medical education, and research are
most beneficial to patient care and most valuable to learners when they
are aligned with the best models of patient care. Learning the art and
practice of medicine in a setting that provides comprehensive care for
the sickest and neediest of patients affords opportunities to learn
medicine for practice of the highest quality. Second, education and
research should be accountable to healthcare system needs. Accordingly,
they should be managed with performance expectations and outcome
measures. Third, VA's educational offerings should provide the numbers
and types of healthcare professionals that reflect the needs of
veterans as well as the broader community.
Finally, faculty, residents, and students should focus on providing
healthcare value. In this vein, VA has explicitly defined value in
healthcare to include technical competence, the wise and economic use
of scarce resources, systematic provision of access to primary care,
awareness of the importance of the functional status of the patient as
a goal of health care, and focus on patient satisfaction.
One very daunting problem that we are facing with another
population of veterans, the aging, is the shortage of health
professionals with training in geriatrics. The shortage exists even
among the number of those in academic settings who might train others
about the significant differences between how to treat a younger and an
older patient.
Question. What is the role in the re-engineering VA's medical
education in training physicians and others in geriatrics and are there
plans to increase this role?
Answer. VHA is in the second year of a 3-year implementation of the
recommendations from the Residency Realignment Review Committee. These
recommendations are germane to all resident physician training. In
fiscal year 1997, the first 25 percent of these reductions were made
and an additional 50 percent are being made this year. VA and its
academic affiliates have expanded positions in general internal
medicine and geriatrics as well as other primary care fields that have
not traditionally trained in large numbers in VA. VA residency
allocations for geriatric medicine increased from 104 positions in
Academic Year (AY) 1995-1996 to 160.5 positions in AY 1998-1999. This
represents a 54-percent increase. VA intends to continue the leadership
it has held in geriatrics training over the last two decades.
These changes in health professions training build on a strong
foundation of commitment to training of geriatric health professions in
VA. VA's substantial commitment to geriatrics training and education is
reflected in existing programs including training in geriatrics at all
VA facilities and specific programs targeted to the sixteen Geriatric
Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC's), the Geropsychology
Post-Doctoral Fellowship, and the Pre-Doctoral Nurse Fellowship and the
Rehabilitation Research Pre-Doctoral Fellowship programs.
Question. What is being done in the area of preventive care
education for older patients.
Answer. Preventive care education is done through several
geriatrics programs, including the GEM programs (Geriatric Evaluation
and Management), the GRECC's (Geriatric Research Education and Clinical
Centers) and also through the Geriatric Primary Care Clinics.
Preventive care education is also an important component of the HBPC
(Home Based Primary Care) Programs.
The following is a description of improvements in the quality of
care indicators tracked by our Chronic Disease Care, Prevention and
Palliative Care Indexes.
The Prevention Index consists of 9 quality outcome indicators that
measure how well VA follows national primary prevention and early
detection recommendations for diseases having major social consequences
such as cancer, smoking and alcohol abuse. Compliance with these
recommendations nearly doubled (from 34 percent to 67 percent) in
fiscal year 1997. VA outperforms the private sector on all indicators
where comparable data exist, ranging from being 5 percent to 69 percent
better on individual quality indicators. In addition, VA has already
surpassed the U.S. Public Health Service Healthy People 2000 goals for
5 of the indicators. Specific examples are immunizations for pneumoccal
disease (61 percent) and influenza (61 percent), and the percentage of
women receiving cervical cancer screening (90 percent).
The Chronic Disease Care Index consists of 14 quality outcome
indicators that measure how well VA follows national guidelines for
high volume diagnoses such as ischemic heart disease and diabetes.
Percentages reflect the number of patients who actually receive a
required medical intervention. The Chronic Disease Care Index in the
aggregate rose 73 percent in fiscal year 1997. Again, where comparable
data exist, VA consistently outperformed the private sector, ranging
from being 21 percent to 124 percent better on individual quality
indicators. Examples of VA versus private sector performance include
the rate of aspirin therapy for patients with heart disease (92 percent
vs. 76 percent) and the percentage of diabetics whose blood sugar
control is monitored annually by a blood test (85 percent vs. 38
percent).
In the way of background, our Prevention and Chronic Disease Care
Indexes are analogous to the Health Plan Employer Data and Information
Set (HEDIS) instrument used in the private sector, although in viewing
these VA indexes it is notable that we are evaluating our performance
for several important indicators not routinely tracked in the private
sector. For example, VA is setting the national benchmark for all
healthcare systems by mandating and monitoring the use of standardized
instruments to screen for alcohol abuse and to assess the functional
status of substance abusers.
year 2000
Question. In May of 1997 the GAO made recommendations to VBA with
respect to strengthening its year 2000 program management. Since the
date of the GAO report, VBA has made progress in resolving the year
2000 problem. The VA is fully aware of the serious implications that
the year 2000 problems may have on not only the Department but the
world at large. The Department has a self-imposed December 1998
deadline to ensure that all systems are made compliant.
All of the GAO recommendations have been adopted and are either
implemented or in the process of being implemented.
Who is on the oversight Committee that provides advice to the year-
2000 Project Manager and the Chief Information Officer?
Answer. This committee has a GS-15 representative from the Office
of Management and a GS-15 representative from the Veterans Benefits
Administration. Contractor support is provided by SRA International,
Inc.
Question. When will all applications and third party products be in
compliance?
Answer. VBA is following the standardized, government-wide year
2000 best practices phases established by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), in conjunction with the Federal CIO Council Subcommittee
on Year 2000, to resolve year 2000 problems. VBA has set December 1998
as the self-imposed deadline to ensure all systems are compliant,
including commercial-off-the-shelf products. However, VA, like any
other consumer--both public and private sector--is dependent on
manufacturers' efforts to disclose year 2000 compliance information,
and upon our trading partners to help resolve, implement, and test
interface changes. We are working with the CIO Council Subcommittee on
Year 2000 to expedite efforts in this area.
Question. What is being done to resolve interface issues with other
agencies?
Answer. VBA completed its inventory of external data exchange
interfaces in July 1997 and has identified 318 interfaces external to
the VA. As of February 28, 1998, 65 percent, of the external interfaces
are year 2000 compliant. VBA has made substantial progress in resolving
interfaces issues and making direct contact with trading partners (both
Federal and private sector) to discover their plans. VBA has contacted
all external trading partners, and we have agreements for 90 percent of
our external interfaces. VA's partner agencies are fully aware of the
need to resolve interfaces issues and agencies are actively working
with VA.
Question. Can you describe what will occur as a result of the new
VBA Systems Architecture hardware environment hosting its first
application?
Answer. In January 1998, the Claims Processing System (CPS) was
successfully migrated to the new, centralized hardware environment, the
Sequent NUMA-Q (Non-Unified Memory Allocation-Q) platform at the Austin
Automation Center. CPS is the first three-tiered client server
application to run in this environment. Initial reports indicate that
migrating to the new VBA systems architecture environment improved
response time and provided easier operation and maintainability of CPS.
Two Loan Guaranty applications will soon follow CPS: the Expanded
Lender Information (ELI) system and the Automated Loan Production
System (ALPS) are both scheduled for implementation in third quarter
1998.
A task order is currently underway to analyze the major functions
related to systems development, identify missing or weak standards,
policies, and procedures and deliver new or revised ones.
Question. When will this analysis be complete?
Answer. An initial task order has identified infrastructure
functions required by VBA application development and has inventoried
existing standards, policies, and procedures. This task order also
identified infrastructure gaps and formulated a plan to address them in
a follow-up phase. This phase, addressed in a second task order, is
currently underway and is scheduled to be completed during third
quarter 1998.
The purpose of the second phase is to develop and fully document
the necessary policies, processes, procedures, and standards for
institutionalizing VBA's infrastructure functions. These functions are
the following: Project Management, Configuration Management, Software
Quality Assurance, Development Management, Application Security
Management, Architecture Management, and Development Environment
Management.
hepatitis
Question. Secretary West, I am aware of recent reports out of the
VA that the rate of hepatitis C in the VA health system has tripled at
VA hospital in the VA health system. At the 1997 NIH Consensus
Conference on hepatitis C, Dr. Leonard B. Seeff noted that a small
study at one VA hospital in Washington, DC, revealed that 50 percent of
all the incoming veterans were infected with hepatitis C.
This high rate at one institution begs the question, has there been
any effort to screen incoming veterans at all VA hospitals or other
facilities for hepatitis C? What does the Department plan to do to
identify infected veterans throughout the VA health system and to
provide them with information and treatment to arrest the progression
of hepatitis C for their own recovery and to stop the spread of
hepatitis C?
Answer. There is not evidence that the rate of hepatitis C virus
(HCV) infection in the VA has tripled. In 1991, the VA mandated the
aggregate tracking of the number of patients seen in VA facilities who
were positive for HCV antibody, using the tests which first became
available in 1990. In 1991 there were slightly over 6,600 patients who
tested positive; comparable numbers for 1994 and 1996 were 18,800 and
21,400, respectively. In the last 3 years the rate of increase has
diminished, which may indicate a plateau of antibody positivity.
However, each entry does not indicate a single individual, and it is
possible that some persons were tested more than a single time.
Moreover, it is not certain whether the data indicate a true increase
in prevalence, or alternatively, greater knowledge of the disease and
the availability of antibody tests, with subsequent increased
utilization of testing over time. Finally, since this was an
observational study and not a serologic survey, we cannot determine
what proportion of hepatitis C infected VA patients were captured.
Dr. Seeff's data from the Washington, DC, VAMC are misrepresented
in the question; specifically, a 6-week survey of inpatients revealed
an antibody prevalence of 20 percent, not 50 percent.
There is no formal program to screen all ``incoming'' veterans at
all VA hospitals. Given the expected frequency of HCV infection this
would be impractical and very cost ineffective. However, the Office of
Patient Care Services, in conjunction with VA experts in liver disease,
has prepared standards for assessing risk of HCV and derivative
recommendations for appropriate testing. This information, and an
algorithm for HCV antibody testing, will be distributed by the Under
Secretary for Health to all VA facilities.
The standards address counseling for reduction of high risk
behavior. However, it is unclear if any current interventions, such as
interferon with or without ribavirin, can arrest the progression of
hepatitis C.
Question. Based on your experience in your former position, is the
Army testing its personnel for hepatitis C to ensure our military is at
optimum readiness?
Answer. The Army does not view occurrence of the hepatitis C virus
as a readiness issue. The occurrence rate of the virus in current and
prior service personnel is 0.6 percent, consistent with the U.S.
population. Therefore, hepatitis C virus testing is not routinely
performed at any entry or screening process for Army personnel, except
when they are blood donors. As a blood donor, all units of blood are
tested for various strains of hepatitis and HIV. The only other time
Army personnel are tested for hepatitis is when they or a family member
exhibit symptoms consistent with the virus.
Question. Do you believe that implementing a preventive strategy
aimed at identifying and treating the hepatitis C infection at this
time would be effective?
Answer. We believe it is important to identify HCV infection in
those veteran patients at risk, and are implementing the strategy
identified above. We do not believe that treatment of all antibody
positive patients is indicated at this time. Current therapy is of
relatively poor efficacy, and data are lacking that biochemical
improvement in hepatitis, or reduction in HCV viral load (measured as
viral RNA) will translate into clinical outcomes such as improved
quality of life or prevention of disease progression. Clinical
determinations to treat HCV infection are most appropriately
individualized, based upon current literature and shared clinician-
patient decisions; alternatively, therapy may be offered within the
context of ongoing clinical trials.
aging veterans
Question. VA seems to be in a unique position to help better
prepare us to deal with the impact of an aging population. By virtue of
now more than 20 years of experience in responding to the needs of the
aging population of World War II veterans, VA has learned a great deal
about how to care for an older population and about the field of
geriatrics. We must ensure that VA continues to explore creative new
approaches to long-term and geriatric care programs.
I am concerned, however, that too little of what VA knows and has
learned, and indeed, what VA could learn through focused research in
the coming years, is shared with those outside of VA who have an
interest in aging issues.
We all know that most older persons do not want to go into nursing
homes. I have often thought that it would be a benefit to veterans if
VA were to encourage States to build State Veterans Homes on VA
property so that the veterans could live in the State facility while
enjoying easy access to VA care.
I am interested in facilities that provide a continuum of care for
our aging veteran population such as is being proposed at Fort Howard
in Baltimore. The Governor of Maryland will include a $100,000 planning
grant in the State's fiscal year 1999's supplemental budget for Fort
Howard Veterans Home. Dennis Smith, Director of the Maryland Health
Care System, has indicated his support of such a facility.
What do you think of that idea?
Answer. Title 38 gives VA statutory authority to transfer real
property to a State for use as the site of a State veterans' nursing
home or domiciliary facility [Sec. 8122(a)(3)]. If the State of
Maryland is willing to commit the necessary resources to participate in
the construction of such a facility and then to operate the facility
primarily for the care of veterans, this idea has merit. The Medical
Center Director and Network Director concur with the idea.
Question. What can the VA do to support Maryland in its creative
efforts at Fort Howard?
Answer. In addition to transferring land, providing up to 65
percent of the cost to construct a State veterans' home and paying per
diem to the State of Maryland for eligible veterans residing in the
facility (once the facility is operational and recognized), VA has
authority to provide support through sharing agreements. A State
veterans' home may also benefit from access to Federal Supply Schedules
and VA contracts for acquiring services, equipment, supplies and
pharmaceuticals for operations within the home. Enhanced-use lease
ventures are another alternative that VA is exploring with interested
States.
Question. What is VA doing to promote this type of approach and
ensure a continuum of care to our aging veterans?
Answer. VA has provided land for State veterans' homes at
Murfreesboro, TN; Roanoke, VA; Batavia, NY; St. Albans, NY; Phoenix,
AZ; Boise, ID; Pittsburgh, PA; Fayetteville, NC; and Salt Lake City,
UT. Land transfers are pending at the following sites: Montrose, NY;
Big Springs, TX; and Temple, TX. Enhanced-use lease initiatives are
also under development between VA and the States of North Carolina and
Kansas.
Question. To what extent is VHA working with community entities to
develop joint programs to take care of older patients?
Answer. VHA has used its specific sharing authority in Adult Day
Health Care (ADHC) to develop joint programs in Chicago and Salem, VA.
There are ongoing discussions with community ADHC's in a number of
cities. VHA expects that its new National Strategy on Home and
Community Based Care, will stimulate more joint ventures in home and
community based services.
Question. What is the current mix across the VA system between
institutional care in a VA nursing home or in some other institutional
bed and non-institutional care, such as adult day care, or hospital
based home care?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, VA expended $1.9 billion in long-term
care programs. Of that amount, $1.75 billion or 92 percent was spent in
nursing home care. Home care services and day health services accounted
for $146 million or 8 percent of all long-term care expenditures.
Question. Does the resource allocation model--Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation (VERA)--work to promote non-institutional care?
Answer. VERA is a method of allocating VA's Medical Care
appropriation to the 22 networks. VERA is not designed to promote a
specific type of care. It has the following objectives:
--Equitably distribute funds across networks.
--Fund highest priority veterans.
--Address veterans' special health care needs.
--Create a funding framework that is understandable and predictable.
--Align management and incentives with best practice.
--Improve accountability for research and education support.
--Comply with Public Law 104-204 requirements.
Within these objectives, Network Directors have discretion to
provide the services that are deemed clinically appropriate for their
patients. They are expected to fund facilities and programs according
to the following principles:
--Funds distributions are readily understandable and result in
predictable allocations.
--Support high quality healthcare delivery in the most appropriate
setting.
--Support integrated patient-centered operations.
--Provide incentives to ensure continued delivery of appropriate
special care.
--Support the goal of improving access to care.
--Provide adequate support for the VA's research and education
missions.
--Be consistent with eligibility requirements and priorities.
--Be consistent with the network's strategic plans and initiatives.
--Promote managerial flexibility and innovation.
--Encourage increases in alternative revenue collections.
If these principles are applied, and if non-institutional care is
the appropriate setting for a particular patient, then VERA would
support this type of care.
Question. What is Headquarters communicating to the Veterans
Integrated Systems Networks (VISN) about furnishing long-term care?
Answer. VHA is awaiting the final report of the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Future of VA Long-Term Care. The Committee has
completed its year-long review of VA's long-term care and is finalizing
its report to the Under Secretary for Health. Following a broad study
and review of the Committee report by VHA stakeholders, the agency will
be able to outline a national policy for all long-term care services.
Question. Are the VISN's left to their own devices in this area or
are there types and levels of long-term care which must be provided?
Answer. Under current law, long-term care services are lower
priority than other forms of hospital and outpatient care. With the
introduction of eligibility reform, home health care services will
become part of the basic benefits package to the extent they are
available in each local area.
Question. What plans does VA have to expand the amount of non-
institutional long-term care offered to veterans?
Answer. VHA Directive 98-022, dated April 1, 1998, articulates
national VHA policy and establishes a national VHA strategy that will
provide the context for expanding and developing home and community-
based care within each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN). The
VA can provide national leadership in this critical area of healthcare
by developing an innovative, flexible approach to home and community-
based care that is fully integrated into the healthcare system and uses
resources efficiently and effectively to meet the needs of an aging and
chronically ill population.
benefits
Question. VBA has continued its commitment to improving the
processing of compensation and pension (C&P) claims through its
Business Processing Re-engineering (BPR) approach. VA, however,
continues to lag in meeting its timeliness goal for the processing of
C&P claims. At this time, VA has ambitious goals for the year 2000 with
respect to time required to process claims.
Although an improved claims system can improve the efficiency of
claims processing you still need the human commodity to make those
systems work properly. I am very concerned about the level of staffing
in VBA. Everything I have seen or know suggests that VBA must have
more, not less, staff if there is to be any hope of cutting into the
backlog of claims and giving veterans and other claimants timely
service on benefit claims.
However, the Administration's budget calls for only very modest
increases in the Compensation and Pension Service and an actual
reduction in VBA FTE overall.
Do you believe that the proposed staffing level will be sufficient
for VBA to fulfill its missions in the coming fiscal year? Stated
another way, if there were not resource restrictions, what staffing
level would you recommend for VBA?
Answer. From 1995 to the present, VBA reduced employment from
13,147 to 11,200, approximately 15 percent. There have been workload
decreases that occurred at the same time, which made this reduction
somewhat easier to accommodate. However, the C&P workload is expected
to increase and the claims are expected to be more complicated. The
1999 budget requests additional resources to maintain overall
employment at 1998 levels. The 1999 request technically shows a slight
decrease (125), but this primarily reflects the transfer of Debt
Management positions from VBA to the Franchise Fund.
While I am very satisfied and support the budget request for VBA
there are strategic issues that warrant further evaluation. Two areas
that I believe require further analysis and review are quality and the
plan for Business Process Reengineering implementation (BPR). In order
to improve quality throughout the system, I believe we need to re-
institute quality reviews in each of our business lines. The front-end
computer based training planned as part of BPR will enhance our claims
processing and improve the quality of our claims, but does not come
without a price. As personnel are engaged in learning these new tools
it takes time from the processing of claims and increases the pending
workload. Yet these initiatives must take place in order to realize
long term gain across the system.
VBA's long term initiatives are built on the assumption there will
be a stable workforce that continues to provide better service each
year. This is why the maintenance of a stable employment level for 1999
is so important.
perry point rent increase
Question. Secretary West, I am concerned with the large rent
increase that is proposed for the Perry Point facility in Maryland as a
result of the QMIS rate evaluation. I have not received a written
response to my request to put that rent increase on hold until an
assessment was done of the fairness of the rates proposed by QMIS.
What commitment has the Department made to address this issue at
Perry Point, ensuring that we don't place an undue burden on the men
and women who serve our veterans?
Answer. VA has put the Perry Point rental increases on hold until
such time as new fee appraisals are obtained. The new appraisals will
be used to validate the appropriateness of proposed increases. No
change in existing rental rates will occur until after these new
appraisals are reviewed, evaluated and approved by VA Headquarters. It
is anticipated that this process will be completed by May 1998.
Question. If the reassessment of rental values at Perry Point still
calls for a drastic rate increase, what are you willing to do to phase
in the rent increase?
Answer. Current quarters management guidelines issued by OMB allow
increases that are 25 percent or more above the current rent, to be
imposed incrementally over a period not to exceed 1 year.
Question. What can the VA do to ensure that the national policy has
adequate flexibility to allow for unique situations with drastic
increases--including on site assessments when necessary to ensure that
comparisons are being made of similar types of housing?
Answer. VA's national quarters policy stipulates that when the
facility Director has knowledge, supported by specific examples, that
the appraised basic rental rate is out of line with comparable private
housing in the local community, or that allowable deductions have not
been given proper consideration in the establishment of comparable
rent, he or she may first request reconsideration from the appraiser or
the regional survey coordinator. The existing rental rates charged for
the period immediately preceding the appraisal or survey under
consideration will continue to be charged pending the outcome of
reconsideration by the appraiser, or regional survey coordinator, or
until the next annual adjustment is required. If a reappraisal or
resurvey requested by the facility Director is refused or results in no
relief, an appeal may be sent to VA Headquarters for resolution. VA
Headquarters has the flexibility to order new appraisals or make other
rental adjustments as may be warranted to establish rates that are
consistent with market values in the nearest established community.
medical care cost collections/medicare subvention
Question. Indications are that the VA is running behind in its
collections of third-party payments. Does the Department believe it
will meet its collections projections for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. VA believes it will meet recovery targets.
Question. What is the VA doing to increase collections?
Answer. The chart below describes the proposed changes, updated
February 1998, VA will make to increase recoveries. Implementation of
these improvements will occur over the next several years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Identification............... Pre-registration: Involves
contacting patients scheduled
for outpatient visits to
remind the patients of their
appointment and to update
patient information.
$6.4 million was recovered from
insurance from 10 medical
centers in one year. Assuming
average recoveries of $500,000
per each of 150 medical
centers, $75 million in new
revenues could be generated.
(Pre-registration, HCFA Match)......... HCFA Match: Approximately 5
percent of the Medicare
eligible population possess
third party primary, full
coverage, reimbursable
insurance as a result of their
full time employment or the
employment of a spouse.
MCCR is pursuing a match of
Medicare and VA records to
identify primary payer data.
If the estimate is correct and
VA mirrors the private sector,
potential recoveries from this
group may total between $60 to
$97 million.
HCFA Medicare Remittance Notices....... Since VA presently cannot
receive reimbursement from
Medicare for eligible
veterans, MCCR has not been
able to submit claims to
Medicare Supplemental insurers
similar to those of Medicare
providers that have an
accompanying remittance notice
from a Medicare Fiscal
Intermediary or Carrier.
As a result, certain payers are
withholding payment of
Medicare Supplemental claims.
HCFA and VA are negotiating an
agreement to allow VA to
utilize existing Medicare
contracts to obtain the
remittance notices to satisfy
payer requirements.
A one-time recovery of $42
million in outstanding unpaid
claims and a recurring annual
$8 million in additional
revenue are expected as a
result of this contract and
change in processing.
Utilization Review..................... In fiscal year 1995,
approximately $159 million in
non-Medigap inpatient claims
and $44 million in non-Medigap
outpatient claims were denied
by payers. Utilization review
staff, familiar with third
party criteria, such as
admissions, lengths of stay,
discharges, pre-certification,
continued stay reviews, etc.,
could negotiate payments for
many of the denied claims. UR
staff have recovered as much
as $400,000 per medical center
in previously denied claims.
If we assume a possible
average success rate of
between $100,000 and $200,000
for each of the 150 medical
centers, recoveries from
proper training and assignment
could amount to between $15
and $30 million.
TRICARE, Sharing, etc., Revenue........ As a consequence of Public Law
104-262, eligibility reform
legislation, expanded sharing
contracts, including support
of TRICARE is expected to
result in $25 million in new
revenues annually.
SC/NSC Documentation and Billing....... Approximately 3.3 percent of
service connected inpatient
care and 2.5 percent of
service connected outpatient
care for adjunct conditions
are inappropriately being
coded as treatment for
adjudicated service connected
care. Properly coding this
care as adjunct and billing
insurance carriers will result
in an additional $11 million
per year.
Salary and Benefit Offset.............. An IG audit determined that by
referring delinquent patient
copayment and means test debt
for salary and benefits
offset, an additional $3
million in revenues can be
recovered. The MCCR program
currently utilizes IRS offset
for delinquent debt and is
implementing referral of debt
over 90 days old to the Debt
Management Center in St. Paul.
Point of Service Contracts............. In order to remain competitive,
traditional HMO's recently
began offering their enrollees
the option of obtaining health
care outside the HMO network.
The enrollees agree to bear
larger copayments and
providers receive
reimbursements that are less
than customary and usual.
Aggressive identification and
recovery from these HMO plans
will be pursued.
Network Incentives..................... Network retention of revenues
recovered will result in
better-managed local recovery
efforts.
Reasonable Rates....................... Reimbursement rates are being
structured to reflect
reasonable charges responsive
to market prices for the
actual services provided; and
a DRG rate schedule for
inpatient care is being
developed to be used with
automated multiple rate
schedule prices in Integrated
Billing. Outpatient procedure
rates are planned for late in
fiscal year 1998.
Third Party Delinquent Claims.......... A nationwide contract to handle
MCCR delinquent third party
claims over 90 days for
inpatient health care services
provided veterans will help
increase delinquent
collections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the Department have a plan with specific benchmarks
that it will use to increase collections and ensure that projections
are met?
Answer. Yes. Networks have Strategic Plans, which include revenue
projections. National recovery projections incorporate those goals.
Question. What will the VA plan to do if it is clear that it will
not meet its collections projections?
Answer. VA is closely monitoring the collections. If at any time we
do not believe that we will reach these goals, we will take immediate
action to notify, and work with, the Administration and the Congress to
ensure that adequate funding is provided for the healthcare of our
nation's veterans.
Question. What plan does the VA have in place to ensure that the
medical services provided to veterans does not suffer?
Answer. VA has developed an implementation plan for Public Law 105-
33. This addresses the process that is to be followed. Below is the
plan.
PUBLIC LAW 105-33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation plan Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor monthly deposits in Medical Care Beginning November 1, 1997.
Collection Fund (MCCF) to U.S. Treasury
36 5287.1.
Provide estimates to Secretary of Veterans April 1998 July 1998.
Affairs regarding deposits to MCCF and
necessary action to be taken if shortfall
of $25,000,000 below estimated recovery
level of $604,000,000 is projected as
contained in Public Law 105-33.
If shortfall exists as noted in No. 2, August 1998.
prepare certification to the Secretary of
the Treasury identifying the amount of
the estimated shortfall.
Establish policy and mechanism to make September 1998.
available any additional deposits from
the U.S. Treasury as a result of an
estimated shortfall to each designated
health care region an amount that bears
the same ratio to the total amount
recovered or collected by such region
during that fiscal year.
Reconcile the estimates certified by the October 1998.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for fiscal
year 1998 as a shortfall to actual MCCF
deposits and make adjustments assuring
that not less than $579,000,000 ($604
million less $25 million) shall be
available for veterans' medical care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What role does Medicare Subvention play in the VA's plan
to increase non-appropriated income to 10 percent?
Answer. VHA's goal is to reach 10 percent of total funding from
alternative revenues by fiscal year 2002. This would include, Medical
Care Cost Collections (principally third party), sharing (VA/DOD,
TRICARE and enhanced sharing) and Medicare subvention. Medicare
subvention is an important part of the strategy to meet the 10 percent
alternative revenue goal. If legislation is not passed or is delayed,
our goal still remains 10 percent by fiscal year 2002, but achieving it
becomes significantly more difficult.
Question. What contingency plans does the VA have to ensure
adequate Medical Care funding is provided in the event that Medicare
Subvention is not passed this year?
Answer. We have confidence that Medicare subvention will be
enacted, and that the test will show dual eligible veterans prefer to
come to VA to use their Medicare benefits and that VA will provide
excellent cost-effective healthcare at reduced expenditures to the
Medicare Trust Fund. If not, other revenue alternatives (e.g., VA/DOD
sharing, enhanced sharing, TRICARE and Medical Care Cost Collections)
would need to be expanded further to fill the gap to meet the 10
percent target by fiscal year 2002.
Question. What is the VA doing to help get Medicare Subvention
passed?
Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of
Health and Human Services have prepared and co-signed a Memorandum of
Understanding that governs the VA Medicare project when it is
authorized. Enabling legislation has been submitted although not yet
introduced in Congress. The VA Under Secretary for Health and members
of his staff are working with Congress, OMB, and HHS in support of
legislation to authorize Medicare reimbursement to VA. While awaiting
legislation, VA is moving ahead to position itself to become a Medicare
provider.
tobacco issues
Question. What is the VA's justification for seeking to go against
the VA General Counsel decision and not provide benefits to veterans
who develop smoking related illnesses after the normal presumptive
period?
Answer. The Administration has consistently supported the integrity
of the veterans' compensation program, which is intended to compensate
our Nation's veterans and their survivors for deaths or disabilities
acquired as a result of military service. There is no question that the
program should compensate veterans for tobacco-related illnesses which
became manifest during military service or an applicable presumptive
period. However, awarding compensation for tobacco-related illness
acquired after military service or after the presumptive period and
based solely on claims of nicotine addiction beginning during service
goes beyond the very important purposes of the veterans' disability
program.
Congress has recognized the appropriateness of boundaries to the
program by prohibiting payment of disability benefits for illnesses
based solely on use of alcohol or drugs during military service. Like
the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products reflects a
personal decision, not a requirement of military service. Most
veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It seems
inappropriate to compensate those that choose to use tobacco with a
program developed for those who became disabled in service to our
nation. Our legislative proposal would disallow future claims of this
type. Veterans currently receiving these benefits and veterans filing
claims prior to enactment would not be affected by the change.
Question. Why aren't all of the savings from this proposal directed
back into veterans programs?
Answer. The benefits that you refer to are not traditional VA
benefits. Our legislation would merely reinstate VA policy in place
prior to the new legal interpretation, thus retaining the program's
intent. Awarding benefits for tobacco-related illnesses acquired after
service based solely on tobacco-use during service, goes beyond the
purpose of a program that we have consistently supported.
We have proposed several improvements for veterans:
--Fund a new smoking-cessation program for any veteran who began
smoking in the military.
--Provide a 20-percent rate increase for the Montgomery GI Bill
education program.
--Provide an annual increase of $100 million in VA's readjustment
benefits account to reimburse Department of Labor programs to
train, retrain, and assist older veterans to find employment.
Question. What does the VA propose would be provided for these
veterans?
Answer. In lieu of providing monetary compensation, VA would
provide medical care for any eligible veterans with smoking related
illnesses. In addition, VA would provide smoking cessation through a
contract program to any honorably discharged veterans who began smoking
in the military. Eligible veterans, who are enrolled in VA's health
care programs, already have access to smoking cessation if desired.
Question. Why isn't the Administration seeking any tobacco
settlement money for the VA? Do you think that the VA should receive
any tobacco settlement money?
Answer. As you know, VA programs were not a subject in the
settlement negotiations. However, as the details of the tobacco
settlement are established and if Federal programs are considered as
possible recipients of settlement funds, VA has requested that it be
included in these considerations.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ZIRSCHKY, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. ROBERT F. FOLEY, COMMANDER, MILITARY DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON
JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON NATIONAL
CEMETERY
RORY D. SMITH, BUDGET OFFICER, ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
CLAUDIA TORNBLOM, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET)
Mr. Zirschky. I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
It is an honor and a pleasure to be representing Arlington
Cemetery. I think it is our foremost national shrine to the men
and women who have served in the Armed Forces.
Let me introduce a few people who are with me today. Major
General Foley is the Commander of the Military District of
Washington and Medal of Honor winner.
Senator Bond. Welcome, General Foley. Delighted to have you
with us.
Mr. Zirschky. We have Jack Metzler, the Superintendent for
Arlington Cemetery; Rory Smith, the Budget Officer for the
cemetery; and Claudia Tornblom is here in place of Steve Dola
who retired after more than 30 years with the Army at the first
of the year.
expansion
There are only two things I want to discuss today, and I
will be very brief. I was interested in your comments about
Jefferson Barracks. It is very difficult to expand cemeteries
for veterans. We have been working for many years to try and
expand Arlington Cemetery, and we are so close but we could use
a little help to get across the finish line. If we do not take
action, the cemetery is going to close early in the next
century. If we can accomplish our new master plan that was
recently approved by the National Capital Planning Commission,
we can keep it open hopefully through the next century.
In our budget request, we have asked for one-half million
dollars to begin preparation of a concept plan for how we would
expand the cemetery onto adjacent areas. Part of the land is
called section 29 which is near the Custis Mansion at the
cemetery. We are also hopeful that we can acquire the Navy
Annex and Henderson Hall, as well as parts of Fort Myer when
they become no longer needed for military purposes.
We would invite you, Senator, and any of your colleagues to
tour the cemetery. We would be happy to show you the areas, but
also be happy to arrange for you to lay a wreath at the Tomb of
the Unknown in honor of Missouri's veterans or all of the men
and women who have served in the Armed Forces.
We probably will need legislation to make those transfers a
reality. I understand both the House and the Senate are at
least considering such legislation, if they have not already
introduced it. We would appreciate your support for that.
budget highlights
The second issue I want to briefly talk about is our
budget. As you noted, it is $11.6 million in new funds. We
also, through scrubbing our books, found about $633,000 from
prior years that has been recovered. Some of that money will be
used for the new expansion plan, for a wash/fuel island, for
expansion of our maintenance work done by contract, and
$250,000 to restore the amphitheater.
We would also like to hire by contract an environmental
manager to help us deal with some of the environmental issues
at the cemetery.
prepared statement
Last, Mr. Chairman, we recently submitted a strategic plan
as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. The
goal of that plan is to help keep the cemetery open through the
next century. Again, we will need your help to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]*
Prepared Statement of John H. Zirschky
introduction
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee in
support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request for Cemeterial
Expenses, Department of the Army. Arlington National Cemetery is the
Nation's premier military cemetery and it is an honor to represent the
cemetery.
With me today are Major General Robert F. Foley, the Commander of
the Military District of Washington; Mr. John C. Metzler, Jr.,
Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery; Mr. Rory D. Smith,
Budget Officer from Arlington National Cemetery; and Ms. Claudia
Tornblom, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Management and Budget).
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is responsible for
the operation and maintenance of Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemeteries.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, unless action is taken
to extend the life of the cemetery, space will not be available after
2025 to lay to rest today's heroes. We have recently completed a multi-
year effort to develop a new Master Plan for the cemetery. We have also
completed a Strategic Plan. Both support keeping the cemetery open as
long as possible. Consistent with the President's fiscal year 1999
budget, Arlington National Cemetery will develop an expansion plan for
using contiguous land sites that will be vacated by the Army, Navy and
Marine Corps. The Army has agreed to transfer major portions of Ft.
Myer to Arlington National Cemetery for development into grave sites
when these lands are vacated. The first phase of this transfer will
address Ft. Myer sites and the Navy Annex, part of the expansion plan
for which funding is included in the fiscal year 1999 budget. We need
your help to make this vision a reality.
The program I will present before you today is directed toward
meeting today's requirements, while moving forward to address
tomorrow's challenges.
fiscal year 1999 budget overview
The request for fiscal year 1999 is $11,666,000. In addition to
that amount, $633,664 has been identified as remaining available from
prior year recoveries, bringing the total fiscal year 1999 program to
$12,299,664.
The sum for recovery of prior year obligations was identified as
part of a comprehensive review of the Cemeterial Expenses, Army,
appropriations going back to fiscal year 1986. During the review it was
discovered that, after meeting requirements for operation, maintenance
and improvement, these funds are available for reapportionment and use
in fiscal year 1999. The availability of these funds was recently
affirmed by the Army Audit Agency.
The appropriations requested, in combination with prior year
recoveries, are sufficient to support the work force, to assure
adequate maintenance of the buildings, to acquire necessary supplies
and equipment, to provide maintenance standards expected at Arlington
and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries, and to permit
selected improvements in cemetery infrastructure. The budget includes:
--$800,000 to construct a wash stand/fuel island;
--$500,000 to prepare a concept land utilization plan for land
contiguous to Arlington National Cemetery under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and currently used by
the Army, Navy and Marine Corps; and
--$253,000 to expand contracts for enhancing the appearance of the
cemetery while implementing government-wide streamlining plans.
The fiscal year 1999 program is divided into three programs:
Operation and Maintenance, Administration, and Construction. The
principal items in each program are as follows:
The Operation and Maintenance Program, $9,401,000, will provide for
the cost of daily operations necessary to support an average of 20
interments and inurnments daily and for maintenance of approximately
630 acres. This program supports 106 of the cemeteries' total 112 full-
time equivalent Federal employee workyears. Contractual services are
estimated to cost $3,429,000 and include these major items: $1,288,000
for grounds maintenance contract, $775,000 for the information guide
service contract, $663,000 for a tree and shrub maintenance contract,
and $110,000 for a custodial services contract. The tree and shrub
maintenance contract work is increasing by $253,000 and expands an
initiative begun in fiscal year 1996 to increase the amount of work
performed and to enhance the appearance of the cemetery, while reducing
the overall number of Government employees. Based on past experience,
the custodial contract was estimated in the fiscal year 1998 budget to
cost $210,000. Recent competition, however, has resulted in the award
of the fiscal year 1998 custodial contract to a lower bidder, producing
significant apparent savings in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
We will continue to monitor the situation, retaining the differences in
costs as contingencies until we have gained experience with the ability
of the new contractor to satisfy the requirements of the contract
during the busiest season at Arlington.
The Administration Program, $914,000, provides for essential
management and administrative functions to include staff supervision of
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries. Funds
requested will provide for personnel compensation, benefits and the
reimbursable administrative support costs of the cemeteries. The
increase of $314,000 in support costs is necessary in order to expand
our reimbursable administrative support services, including undertaking
support services for procurement and property accountability.
The Construction Program, $1,985,000, provides funds as follows:
$800,000 to construct a wash stand/fuel island, $500,000 to prepare a
concept utilization plan for developing contiguous land, $250,000 to
restore the Old Memorial Amphitheater, $100,000 to perform minor road
repairs throughout the cemetery, and $335,000 to continue the
graveliner program.
funerals
In fiscal year 1997, there were 3,525 interments and 2,000
inurnments; 3,500 interments and 2,000 inurnments are estimated in
fiscal year 1998; and 3,600 interments and 2,100 inurnments are
estimated in fiscal year 1999.
ceremonies
Arlington National Cemetery is this Nation's principal shrine to
honor the men and women who served in the Armed Forces. It is a visible
reflection of America's appreciation for those who have made the
ultimate sacrifice to maintain our freedom. In addition to the
thousands of funerals, with military honors, held there each year,
hundreds of other ceremonies are conducted to honor those who rest in
the cemetery. Thousands of visitors, both foreign and American, visit
Arlington to participate in these events. During fiscal year 1997,
about 2,700 ceremonies were conducted, and the President of the United
States attended the ceremonies on Veterans Day and Memorial Day.
During fiscal year 1997, Arlington National Cemetery accommodated
approximately four million visitors, making Arlington one of the most
visited historic sites in the National Capital Region. This budget
includes $40,000 to continue a study, begun in fiscal year 1998, to
develop an estimating procedure and obtain reliable estimates of the
numbers and kinds of visitors that Arlington National Cemetery serves.
This increased orientation to our ``customers'' is consistent with the
Government Performance and Results Act and the National Performance
Review. Additionally, the study will lead us into the development of
customer surveys to be used in implementation of the Strategic Plan for
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries.
construction projects
New and Expanded Projects in Fiscal Year 1999
Wash stand/fuel island.--This is a significant commitment to
complete a capital improvement project, which will address
environmental concerns. It was designed and included as an additive bid
item in the solicitation for the Facility Maintenance Complex. The
purpose of this project is to centralize fueling and vehicle washing
operations for efficiency and to ensure compliance with environmental
laws and regulations. Construction funding of $800,000 is included in
the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Concept land utilization plan.--The 1997 proposed Master Plan for
Arlington National Cemetery has identified and evaluated 14 parcels of
land that potentially could be used to expand the cemetery, which would
allow it to remain open for initial burials into the 22nd century. All
of the parcels are either currently contiguous to the cemetery or would
become contiguous after currently adjacent parcels are acquired.
Attached is a map showing the locations of the 14 contiguous land sites
considered in this plan.
Conceptual planning is required to determine when the contiguous
lands might be available in the future. Toward that end, $500,000 is
included in the fiscal year 1999 budget to prepare concept utilization
plans to develop contiguous lands owned by the Federal Government as
they become excess to the needs of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps in
the future.
Old Memorial Amphitheater restoration.--Phase I of the Old Memorial
Amphitheater project will be completed by June 1998. The work being
undertaken in Phase I is primarily at the rostrum, the architectural
focal point of the amphitheater and is funded at $175,000. Construction
funding of $250,000 is included in the fiscal year 1999 budget for
Phase II of the restoration. Phase II will complete the project,
restoring the elliptical ambulatory which embraces the rostrum. The
complete project will stabilize masonry and carpentry elements which
have deflected, deteriorated, or are otherwise damaged, and will
repair, replace, or add elements necessary to extend the serviceable
life of the structure. This includes repointing brick columns;
repairing and supporting deteriorated brick walls; repairing
deteriorated column capitals; repainting all columns; replacing
deteriorated wood trellis members; painting; cleaning, resetting and
replacing stone pavers; and installing subsurface drainage.
Construction Projects Underway
Custis Walkway.--The Custis Walkway was initially constructed in
1879 along the route of General Robert E. Lee's departure from the
Custis Mansion at the beginning of the Civil War. A significant portion
of the 2,500-foot-long walkway is affected by heaving and cracks. The
Custis Walkway project also will restore aesthetic features along the
walkway consistent with historical records of previous conditions. The
design for the walkway was developed, pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 47f, in coordination with the Virginia
State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, as well as with the Commission of Fine Arts.
Construction funding of $1,175,000 was provided in fiscal year 1998
appropriations for this project. The contract is expected to be awarded
this summer.
Columbarium roads.--The contract for Columbarium roads associated
with the Phase III increment is expected to be awarded in April. The
work, estimated to cost $810,000 (including design costs), is scheduled
to be completed in November 1998.
Columbarium Phase III.--Construction of the first of two courts
comprising Phase III of the Columbarium was completed in October 1997
at a cost of $3,374,632. Construction of the second court, which is
ongoing, will be completed in July 1998. The construction cost for the
second court is estimated at $3,227,100. The combined capacity of the
two Phase III courts is 11,286 niches, bringing the total capacity of
the Columbarium Complex to 31,286 niches.
claims and settlements
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $98,000 to reimburse the
Judgment Fund for the cost to the Department of Justice of a recently
settled and paid claim related to a defective contract option in a
grounds maintenance contract.
Following is a summary of the status of other claims associated
with projects and contracts at Arlington National Cemetery.
We previously reported that a claim for differing site conditions,
submitted by the construction contractor for the demolition of the old
temporary Visitors Center and development of that land (Section 54 and
55) into gravesites, was formally denied. However, the contractor
appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on December
19, 1996. The Department of Justice is handling this case, which
remains in the discovery phase and is at least 6 months from trial.
In addition to the settled claim for which reimbursement is
budgeted, in another claim the grounds maintenance contractor alleged
defective specifications in an interim contract. This claim was tried
in July 1997, and a decision is anticipated within the next 6 to 9
months.
A claim was submitted for extended overhead and additional
irrigation system work at the Kennedy gravesite. A tentative settlement
with this contractor in the amount of $17,500 has been reached.
master plan and strategic plan
The Army recently completed the first update of the Arlington
National Cemetery Master Plan since 1977. The Master Plan identifies
projects and policies to respond to the challenges confronting
Arlington National Cemetery. The proposed 1997 Master Plan for
Arlington National Cemetery has been provided to the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) and Commission of Fine Arts for review. The
NCPC considered the new Master Plan at a hearing on March 5, 1998. The
NCPC's review is required for all master plans and designs for proposed
construction projects in the National Capital Region.
The Master Plan challenges include: an aging infrastructure,
declining availability of space for initial interment, and the need to
preserve the dignity of the cemetery while accommodating substantial
public visitation.
The future projects envisioned in the Master Plan will not begin to
be implemented until we are into the next century. Projects and
policies must be measured against funding to be made available in the
budget and appropriations processes. Detailed planning and engineering
studies necessary to establish the cost, feasibility, and
responsiveness of individual capital projects to the Master Plan
challenges will be programmed and proposed to Congress at the
appropriate times, consistent with the overall program and budget of
the President.
The challenges articulated in the Master Plan were incorporated,
along with others, into the recently submitted Strategic Plan for
fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2003. The Strategic Plan also covers
the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. Pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Strategic Plan lays
out the following: a vision statement, a comprehensive mission
statement, the general goals and objectives that will govern the use
and development of the cemetery, the key strategies that will be used
to achieve the goals and objectives, and the performance indicators
that will be used to assess how well the goals and objectives have been
achieved.
army--interior land transfers
Public Law 104-201, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997, includes two land transfer provisions in Section 2821
relating to Arlington National Cemetery.
Section 29 Land Transfer.--The first part of Section 2821 of the
1997 Authorization Act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer to the Secretary of the Army certain lands found in Section 29
of Arlington National Cemetery. The land found in Section 29 is
currently divided into two zones: the 12-acre Arlington National
Cemetery Interment Zone and 12.5-acre Robert E. Lee Memorial
Preservation Zone. The transfer encompasses the Arlington National
Cemetery Interment Zone and the portions of the Robert E. Lee Memorial
Preservation Zone that do not have historical significance and are not
needed for the maintenance of nearby lands and facilities.
The Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery has visited other
cemeteries to gain information on design options for facilities which
would be fully compatible with the environmental and historical values
of the surrounding areas.
The Secretary of the Interior is to base the determination of which
portion of the Preservation Zone will be transferred primarily on a
cultural resources study. This study is to consider whether
archeological resources are likely to be located on the land, whether
portions of the property are eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, and whether property has forest cover that
contributes to the setting of the Preservation Zone. The cost of the
study was split evenly between the Department of Interior and
Department of the Army. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior will
provide the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives with environmental
and cultural resources information and analysis. Completion of this
study was initially scheduled for July 1997, but has been delayed.
The transfer will be carried out under the Interagency Agreement
between the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the
Department of the Army, dated February 22, 1995. The transfer is to
occur no sooner than 60 days after the Secretary of the Interior has
submitted the information and analysis to the Committees.
Visitors Center/Old Administration Building.--The second part of
Section 2821 of the 1997 Authorization Act instructs the Secretary of
the Interior to transfer to the Secretary of the Army 2.43 acres of
land and the Visitors Center, which is constructed on the land. In
return, the Secretary of the Army will transfer to the Secretary of the
Interior 0.17 acres of land and the Old Administration Building, which
is constructed on the site. Section 2821 provides the authority by
which this agreed-upon exchange of lands may take place.
conclusion
The funds included in the fiscal year 1999 budget, along with the
prior year funds recovered and available for use in fiscal year 1999,
are necessary to permit the Department of the Army to continue the high
standards of maintenance and stewardship that Arlington National
Cemetery deserves. I urge the Subcommittee to approve this program and
to join us in meeting the challenges that face Arlington and Soldiers'
and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. We will be pleased to
respond to questions from the Subcommittee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMA19.048
transfer of responsibility
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The veterans really are very much concerned about running
out of land at Arlington National Cemetery, and we are very
interested in seeing the results of the National Planning
Commission. You have outlined some of the land available. We
look forward to going through that with you because this is of
great concern.
A broader question. Does it make sense to consider
transferring the responsibility for the Arlington National
Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National
Cemetery to the VA cemetery services? What kind of impact would
that have on Arlington?
Mr. Zirschky. We have never done a formal analysis, sir. I
do not believe the Department of the Army has an official
position, so I will give you my personal position. I believe it
should stay with the U.S. Army. I think we have done a very
good job of managing it. There are over 2,000 ceremonies that
involve the Army at that cemetery every year, mostly involving
resources under the direction of Major General Foley. It is
much easier to do that kind of coordination if the cemetery
remains in the Army. I think we have done a very good job of
managing it. We tried very hard to develop master plans to keep
it open. I would hope that it would stay with the Department of
the Army. That is just my personal opinion.
contracting out
Senator Bond. I notice that the fiscal year 1999 budget
assumes a decrease of some 28 FTE's below the 1992 level of
140. How is reliance on private contractors to maintain the
cemetery working out? How do you find that in terms of
management? Is that working well?
Mr. Zirschky. I will let both myself and either General
Foley or Mr. Metzler answer that. But generally I think it is
working fairly well. I am worried about the future ability to
keep the cemetery open with more cuts below where we are. We
have reduced a few more FTE's, but it is going to get
increasingly difficult to do that.
Our contract program has worked fairly well. For the most
part, we have been able to avoid protests or bid problems,
although we have a contract now that the bid, quite frankly, is
much lower than what we are used to, so we are watching that
one closely.
I think we are doing fine so far. I am very worried about
future reductions in our FTE's because demand for use of the
cemetery is growing, and we do need people to monitor the
contractors.
I do not know if General Foley or Mr. Metzler----
General Foley. Mr. Chairman, I would only add to that that
the Superintendent and I are constantly looking at ways in
which we can reengineer the process of how we do business, and
one thing that I have done just recently has been looking at,
with the Superintendent, the possibility of leasing as oppose
to purchase of various pieces of equipment, vehicles, and vans
and so forth. I owe Dr. Zirschky a briefing here in the next
several weeks on possible cost savings on an annual basis that
we would achieve through that. So, we are constantly looking at
those out-sourcing ways.
Senator Bond. I am not suggesting a further reduction. I
was just asking whether the contracting out for the maintenance
has been a good management tool, has it been efficient and
effective and accomplish your objectives at a lesser cost.
Mr. Zirschky. Yes, sir; I would say so.
lieutenant blassie
Senator Bond. We have a question that is of particular
interest to a family in St. Louis, whether Lieutenant Blassie
is actually buried in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. That
issue has been of grave concern to the family and all of the
friends in that area.
What is being done about that, the issues raised there? I
am sure you are familiar with it.
Mr. Zirschky. Yes, I am familiar with the issues. For the
Army, that issue is being handled by Mr. Jay Spiegel, who is
the Acting Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs. The laboratories that do identification of remains are
under Mr. Spiegel's purview. The Department of Defense is also
involved, and I believe they put together a task force to try
and resolve issues about how to handle that. This has never
arisen before.
It also raises interesting points that with the DNA testing
we do on soldiers, it is probably unlikely that we will ever
have another unknown soldier.
Senator Bond. That is what my staff has suggested, and that
I think will bring peace of mind to many families in the
future. But still the Tomb of the Unknown is very, very
important for many families who have not been able to find
certainty about their loved ones.
eligibility criteria
There are a lot of questions that have been raised on
eligibility requirements for Arlington National Cemetery, and
the use of waivers has been discussed exhaustively over the
last few months. I do not plan to get into that today, but to
help us complete the record so we have a complete record in
this committee on this issue, would you please provide for the
record a summary of the requirements for eligibility for burial
at Arlington National Cemetery, including a summary of waivers
that have been approved to allow burials at Arlington. I assume
it has probably already been compiled and you submitted it a
number of times. We want to include it in our record.
[The information follows:]
Burial Eligibility and Waivers
Individuals eligible for burial at Arlington include the following:
(a) Any active duty member of the Armed Forces (except those
members serving on active duty for training only),
(b) Any retired member of the Armed Forces who has served on active
duty (other than for training), is carried on an official retired list,
and is entitled to receive retired pay stemming from service in the
Armed Forces. If, at the time of death, a retired member is not
entitled to receive retirement pay, he or she will not be eligible for
burial,
(c) Any former member of the Armed Forces separated for physical
disability prior to October 1, 1949, who has served on active duty
(other than for training) and who would have been eligible for
retirement under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201 had that statute been
in effect on the date of separation,
(d) Any former member of the Armed Forces whose last active duty
(other than for training) military service terminated honorably and who
has been awarded one of the following decorations: Medal of Honor,
Distinguished Service Cross (Air Force Cross or Navy Cross),
Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, or Purple Heart,
(e) Persons who have held any of the following positions, provided
their last period of active duty (other than for training) as a member
of the Armed Forces terminated honorably: an elective office of the
U.S. Government; Chief Justice of the United States or Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; an office listed in
5 U.S.C. 5312 or 5 U.S.C. 5313 (level I and II executives); and chief
of a mission who was, at any time during his or her tenure, classified
in class I under the provisions of 411 of the Act of August 13, 1946,
60 Stat. 1002, as amended (22 U.S.C. 866, 1964 ed.),
(f) Any former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, served
honorably in the active military, naval, or air service, whose last
period of active military, naval, or air service terminated honorably,
and who died on or after November 30, 1993,
(g) the spouse, widow or widower, minor child, and, at the
discretion of the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any
of the persons listed above.
(1) The term spouse refers to a widow or widower of an
eligible member, including the widow or widower of a member of
the Armed Forces who was lost or buried at sea or officially
determined to be permanently absent in a status of missing or
missing in action. A surviving spouse who has remarried and
whose remarriage is void, terminated by death, or dissolved by
annulment or divorce by a court regains eligibility for burial
in Arlington.
(2) An unmarried adult child may be interred in the same
grave in which the parent has been or will be interred,
provided that child was incapable of self-support up to the
time of death because of physical or mental condition,
(h) Widows or widowers of service members who are interred in
Arlington as part of a group burial may be interred in the same
cemetery but not in the same grave,
(i) The surviving spouse, minor child, and, at the discretion of
the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any person already
buried at Arlington,
(j) The parents of a minor child or unmarried adult child whose
remains, based on the eligibility of a parent, are already buried at
Arlington.
Requests for exceptions to eligibility criteria are received in the
Superintendent's office and are reviewed. A recommendation is
formulated and forwarded with supporting documentation through the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) to the
Secretary of the Army for a decision. Prior to the rendering of a
decision, a staffing action is completed within the Army to ensure a
thorough review of the request. This process takes approximately 24 to
48 hours.
Since 1967, approximately 196 waivers have been granted for burial
at Arlington, and at least 144 documented requests have been denied. Of
the granted waivers, about 63 percent involved burial of an individual
in the same grave site as a family member already interred or expected
to be interred. In the majority of the cases, the Secretary of the Army
was the responsible official.
Mr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
Senator Bond. We see from the Army Times representatives--I
am not sure they are named. Yes; they are named in here--saying
the efforts in the House to revise Arlington burial rules are
too strict. What is the position of the administration on this
legislation, and are there issues that need to be addressed in
legislation relating to eligibility?
Mr. Zirschky. Sir, again that is under the Assistant
Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
The administration would like to keep the ability to have
waivers for people of national significance.
My personal view on eligibility is that I would like to
continue to have Members, for example, of Congress who have
served the Nation honorably as veterans still remain eligible,
other high administration officials who have served the Nation
remain eligible for burial at Arlington. I think constitutional
officers of the United States, such as Members of Congress,
Supreme Court Justices, honor the men and women of the U.S.
military by their presence there.
computer systems
Senator Bond. Just for the record here, are you on track
for converting your computer systems for the year 2000
problems?
Mr. Zirschky. I believe so, sir. After listening to some of
the discussion on the first panel, I probably want to double
check, but to my knowledge, we do not have any systems at
Arlington itself that will be affected by that. We do use
systems of the Army's that might be affected by that, but the
cemetery itself uses I believe commercial, off-the-shelf word
processing and similar types of systems.
Additional committee question
Senator Bond. Well, that is good. We are asking that of all
agencies just to make sure we are not surprised by a crisis
next spring when somebody figures out that they are 9 months
away from a crash. We would like to know now if there is a
problem.
[The following question was not asked at the hearing, but
was submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Craig
veteran affairs state cemetery grants program
Question. For a number of years, Idaho has tried to provide a
national cemetery for our State's veterans. As you know, the VA has
proposed to cover the entire cost of construction national cemeteries
around the country, if in return, the States agree to pay all required
maintenance. Do you believe this is a fair burden for the States to
incur for a national cemetery?
Answer. The State Cemetery Grants Program, which is administered by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), was established to complement
the VA National Cemetery System. We have referred your question to the
National Cemetery System for a full response.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Zirschky, General,
and gentlemen. Thank you very much.
The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., Thursday, March 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Burns, and Mikulski.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STATEMENTS OF:
NEAL LANE, PH.D., DIRECTOR
RICHARD ZARE, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. The hearing will come to order.
The subcommittee meets today to review the budget request
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP], and the
National Science Foundation [NSF]. I welcome Dr. Neal Lane,
Director of the National Science Foundation, and I am sure soon
to be the President's Science Advisor and Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. We also welcome Dr.
Richard Zare, the Chairman of the National Science Board, and
Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, currently the acting Director of OSTP.
I congratulate you, Dr. Lane, on your promotion to the
position of the President's Science Advisor. Or are you being
kicked upstairs? [Laughter.]
I do not know which. In any event, you have done a great
job as Director of NSF. It has been a pleasure to work with
you, and I look forward to working with you as the Director of
OSTP.
We also are happy to have you here today, and feel
particularly fortunate in having the benefit of your expertise
and perspective on the funding needs and priorities of NSF, as
well as your views on the role of OSTP in formulating the
science and research development priorities of the
administration.
OSTP's budget request for fiscal year 1999 totals $5.026
million, a $94,000 increase over fiscal years 1997 and 1998
enacted levels. NSF's budget request for fiscal year 1999 is
$3.773 billion, a $344 million increase, or a 10-percent
increase over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
I am very pleased to convene the hearing this morning on
the OSTP and NSF. Under both Senator Mikulski's leadership and
mine, this subcommittee has always been committed to providing
the strongest possible support for a Federal commitment and
role in our Nation's scientific endeavors. I believe we all
agree, at least on this subcommittee, that research and
development is a good and necessary investment for the economic
and intellectual growth and well-being of our Nation.
We also know that you, Dr. Lane, Dr. Zare and Dr. Jones,
agree with us, as well.
First, I applaud the continuing efforts of OSTP to provide
policy leadership on the important issues facing the scientific
community. I also applaud NSF for pushing the boundaries of
what we know about ourselves, our environment, our world, and
the universe, as well as being on the cutting edge of science,
research and development.
The examples of NSF's leadership in R&D are almost endless,
and I will note only a few: NSF's investment in nanotechnology
and thin films are expected to generate a one thousand-fold
reduction in size for semiconductor devices, which will make
computers, telecommunications and other advanced technologies
even more powerful, more portable, more affordable, and more
useful.
In terms of life in extreme environments, the unique
properties of a microbe found in the thermal pools and geysers
at Yellowstone Park some 30 years ago has led to the
development of the polymerized chain reaction, or PCR, that has
led to DNA fingerprinting, enzymes for nonpolluting detergents,
and a variety of other state-of-the-art applications. And I am
very proud that the new plant genome initiative is already
bearing fruit. This is a very important new thrust of research
at NSF which I believe could lead to a revolution in how we
develop new and better sources of food and food-related
products.
Finally, I speak for all of us in acknowledging and
applauding your efforts to communicate the wonder and awe that
scientific endeavors can inspire in the American public. It is
so important to encourage scientists to talk about their work
to public groups and to plant the seed, through education
grants, that will help spark the interest and fascination in
science that will lead to a new generation of scientists,
researchers, and teachers.
As the father of a 17-year-old who is struggling with A.P.
biology, I am always glad that there is something out there
that can motivate and inspire him, and let him know that all
that hard work and the things that he talks about that I do not
understand may lead to something very productive in the future.
And it really makes a big difference in encouraging young
people to pursue a scientific education.
As chair of this subcommittee, I have a particular interest
in providing the necessary Federal investment in biotechnology,
particularly as it applies to agriculture. I believe the plant
genome initiative, and related research, will help ensure the
long-term sustainability and competitiveness of U.S.
agriculture. And I know we can count on both OSTP and NSF to
continue to spearhead and support the efforts of this important
initiative.
Nevertheless, that is all the good news. The tough news is
that this is another difficult year for funding decisions for
the subcommittee. The President has submitted a budget that
raises expectations by not structuring spending decisions
according to fiscal requirements and program needs. In
particular, the President's budget proposes a Research Fund for
America, which is intended to reflect the President's
commitment to nondefense research programs.
The Research Fund for America is essentially a title for
existing research and development programs which proposes a
total of $31 billion for all programs in the fund in fiscal
year 1999, an increase of 8 percent over the fiscal year 1998
level; and a total of $38 billion for all programs in the fund
in fiscal year 2003, a 32-percent increase from the 1998 level.
This includes a 10-percent increase for NSF in fiscal year
1999, and a 24-percent increase from the 1998 level for the NSF
in fiscal year 2003.
Unfortunately, these funding proposals depend on budget
contrivances and unrecognized revenue, such as the tobacco
settlement. And I fear they raise expectations which may set
the stage for disappointment.
In particular, the subcommittee has significant funding
needs that we must address, ranging from medical care for
veterans, to climbing costs associated with section 8 housing
for low-income Americans, to relief for victims of disaster.
While it is premature to discuss absolute levels of funding
that may be available to NSF because we do not know what
allocation our subcommittee will receive, we know, if past
experience is a guide, that it will be very tight.
Consequently, it is important for us to understand NSF's
funding priorities and how these priorities are reflected in
your agency's activities. We are particularly interested in the
implementation of the Results Act, which requires agencies,
through the fiscal year 1999 budget, to think strategically
about their goals and to measure their performance against the
goals they have set.
Although we appreciate the difficulty of setting goals in
basic scientific research, where the goal is to explore the
unknown, we have to hold you and ourselves responsible for how
we spend Federal dollars. I want to raise one additional
concern about how NSF funds are distributed to universities and
colleges, as well as to various areas of the country.
I understand that a recent NSF survey of Federal R&D
expenditures based on data collected through fiscal year 1996
indicated that the top 50 recipients of university-based
research receive about 60 percent of all available research
dollars--some $8.3 billion out of $13.8 billion.
In addition, a number of these top 50 schools received an
additional $4.3 billion because they manage large federally
funded research and development centers for various Federal
agencies. For example, MIT receives $271 million annually in
academic R&D expenditures, plus an additional $334 million for
its DOD-supported Lincoln Lab. Likewise, Stanford receives $282
million in academic R&D dollars, plus an additional $120
million through its DOE-supported Stanford Linear Accelerator
Facility.
Consequently, we seem to have a chicken and the egg
program. I am sure the argument is going to be made that we
have to do science where we put the money, where we already
conduct the scientific research. But if we have not put money
in other areas and schools, then there is no basis on which to
invest more money. While the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, or EPSCoR, is an attempt to stimulate R&D
competitiveness in universities in States which receive
relatively little Federal R&D funds, the program receives very
little funding within the overall NSF budget request, totalling
only $53 million for fiscal year 1999. As such, it does seem
that the rich get richer.
Nevertheless, I believe it is worth considering ways to
invest in research and development throughout the country, so
that all areas and schools have an opportunity to prosper.
I will have additional questions and comments, but let me
now call on my distinguished ranking member, Senator Mikulski,
for her opening statement.
Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I am going to condense my opening statement, and ask
unanimous consent that its entirety be placed in the record, so
that we could move ahead to our opening statements before we
need to vote.
Senator Bond. Without objection.
Senator Mikulski. I really do want to welcome Dr. Neal
Lane, the Director of the National Science Foundation, as well
as Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, the acting Director of OSTP, and Dr.
Richard Zare, the Chair of the National Science Board.
Dr. Lane, we wish you well. We know that this is an
appropriations in transition. But we are going to be seeing
you. And I know we really hope that the confirmation of both,
for you to be head of OSTP and the confirmation of our very
distinguished Marylander, Dr. Rita Colwell, is expeditiously
approved in Education and Labor. And you can count on me to
really work with Senator Jeffords to move those nominations
forward.
Dr. Lane. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. I know we are in a transition in terms of
leadership. But if we have clear goals, a specific budget and a
direction, this should continue along the lines that we have
essentially done the ground work.
As you know, I have been a long advocate for Federal
investment in research and development. And for the last
several years, reports have been issued by various experts on
our competitiveness to outline the critical technologies that
will be needed for the 21st century.
We know, Dr. Lane, when we started out, I advocated that
rather controversial proposal for the National Science
Foundation to engage in--strategic research. I think everybody
got very clear that I was very much for basic science, that my
model was really, in some ways, the NIH model, but different
because of the way the NSF is structured. And I want to thank
you for the way that NSF now organizes itself, along something
called highlights and priorities, knowledge and distribution
intelligence, life and environmental science, as well as
education for the future.
I think it is in those kinds of areas that we can move
ahead. Because I am concerned that while we win the Nobel
Prizes, we lose the markets. And at the same time, we have to
get our young people ready for the new world economy, which
will be information driven and knowledge driven.
So, therefore, we want to ensure that the National Science
Foundation directs energy and resources into science that the
United States of America is the premier science and technology
nation, generates high-wage jobs for its own people, but has
that work force readiness from K through Ph.D. I mean, that is
really the way we need to think about it.
I want to hear the progress that has been made in
developing the national goals to stimulate new ideas and new
opportunities in research and development for our economic
growth and the advancement of our intellectual infrastructure.
Fortunately, this year NSF has submitted a budget that
highlights several research themes. And I believe that this is
a good start. I would be interested in hearing the progress
that has been made in those areas.
Also, last year the former Director of OSTP, Dr. Gibbons,
referred to a gap between university research and the private
sector as the valley of death. So we want to make sure there is
no valley of death between the creation of new ideas and the
development of new products.
I am pleased the President's budget has requested a 10-
percent increase for the National Science Foundation. And I
believe the administration is on the right track in maintaining
leadership in science, engineering, and math, promoting long-
term economic growth that creates, sustains a healthy and
educated citizenry, harnesses information technology, improves
environmental quality, enhances our national security, and, of
course, expands our continued wonderful breakthroughs in life
science.
Whether it is the National Science Foundation or NIH or its
wonderful extramural programs, I think we are all heartened,
over the last 72 hours, to hear of the breakthrough that has
come out of Maryland on the new breakthroughs on stopping the
growth of cancerous tumors by limiting or terminating the blood
supply that would feed the growth.
Well, you and I know that that came out of basic science.
But then the basic science at a university-based system then,
also working with the private sector biotech company, has led
to something that would save lives. We know it is very
preliminary. But even there it shows the triad I think that we
are talking about: Strong support in Federal laboratories;
extramural programs, whether they be the great academic centers
like Hopkins or EPSCoR; and at the same time then working with
the private sector in a way that is collaborative and ethically
appropriate and so on.
This is, I think, what America wants. But it took a lot of
work in basic science. It took a lot of people, from the lab
tech to the doctoral-level people who do this. So we can
elaborate on this in our hearing. I see by the clock it is 10
of 10:00. So we look forward to hearing what you want your
leadership to be through this appropriations and also the
coordination that must occur at OSTP, and, of course, our
Board.
Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski. I
started to say Dr. Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I have got a bunch of them, even
one from Hopkins. I have the Dean's Medal and the School of
Public Health, and that gets me one little ketchup container at
Jimmy's diner. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Well, doesn't it get you a title? Shouldn't
we call you ``Your Worthiness'' or something like that?
Senator Mikulski. No; we do not want to get into this. I
want to be called Chairman, but I do not think that is what we
want to bring up. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. No; we will work on that elsewhere.
[Laughter.]
Let me turn to Dr. Lane and Dr. Zare. Welcome, gentlemen.
Dr. Lane. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Mikulski. And I appreciate those kind words.
I would appreciate, before my very brief opening statement,
if Dr. Zare could make his comments. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Yes; thank you.
statement of richard zare
Dr. Zare. Thank you. Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, and
members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today. I am Dr. Richard Zare, Chairman of
the National Science Board, and Marguerite Blake Wilbur
Professor of Natural Science at Stanford University.
national science board's roles
The National Science Board has two roles. It is the
governing board of the National Science Foundation and it
serves as a national science policy board, with the
responsibility for monitoring the health of science and
engineering in the United States, and for advising the Congress
and the President on national science policy issues.
First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its
strong support of the Foundation in the past. Your continuing
commitment to a strong national effort in research and
education is extremely important to the NSF as we carry out our
various responsibilities. Given the shortness of time, I would
like to have your permission to submit my written statement in
full for the record.
Senator Bond. The full statements of all three of you will
be made a part of the record. We appreciate your submitting
them and giving us a summary.
Dr. Zare. Thank you.
And following the testimony of my colleagues, I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that might illuminate the
Board's positions on the NSF budget or national science policy.
prepared statement
I would like to cede the remainder of my time to Dr. Neal
Lane, the NSF Director.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard Zare
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. I am Dr. Richard
Zare, Chairman of the National Science Board and Marguerite Blake
Wilbur Professor of Chemistry at Stanford University. I would like to
convey to you today some of the excitement and value to the Nation of
the research and education activities that will be supported by the
National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1999 budget request. I will
also mention some of the work of the Board in helping to develop this
budget, and in trying to understand possible effects of changes in
Federal agency research programs on the broader picture of Federal
support for research.
First, however, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its
strong support of the Foundation in the past. Your continuing
commitment to a strong national effort in research and education is
extremely important to the NSF as we carry out our various
responsibilities.
The National Science Board is a 24-member body appointed by the
President for six-year terms. We represent a broad cross-section of the
Nation's leaders in science, engineering, and education, and include
full-time researchers, educators, university officials, and industry
executives. Since the founding of the NSF in 1950, the Board has
exercised two roles: that of a national policy body, and that of a
governing body for the Foundation. In many respects the latter role is
similar to that of a corporate board of directors, but as a Federal
entity we operate within the framework of policy guidance established
by the Congress and the Administration.
The Board approves NSF's policies, budget proposals, new programs,
and major multimillion-dollar awards, and generally oversees the fiscal
and management operations of NSF as a whole. We work very hard to make
sure that all of the Foundation's policies, systems, programs, and
awards are of the highest quality, incorporate our best thinking, and
reflect the perspectives of the communities we represent.
We continue to provide oversight to NSF as it develops methods and
processes to comply with the present and forthcoming requirements of
the Government Performance and Results Act. To provide oversight to the
development of the GPRA strategic plan and the performance plan by the
National Science Foundation, I established an NSB Task Force on GPRA.
This task force reports to the NSB Committee on Audit and Oversight and
has provided constructive guidance for these important documents.
In addition to our close and continuing oversight of NSF, the Board
has a special role in monitoring the health of science and engineering
in the U.S. and in providing advice on national policy in research and
education. Last year the Board was asked by Presidential Science
Advisor Jack Gibbons to contribute to the response of the National
Science and Technology Council to the Presidential Review Directive on
the Government/University Partnership.
The resulting NSB report on the ``Federal Role in Science and
Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education'' affirmed the critical
importance of Federal support to graduate and postdoctoral education
and offered more than a dozen recommendations to strengthen this
overwhelmingly successful partnership in advanced science and
engineering education for the future. With your permission, I would
like to submit this report for the record.
The Board further, as part of its national policy role, has drawn
attention to the need for improved coordination and decision making at
the Federal level in funding of science and engineering research. Such
improvements are needed to avoid gaps, overlaps, and a failure to meet
priorities that may otherwise occur. To further this objective, the
NSB, in its recently released ``Working Paper on Government Funding of
Scientific Research'', urged initiation of a national dialogue among
stakeholders in Federally-supported research to develop a broadly
accepted methodology for priority-setting across fields of science.
With your permission, I would like to submit this document to the
record also.
Mr. Chairman, the budget before you has the wholehearted approval
of the Board. In the face of very tight constraints on Federal
discretionary spending, President Clinton has stepped forward to
champion a 10 percent increase in NSF's 1999 budget. This important
commitment to the strength of our national scientific infrastructure--
which I hope will be shared by Congress--would enable NSF to help
maintain U.S. world leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics,
and engineering.
NSF funding is a vital investment in the Nation's future. The
budget you are considering today will provide the means to fund
thousands of worthwhile projects across the exciting frontiers of all
fields of research, and it will fund important efforts to improve the
Nation's education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology.
As we enter the 21st Century and the third millennium, there is so
much we don't know and need to explore and discover. You might think
about the state of the world 1,000 years ago, when we were entering the
second millennium and Leif Erickson and the Vikings sailed the oceans.
Until recently, however, our understanding of the very deep ocean
environment has remained the same as in the days of the Vikings.
NSF investments under the agency's Life and Earth's Environment
theme hold tremendous possibilities for probing the mysteries of our
natural world like the very deep ocean. Unidentified new life forms
found thriving in the Earth's most extreme environments--like
Yellowstone's hot springs, the sea ice of Antarctica, or the ocean
depths--might revolutionize medicine, produce new materials for use in
everyday life, and further our understanding of the origins of life
itself.
Over this past century alone, incredible advances have occurred in
fields like telecommunications. In 1898 telecommunications meant Morse
code and Western Union. Today we are grappling with challenges
unimagined at that time: how to handle the outpouring of information
and data flowing from satellites, fiber optics, the Web, and other
advanced telecommunications.
NSF has responded to these challenges by investing in a wide-
ranging set of activities we call Knowledge and Distributed
Intelligence, or KDI. Greater knowledge about how we learn and
remember, or how we think and communicate, and the machine-human
interface, could advance computers and communication technology beyond
the current astonishing state. Such advancements hold immense potential
as a driver of progress--an opportunity for all Americans. KDI is not
simply about hardware; KDI is not simply about software; KDI is about
the wherewithal to change and expand the way we communicate, research,
and learn.
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence as well as Life and Earth's
Environment are exciting programs that cut across numerous fields of
inquiry. While NSF continues, appropriately, to promote
interdisciplinary activities, these activities are unlikely to be
successful without strong disciplines at their core. The NSF fiscal
year 1999 budget will allow NSF to maintain core competency while
pursuing exciting initiatives that cut across disciplines. We need both
the core investments and the flexibility to pursue emerging research
opportunities.
The Foundation's fiscal year 1999 budget also is important for
improving education in science and mathematics at all grade levels. The
Board strongly believes that we must engage all children in inquiry-
based, hands-on learning so that the next generation of workers,
researchers, and leaders has the necessary science, mathematics,
technology, and problem-solving skills to keep the United States a
world leader in the 21st Century.
High standards with high accountability for student performance is
the path to improved achievement in K-12 math and science. We must act
on our high expectations, however, not just declare them. Indeed, the
National Science Board's response to the recent 12th grade results of
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was
swift. We have created a Task Force on Mathematics and Science
Achievement to consider the issues raised by the TIMSS report.
Later this year, building on a series of hearings organized by its
Committee on Education and Human Resources, the Board will issue a
policy report that clarifies the role of the science and engineering
communities, especially higher education, in rallying as well as
supporting schools, teachers, students, and families to the literacy
and numeracy demands that all citizens now face. The next generation of
workers, researchers, and leaders must have the necessary science,
mathematics, technology, and problem-solving skills to keep the United
States a world leader in the 21st century.
This proposed NSF budget would help keep America at the cutting
edge of science. It would enable new discovery and educate the world's
best scientists and engineers--setting the stage for the next
millennium. It is good for the country, good for science, and good for
economic growth. But most important, it is also good for the American
people.
Strong support for NSF is clearly a keystone of our investment in
the future. And strong support for the research performed or supported
by other Federal agencies, in connection with their missions, is vital
as well. Just taking the example of nanoscale science and engineering
mentioned by Neal Lane demonstrates that this cutting-edge research
supported by NSF has applications for the R&D mission of many agencies,
including DOD, NIH, DOE, and NASA.
The Board is very concerned about the funding of science and
engineering research in the future. Indeed, we concluded our ``Working
Paper on Government Funding of Scientific Research'', mentioned
previously, by stating that changed global and domestic circumstances
`` * * * do not reduce the desirability of continued government funding
of scientific research * * *. A nation requires a robust high-tech
industry, a scientific talent base, and a vigorous research activity to
prosper over the long term.''
We are concerned as well for the possible fate of many research
programs in other Federal agencies that complement those of NSF but
which are currently being challenged. We urge the Congress, when
considering funding for Federal agencies that have science,
engineering, and education programs, to do so with explicit regard for
the relationships among those programs across the government and with
industrial research and development. It is important to take actions,
in the national interest, that fortify the vitality of U.S. science and
engineering.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to take any questions.
______
The National Science Board
the federal role in science and engineering graduate and postdoctoral
education
abstract
In response \1\ to the request from the President's Science
Adviser, John Gibbons, for a National Science Board contribution to the
Presidential Review Directive on the Government/University Partnership
(GUPPRD), the Board offered to provide its views on the role of the
Federal government in graduate and postdoctoral education. In this
paper, the Board examines the general framework of the partnership in
graduate education established after World War II, affirms that the
partnership has been highly successful for the Nation, and concludes
that the Federal role in the partnership remains critical. The Board
urges that the general principles of the partnership be maintained, but
offers some recommendations on adjustments to increase the
effectiveness of Federal policies and programs in advancing the
objectives of this partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This report was originally prepared as a contribution to the
Government/University Partnership Presidential Review /directive
(GUPPRD). It has been revised and issued as a report of the National
Science Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board identifies some troubling issues that have emerged as a
result of changes over the last fifty years, and offers recommendations
to improve the effectiveness of the partnership for all concerned. The
Board suggests new opportunities, particularly those offered by
advances in communications technology, to expand the benefits of the
partnership to a wider range of institutions in the academic research
and engineering ecosystem, and to broaden the options for graduate
students to experience environments outside the research university to
supplement their core Ph.D. training. In addition, the Board draws
attention to serious stresses in the partnership arising from
administrative and accounting changes implemented by Federal funding
and regulatory agencies. The Board provides recommendations in several
areas: Federal support to the enterprise, breadth versus narrowness of
graduate education, human resource policies, impact of Federal
regulatory and funding practices on the culture of institutions.
Finally, the Board comments on outstanding issues to be negotiated
between the Federal and university partners.
i. introduction
The education of graduate and post-doctoral students in a
discovery-rich university research environment is at the heart of the
post-World War II compact between the Federal government and
universities. Federal support of U.S. graduate education in science and
engineering has insured the global leadership of the United States in
science and engineering and contributed robustly to our country's
innovation and economic growth. In a time of extraordinary political
and economic changes worldwide since the end of the Cold War,
understanding the current status and clarifying the principles of
Federal support for graduate education in science and engineering are
matters of high priority.
This paper responds to the request of the Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology that the National Science Board
provide its views on the status of graduate and postdoctoral education
and the Federal role. It contributes to the ongoing review of the
Federal/university partnership being conducted by the National Science
and Technology Council in response to the Presidential Review Directive
of September 26, 1996. In developing the views presented in this paper,
the Board benefited greatly from a ``Convocation on Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education: The Federal Role,'' held at the October 8-10,
1997, NSB meeting in Houston, Texas. This symposium, which included
presentations by a number of invited speakers, provided rich insights
for the development by the Board of the comments and recommendations
that follow.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The agenda for the Convocation on Graduate and Postdoctoral
Education: The Federal Role, is attached as Appendex II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principles of the Federal/University Partnership in Graduate Education
At the conclusion of World War II in 1945, Vannevar Bush argued
persuasively in his report, ``Science--the Endless Frontier'', that the
Federal government should continue to support science and engineering
research and post-secondary education in peacetime and that this
investment would contribute to national security, economic growth,
health, and the quality of life. The principal instruments of the
Federal investment in research were to be colleges and universities,
which would generate new knowledge in an environment of free and open
inquiry and at the same time develop science and engineering talent.
The proximity and integration of the two functions of research and
education would insure a process of continuous mutual enrichment
between them.
Bush argued that the Nation could not rely on government agencies,
the private sector, or foreign nations to produce the fundamental
knowledge necessary for the continued improvement of the quality of
life in the United States. Bush approvingly quoted James B. Conant:
``We shall have rapid or slow advance on any scientific frontier
depending on the number of highly qualified and trained scientists
exploring it * * *. So in the last analysis, the future of science in
this country will be determined by our basic education policy.'' \3\ In
short, Bush's report defined a national education policy for
university- and college-trained science and engineering personnel that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vannevar Bush. Science, the Endless Frontier, 40th Anniversary
Edition (Washington DC: National Science Foundation, 1990) 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--is based on the national interest in advancement of knowledge in an
environment of free and open inquiry, such as that provided by
the university sector;
--explicitly integrates fundamental research and advanced training in
science \4\ in universities and colleges;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bush's proposal was for advancing basic scientific knowledge,
which in today's use would include basic research in engineering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--supports students on the basis of their exceptional ability, i.e.,
student merit;
--is sensitive to the needs of the scientific and technical
workforce; and
--is responsive to the needs of society.
The Federal/university partnership in research and graduate
education has been an extraordinary success for the United States.
Public investment in academic science and engineering research and
education in an environment of free and open inquiry has indeed been a
major contributor to U.S. economic growth and quality of life.
Therefore:
The National Science Board strongly affirms the fundamental
soundness of the principles of the Government/university partnership
for the academic science and engineering enterprise established after
World War II.
The Board concludes that the application of those principles in
academic science and engineering research and advanced education has
enabled the enterprise to lead the world in quality and productivity.
The Board affirms that the Federal role is critical to advanced
science and engineering education at both the graduate and postdoctoral
levels. It urges a re-examination of the Federal/university partnership
in graduate and postdoctoral education as it has evolved, to identify
areas where adjustments may enhance the capacity of the enterprise to
serve the national interest in a changing global environment.
Current Status of the Partnership
Since the Bush report, U.S. society has become larger, more
diverse, and more urban and the economy has become increasingly global.
With the end of the Cold War, greater national attention can be devoted
to other concerns, such as environmental and social needs. Once the
privilege of a small elite, post-secondary education responded to a
changing marketplace. Market demand for higher-level training and the
decline in the value of a high school diploma, both to the employer and
high school graduate, have resulted in expansion of the share and
diversity of the working age population who pursue college-level and
graduate education. The Federal responsibility to insure, in
partnership with the universities, ``constantly improving quality at
every level of scientific activity'' \5\ has become broader and more
varied as science and technology have become more central to the
economy and society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid., 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universities confront stresses that result from increasing demands
and associated rises in costs without offsetting increases in revenues.
These stresses reflect the impact of more and broader-based demands
from an expanding group of stakeholders; budget constraints on
traditional sources of funds, including Federal sources; globalization
of advanced education; the need to respond to technological changes,
especially to advances in communications and information technology;
and unintended consequences of Federal policies. The Board has
identified several broad areas of concern in the Federal/university
partnership in graduate education that deserve special attention.
Changes in the Federal/University Relationship.--Agencies of the
Federal government support research in universities through a variety
of mechanisms, including grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
Regardless of purpose or mechanism, the research activities serve to
enrich the learning environment and expand opportunities for graduate
student and postdoctoral participation in frontier research. Some
Federal research funding to academic institutions is public investment
in the advancement of fundamental knowledge and in the education of the
next generation of scientists and engineers. This kind of relationship
may be described as an ``investigator-initiated'' activity performed by
the university. Other Federal research funding responds to an objective
related to an agency's mission. This activity, also performed by a
university, may be described as ``agency-initiated.'' Federal funding
falls along a continuum between these two poles.
As the research and education enterprise has grown and as the
Federal investment has increased, emphasis on accountability for public
funds has also increased, resulting at times in unintended but serious
stresses on the university partners. The growing Federal focus on
accountability tends to emphasize short-term research ``products'' and
to deemphasize benefits to graduate education from engaging in research
at the frontiers of knowledge. Increased emphasis on accountability
also may result in an increase in the perceived value of postdoctoral
researchers compared with graduate students on research grants, thus
reducing options for cutting-edge research experience during graduate
training.
There are also unintended consequences of some of the new cost
accounting methodologies and standards which, with the best intentions
of fully accounting for taxpayer money, are resulting in serious
stresses on the academic research and education enterprise. There is a
growing tendency to treat all research activities equally for
accounting purposes, whether for an agency-initiated product or for
investigator-initiated research that provides cutting-edge research
experience for graduate students. This trend has been marked by the
adoption of adversarial administrative procedures inconsistent with the
trust and cooperation that should characterize the Federal/university
partnership in research and education. Moreover, relationships between
faculty researchers and the university administration may be adversely
affected by such procedures, resulting in stresses within the
university community.
In addition to the lack of coherence between objectives of the
Federal/university partnership and Federal cost-accounting practices,
there is an inconsistency in administrative and regulatory requirements
of different Federal funding agencies. This inconsistency results in a
mushrooming of paperwork for the administration of federally-funded
research. Some portion of the paperwork burden falls on faculty,
absorbing time that could otherwise be devoted to teaching, mentoring,
and research. Unnecessary costs for administrative overhead may also
mean less money available to support valuable research and education
activities, equipment, and physical facilities.
The Changing Higher Education Context.--Stresses on the
universities represent pressures that are a product of growth and
change in the research enterprise and its environment over the last
fifty years. One area of stress comes from the diversity that is a
strength of our system of higher education. The academic science and
engineering research and education system is an ecosystem,
differentiated along functional lines to meet a wide variety of
education and research needs. Within this system, research institutions
produce, in addition to a share of science and engineering
undergraduate degrees, the great majority of Ph.D.'s in science and
engineering. Liberal arts colleges, state universities, and two-year
colleges that provide undergraduate preparation for scientists and
engineers employ as faculty Ph.D.'s trained at research institutions.
The Ph.D. is and should remain a research degree. The most
important function of a Ph.D. program is to educate talented students
to a level of mastery of a chosen discipline and its methods of
research and scholarship. Graduates of the Ph.D. program, as members of
their disciplinary communities, are prepared to make independent
contributions to the store of human knowledge through research,
information exchange with colleagues, and educating the next generation
of scientists and engineers. Nonetheless it has always been the case
that many Ph.D.'s who pursue academic careers fill faculty positions
that are primarily teaching positions, often involving little or no
research. \6\ Moreover, Ph.D.'s who pursue research positions in
industrial or government laboratories may well move into non-research
positions over time. These are by no means inappropriate outcomes of
Ph.D. education: Ph.D. recipients have broadly applicable skills; and
the problem-solving abilities they acquire enrich their capacities in
teaching, research and management positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Forty-six percent of Ph.D.'s were employed in the academic
sector in 1995; of those, 59 percent were employed by non-research
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who take faculty positions following completion of their
education, regardless of the type of institution, have an obligation to
remain current in and to contribute to their fields of specialization.
The research university offers the greatest opportunities for
fundamental research within the field of specialization. Today,
however, rapidly advancing communications and information technologies
are opening and expanding opportunities for inter-institutional
cooperation in research and education within the academic sector, and
also between academic institutions and other sectors. These
opportunities for expanded collaboration, in addition to increasing
faculty opportunities to contribute to fundamental knowledge, promise
to enrich graduate and postdoctoral education by broadening options to
experience a range of educational and research environments in
preparation for a variety of future careers.
ii. the government/university partnership in graduate and postdoctoral
education: principles and practices for the future
1. Federal Support to the Enterprise
Federal support to research in the academic environment may
contribute to fundamental knowledge and enrich the education of the
next generation of scientists and engineers, regardless of funding
mechanism or agency objective. The Federal role in support of broad-
based fundamental research and graduate education in universities,
medical schools, research institutes and colleges remains crucial to
the national interest. Graduate education is a long-term commitment,
requiring substantial investment of time and money by the student,
institution, and other funding sources.
A major objective of the Federal/university partnership in research
and education historically has been to attract high-ability youth into
science and engineering careers by providing significant multiyear
financial support that is competitively allocated and based on the
student's past achievement and future promise. This policy insures the
quality of the science and engineering workforce and offers
opportunities for careers in science and engineering to all individuals
of high ability.
The Board recommends that:
The Federal government reward and recognize institutions that
initiate model programs for the integration of research and education.
Mission agencies funding agency-initiated research in academic
institutions recognize the intimate connection between research and
graduate education in universities. They should adopt principles and
practices exploiting that interconnection and insure that their funding
reaps the dual benefits of simultaneously advancing both research and
graduate education.
The Federal government contribute to promoting closer collaboration
between faculty in non-research and research institutions. Such
collaboration in research offers opportunities for greater exposure to
a variety of career options for graduate students. It can also improve
the transition from undergraduate to graduate programs across
institutions. The improvement of that transition is especially
important for reaching minority undergraduates. Federal investments,
particularly in communications infrastructure, can expand the scope of
these programs.
2. Breadth vs. Narrowness of Graduate Education
The core training for the Ph.D. requires the candidate to acquire
the knowledge base and tools in a chosen area of science and
engineering and to make an original contribution to the base of
knowledge through an in-depth investigation in a specialized area. With
this experience the candidate develops skills as a creative problem
solver. In addition to this core training, universities can offer a
range of opportunities for the student to consider in preparation for
careers outside the research university, including those within the
academic sector in primarily teaching institutions, and in government
and industry.
The Federal government and universities are responsible for
developing relevant experience and training to meet expanding workforce
needs and to prepare the student for his or her chosen career. More
should be done to inform graduate students of the full range of
employment opportunities and careers and to offer a choice of options
for expanding career-related training.
The Board recommends that:
University programs and Federal support policies continue to
encourage exceptionally talented students to pursue Ph.D. programs and
to develop their capacities to advance knowledge in their chosen
disciplines.
The Federal partner recognize and reward institutions that, in
addition to the core Ph.D. education, provide a range of educational
and training options to graduate students, options tailored to the
career interests of the individual Ph.D. candidate. These might include
interdisciplinary emphasis, teamwork, business management skills, and
information technologies.
3. Human Resource Policies
In spite of Federal and university efforts to increase the
participation of underrepresented populations in graduate education and
academic careers, the participation of these groups in graduate
programs and on university faculties remains low, particularly in
science and engineering fields.
Also of concern is the status of postdoctoral researchers in
academe. After the Ph.D., many students continue their specialized
training in postdoctoral appointments. The training they receive
substantially enhances their preparation for careers in research in
their area of specialization. These researchers are a significant
component of the academic research and graduate education system,
serving in some programs as an important component of the mentoring
system for graduate students. Nonetheless, these researchers' status
may be ambiguous during the period they spend in postdoctoral
appointments, because they are neither graduate student nor faculty
member in the institution where they are performing the research. There
is a need for institutions to clarify the status of these important
personnel.
The Board recommends that:
The Federal and university partners seek more effective ways of
promoting diversity and full access to graduate education, guarding
against strategies that inadvertently keep underrepresented groups from
the mainstream of research and graduate education. Efforts should
emphasize identification of high-ability students earlier in the
educational experience, including the precollege level, and encouraging
them to consider careers in science and engineering.
The Board recommends the attention of universities to the following
areas:
To assure access for high ability students, examine the current use
and possible misuse of assessment tools for entry to, and financial
support or, graduate education, e.g. the Graduate Record Examination
scores (GRE's); and
Recognize postdoctoral researchers as a significant component of
the system of graduate research and education in some areas, and better
integrate postdoctoral scholars into the university community.
4. Impact of Federal Regulatory and Funding Practices on the Culture of
Institutions
Federal rules and regulations for the administration of Federal
funds for research and education, and the competitive grant system
itself, help shape the culture and working environment in universities.
The Federal government must recognize in its policies and
administrative requirements that research and education are integrated
in the academic environment and insure that accounting requirements for
academic research support objectives of the Federal/university
partnership in advanced science and engineering education.
Negative impacts on education of some Federal regulations and
practices for research administration may be cumulative. For example,
the administrative separation of education from research may have a
growing, unintended negative impacts on the university mission in
graduate education. At the same time, emphasis on success in research
by Federal funders may encourage a parallel emphasis in faculty reward
systems in departments and institutions, in some cases to the detriment
of education.
The Board recommends that the Federal government:
Support university-initiated efforts to insure in the science and
engineering faculty reward systems an appropriate balance between
recognition for excellence in research and excellence in teaching,
mentoring, and other areas of faculty responsibility.
Examine how it can prevent unnecessary and unintentional
interruptions in academic research programs and in associated support
to graduate students that may result from the vagaries of the Federal
research funding environment.
Review conflicting or confusing treatment of graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers--as students or empoyees--in Federal
regulations and policies. The review should entail consideration of
both consistency across agencies and coherence between the purposes of
regulations and administrative requirements and Federal objectives for
supporting and integrating research and education in academic
institutions.
iii. issues to be negotiated between the partners
Over the last fifty years, some issues in the partnership have
emerged as gray areas, whose resolution is not clearly the
responsibility of one partner or the other. An issue of particular
concern is the broad impact of current funding patterns and practices
on the national science and engineering workforce for the future. This
consideration includes the responsibility to support a continued,
adequate infusion of talented students from across the population
spectrum into graduate programs in the broad range of science and
engineering fields. There is a need to clarify the roles of the
partners so that a strategy to address this and other gray areas can be
framed.
The Board recommends that the following areas be explored:
Strategies to attract and retain talented students from
underrepresented groups. These strategies might include consideration,
in some cases, of criteria for support on research grants.
The respective Federal and university responsibilities for reducing
the administrative burden on faculty researchers/teachers to increase
time available for mentoring and other educational and service
activities that enrich the learning environment. This reduction in
administrative burden needs to be coupled with the alignment of faculty
reward systems, as described in Section II.4.
Improved policy data to assess the effectiveness of current Federal
support for graduate education including attention to attrition and
time-to-degree, and to identify current and emerging national needs for
the science and engineering workforce.
This exploration should include input from a broad range of
stakeholders in graduate education and be attentive to maintaining the
benefits of graduate and postdoctoral research and education in science
and engineering for the Nation.
______
Appendix I
current issues with regard to the federal role in science and
engineering graduate/postdoctoral education
Issues that have been raised in other recent discussions of
graduate education include: What are the principles of Federal support
of graduate education today? \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The COSEPUP report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of
Scientists and Engineers (1995), concluded that there is no coherent
national policy that guides the advanced education of S&E's today. It
suggested a national discussion group--including representatives of
government, universities, industries, and professional organizations--
should deliberately examine the goals, policies, conditions, and
unresolved issues of graduate-level human resources in S&E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Is there a common purpose or purposes among Federal agencies in
supporting research that involves graduate and postdoctoral
students in universities and colleges? In what programs is the
impact on science and engineering education an explicit
consideration?
--What are the qualifications or requirements for S&E graduate and
postdoctoral students to be supported on research grants by
Federal agencies? What data are available to measure the
impacts of support from research grants? (e.g., student
demographics, retention, time to degree, field of degree,
career after graduation).
--What programs are expressly directed to graduate/post-doctoral
student support? (e.g., fellowships). By which agencies? In
which fields? For what purposes? How successful are these
programs in comparison with support from research projects?
Does the Federal role in the current partnership encourage the
production of highly able scientists and engineers from the broad
spectrum of the U.S. population who, in the aggregate, meet national
needs for the S&E workforce?
--Does Federal support of graduate/postdoctoral students on research
grants and/or directly on fellowships and traineeships help to
attract and retain talented youth in science and engineering
careers across the broad spectrum of the U.S. population?
--Are there special barriers to underrepresented groups in
graduate/postdoctoral education in S&E that can be reduced
through the Federal/university partnership?
--Are the Federal support modes, or mix of those modes, for
graduate education effective in achieving Federal
objectives for the science and engineering workforce? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The NSB Task Force on Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
(1995) after careful and thorough review concluded there were
insufficient data to support a change in NSF policy on the mix of
support for graduate education, i.e., research assistantships,
fellowships and traineeships. It therefore recommended limited studies
with defined goals and assessment criteria be conducted on alternative
modes of graduate support; and that NSF support data collection and/or
research on funding mechanisms and various aspects of graduate student
education and employment of Ph.D. scientists and engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Do Federal policies and programs affect or contribute to
increasing time to degree?
--What is the national interest/impact of supporting foreign students
on Federally-funded research grants?
--Is the current reliance on foreign students to meet the personnel
needs for certain fields, supported in part by Federal
research grants, a viable long-term strategy?
--Do foreign students compete with U.S. students for support on
Federal research grants?
--Do large numbers of foreign students in some programs discourage
talented U.S. students from pursuing graduate studies; are
underrepresented groups impacted more by this factor?
Do Federal programs and policies for support of research in
universities enrich the learning environment and support free and open
inquiry? \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``The current graduate paradigm can be characterized best as an
apprenticeship, in which the dissertation advisor has significant
responsibility for not only the content but as well the duration of the
program * * * stressing specialization and depth of investigation [it]
is frequently accused of cloning the current cadre of research
faculty.'' (James Duderstadt, Remarks to the National Science Board,
August 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--To what extent does Federal support encourage narrow specialization
in areas related to the immediate needs of mission agencies or
faculty mentors?
--Does Federal support for graduate/postdoctoral research and
education in universities encourage acquisition of skills and
knowledge to prepare graduates for a broad range of research
and teaching careers?
--Do Federal policies and support methods encourage dissemination of
knowledge, and sharing of the benefits of research and graduate
education throughout the host institution, and synergy among
academic researchers, faculty and students, and researchers in
other sectors?
--Is Federal support for graduate and postdoctoral research and
education sufficiently sensitive to the important contributions
to the national science and engineering research and education
enterprise by the comprehensive universities, liberal arts
colleges and other institutions not among the major research
universities?
______
Government Funding of Scientific Research: A Working Paper of the
National Science Board
introduction
With the end of the Cold War and the need to reduce the size of the
Federal deficit, all facets of the Federal budget have come under
scrutiny, including the Nation's investment in research and development
(R&D). There has been considerable discussion on proposals to reduce
the Federal R&D budget and to reorder its priorities. The National
Science Board (NSB) is specifically charged with assessing the health
of science in the Nation and with advising the President and Congress
on matters of national science policy.\1\ The Board therefore offers
its perspective on the important issues this country confronts today
concerning the funding of scientific research by the Federal
government. Consistent with its charge, the Board has focused its
efforts on issues affecting scientific research as distinct from
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1861, et.seq. A particular responsibility of the Board in
implementing this mandate is the biennial publication of Science and
Engineering Indicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer review of proposals has long assured the funding of the best
researchers with the best ideas. However, presently there is no widely
accepted way for the Federal government in conjunction with the
scientific community to make priority decisions about the allocation of
resources in and across scientific disciplines.\2\ We examine this
complex issue and offer our views on this challenging task with two
purposes in mind. The first is to guide future actions of the Board in
reaching priority decisions about the budget of the National Science
Foundation (NSF). The second is to engage the attention and
participation of others in meeting this challenge by supplementing
present procedures with other systematic ways to reach and prioritize
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout this paper, ``science'' includes mathematics,
engineering, and materials research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rationale for the major Federal role in funding scientific
research goes back some fifty years to the time after the end of World
War II, when realization of the impact of science-based technology on
the course of the war was keenly felt. The mood was expressed in
Vannevar Bush's July 1945 report, ``Science--The Endless Frontier''.\3\
It is natural to question the validity of the philosophy for today and,
particularly, to examine the question of the coordination of federally-
financed research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vannevar Bush, ``Science--The Endless Frontier'' (40th
Anniversary Edition, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation,
1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board has studied the report, ``Allocating Federal Funds for
Science and Technology'', issued in 1995 by a committee of the National
Research Council chaired by Frank Press.\4\ (We refer to this as the
``Press report.'') A major theme of that report is the need for some
degree of coordination of federally-financed research. This idea is not
totally new but was particularly well developed in the report. This
timely and critical but highly controversial proposal merits careful
attention at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Research council, Committee on Criteria for Federal
Support of Research and Development ``Allocating Federal Funds for
Science and Technology'' (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is in the Nation's interest for there to be some form of
``comprehensive'' and ``coherent'' coordination of federally-financed
research,\5\ it is necessary to have guidelines to provide clear
direction on setting priorities within the Federal research budget. The
Press report pointed out that guidelines were offered in the 1993
report of the National Research Council's Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) ``Science, Technology and the
Federal Government--National Goals for a New Era.'' \6\ The Board has
considered the adequacy of the COSEPUP guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, p. 5.
\6\ National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering,
and Public Policy, ``Science, Technology, and the Federal Government:
National Goals for a New Era'' (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This working paper presents the Board's thinking on these subjects.
With this paper, the Board hopes to encourage a much needed dialogue
among appropriate stakeholders. The document is divided into four
sections. The first section addresses the definitions of ``research''
and ``development'' and highlights the essential differences between
them, particularly as they affect the possible government role in
funding. Considerable confusion has been created by imprecise and
sometimes improper use of the term R&D. The Board feels it is important
to clarify this issue.
The second section revisits the justification articulated by
Vannevar Bush for government funding of scientific research. It
addresses some of the changes in the past fifty years that may have
altered the justification but concludes that the need for government
funding of research is just as critical today as it was at the height
of the Cold War.
The third section examines the need for comprehensive coordination
of federally-financed research. It concludes that such coordination
could assist the President and Congress by providing a valuable
addition to and improvement over the processes presently in place.
However, implementation of such a policy would involve the difficult
task of developing acceptable procedures.
The final section addresses the availability of guidelines to
provide clear direction on setting priorities. It concludes that
further study of priority setting methodologies involving appropriate
stakeholders should be undertaken. The NSB recommends such a study and
pledges its support for this effort.
section i: definitions of ``research'' and ``development"
Because this document focuses on research, it is appropriate to
define ``research'' as distinct from ``development,'' recognizing that
there are instances where the boundaries blur.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Definitions of ``research'' and ``development'' are congruent
with operational definitions for the National Science Foundation Survey
of Industrial Research and Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research
Research is the search for new knowledge and concepts that unify
and extend that knowledge. The work, stimulated by theoretical or
practical questions, is conducted in the context of existing knowledge
and paradigms. A paradigm is a guiding concept or model, based on
accumulated knowledge, which is generally accepted as valid and useful.
Typically, research is designed to answer specific questions to
fill gaps within the existing body of knowledge or to test the paradigm
itself. Work which is intended to confirm or refine an existing
paradigm may, in fact, contradict it, thus opening the way for a
scientific revolution.
Practical applications of knowledge may range from new products and
processes to the information base needed for management or policy
decisions. An investigator may or may not have specific, practical
applications for the results of his/her work when designing the
research. However, extensive history has documented the fact that the
most important applications and policy implications are not envisioned
at the time of the research. This fact is most especially true of work
that leads to new or greatly modified paradigms.
Development
Development is the process by which a new product or process is
brought into being or improved based largely on existing knowledge and
theory. In an industrial setting, development encompasses a wide range
of activities, such as scale-up, packaging, or cost analysis. Here we
will consider only the technical development by which the concept may
be reduced to feasible practice. We have chosen not to address
development efforts outside of the commercial sector, that is,
development directed to achieving the mission of a sponsoring agency.
In general, development cannot occur based on existing knowledge
and theory only, for there are inevitable gaps in the knowledge base.
Experiments are typically designed in the development process to
address these specific gaps. Thus development has some important
features in common with research, though the questions in a technical
development program tend to be of narrower scope than in research.
While there are research aspects to technical development, research
does not naturally lead to development in any linear way. Rather,
research and development are iterative, with development dependent on
research, and often vice versa. Taken together, research and
development may be defined as ``technical innovation.'' Invention is
possible at any stage in the technical innovation process and success
is necessary at every stage to produce a commercially viable product or
process.
Observations on the R&D Definitions
Research and development, as here defined, are related: not every
activity can be clearly classified as one or the other. Additional
phrases such as ``applied research'' or ``exploratory development''
have been created to provide finer definition of the gray areas between
research and development. The above definitions are simpler and
adequate for present purposes.
It should also be noted that success in technical innovation is
necessary, but not sufficient, for commercial success. Many other
factors influence the ultimate commercial success or failure of a new
product or process. Some factors, such as marketing, distribution,
design for manufacturability, and testing, are primarily the
responsibility of industry. Other factors, such as the cost of capital,
liability laws, environmental regulations, and tax policy are dependent
on government actions and general economic conditions. It is, in fact,
these interdependencies that necessitate close cooperation among the
sectors--academy, industry, and government--to ensure the economic
well-being of the Nation.
Our definitions distinguish research from development and also
indicate the relationship between them. Discussion of support by the
government must deal carefully with this relationship, while
recognizing that the rationales for supporting the two are quite
different.
It further should be noted that research and education are
inexorably linked in U.S. higher education in science and engineering.
During the undergraduate and graduate years, students learn the
fundamentals of their fields. However, because the knowledge base is
growing explosively, students must also learn how to learn, lest their
education become obsolete. It is in this realm that research becomes a
powerful part of both undergraduate and graduate education, which is
one of the great strengths of the American higher education system. In
research, students learn how to gather current knowledge, how to pose
significant questions to further that knowledge base, and how to frame
and implement an approach to address their questions. This research/
education experience is invaluable training, not only for those
continuing in research, but for the broader workforce and an informed
public.
section ii: justification for government support of scientific research
Prior to World War II, support for research by the government of
the United States was largely focused on government missions and
carried out by Federal employees in Federal establishments. The
experience with weapons development during the war highlighted the
enormous potential impact of the results of scientific research on
national needs. It was also realized that academic research was a
powerful engine for generating such results.
The government role in supporting research in the scientific
community at large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by
Vannevar Bush. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new
responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and
the development of scientific talent in our youth. These
responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government for they
vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.'' \8\
Bush used the word ``jobs'' to describe what elsewhere he referred to
as ``prosperity'' or ``public welfare.'' The concept is now commonly
referred to as ``economic security.'' The three areas identified by
Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today,
he would probably add others, including ``the environment,'' ``green
manufacturing,'' and ``clean energy sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of
national needs rather than to a single objective, such as defense.
Indeed, he concluded his letter to President Truman transmitting his
report with a broad vision of the impact of science on quality of life:
``Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation,
to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and
to our cultural progress.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research
results often appear many years after the work is started and that
there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will
benefit from this work. He also observed that `` * * * basic research
is essentially non-commercial in nature. It will not receive the
attention it requires if left to industry.'' \10\ Today this concept is
recognized as a lack of ``appropriability.'' Because of the long-term
nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical
applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research
will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace.
Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the
``appropriability'' issue. It consequently has increased the need for
government support of research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research
universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term
relevance to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the
National Science Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to
the point that it has become a major source of support for science and
engineering in our universities. The National Science Board was created
with its dual mission of overseeing the activities of NSF and
monitoring the health of science in the Nation.
As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research
universities have become the envy of the world. The application of new
knowledge and talent in science has indeed created handsome benefits in
the three areas Bush identified. We will cite just one example in each
area. The understanding of the structure and properties of DNA opened
up totally new opportunities to address health issues and provided the
basis for the vibrant new biotechnology industry. Polymer and
photochemical research led to the creation of photoresists that are key
to the success of the microelectronics industry, which accounts for
well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U.S. today. The atomic
clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was stimulated
by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of the
Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More
recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything
from ships to backpackers.
In the fifty years since the end of World War II, major changes
have occurred here and overseas that might have an impact on the
rationale for government support of scientific research. Two of the
most frequently cited are the end of the Cold War and the emergence of
a global technological marketplace. Another is the increasing need for
information and knowledge as a basis for policy and management
decisions by institutions and individuals, to enable them to contend
with the modification of natural and social environments that is
occurring at increasing rates, over larger scales, and in fundamentally
new ways.
Do these changes call for a major change in our attitude toward
research? We believe that none would invalidate the justification for
wise government support of research. Health, economic security, and
national security remain as imperatives, and are now joined by social
and environmental concerns. Only the sense of priority has changed.
Defense priorities have decreased but competition from global science-
based technological industry and environmental and social concerns have
increased as no one would have dreamed in 1945.
Some Asian nations, most prominently Japan, have succeeded in
building excellent high-tech industries in the absence of a publicly-
accessible academic research base. At the same time, U.S. industry
appeared to be faltering in areas such as consumer electronics and in
fundamental research in manufacturing engineering. These observations
have been used to suggest to some that government funding of science
might not be required to enhance national prosperity. We believe that
this is an incorrect conclusion stemming from a number of
misunderstandings of the characteristics of research and development
and their role in the total innovation process.
First, as discussed in the section on definitions, success in
bringing high-tech products and services to the marketplace involves a
total innovation process including functions such as research,
development, manufacturing, marketing, and others. All of the functions
involved must work well. The problems with the U.S. consumer
electronics industry have been thoroughly studied and are well
understood.\11\ American firms lost market share to competitors with
shorter product cycles, lower costs, and superior quality. Even
excellent science will not compensate for such a weakness in the
industrial environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Richard S. Rosenbloom and William J. Abernathy, ``The Climate
for Innovation in Industry: The Role of Management Attitudes and
Practices in Consumer Electronics,'' Research Policy, 11, no. 6
(1982):209-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as also discussed in the section on definitions, the
innovation process is an iterative, not a linear, process. While some
very important product developments are triggered by new knowledge from
research, the majority are stimulated elsewhere--by market needs, by
manufacturing advances, and by ideas from the development laboratory.
These product developments can proceed largely on the foundation of
existing and widely understood scientific and technical knowledge. The
consumer electronics industry fits this model as does the mature
semiconductor industry. Thus, even nations without ready access to
research capabilities can prosper and excel in these product lines.
The most obvious situation in which research can lead to a
competitive edge for industry is where there is a fundamental
breakthrough, a paradigm change. Here there may be opportunities to
create whole new industries. The understanding of DNA was surely one
such paradigm change. When this occurs, a nation with both a strong
industry and a leading scientific capability can capitalize on its
closer access to knowledge and talent to become first in the world
market with the most innovative, profitable products and services. It
is under these less frequent and highly unpredictable circumstances
that research makes a critical contribution to industrial
competitiveness.
There are other research benefits that can be at least as valuable.
Basic expertise is needed to evaluate new technical opportunities
regardless of their source. Whatever the extent of a nation's
investment in research, some breakthroughs are bound to occur
elsewhere. Having expertise in a field makes it possible to catch up
with the originator in the implementation phase and even get to market
ahead of the originator. In planning technical programs, whether in
research or development, it is valuable to understand what can work and
it can be even more valuable to know what cannot work. Finally, ready
access to the talent in research universities, whether as employees or
consultants, is an asset to industry in all facets of the innovation
process. These benefits from research can be seen in the strength of
our information, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries and the
competitive advantage they have gained from close access to basic
science.
We conclude that changed circumstances in recent years do not
reduce the desirability of continued government funding of scientific
research. Changes in national priorities do not negate the potential of
research benefits which are long term and uncertain in detail but have
proved over time to be substantial. In the presence of global
competition a nation should be strong in all facets of technical
innovation and should have available a continuously renewed base of
knowledge to inform its decisions and those of its citizens. A nation
requires a robust high-tech industry, a scientific talent base, and a
vigorous research activity to prosper over the long term.
section iii: coordination of federally-financed research
We recognize that a degree of coordination of Federal research
spending exists across disciplines and that during the last decade the
Executive branch has taken steps to improve coordination of research
across agencies in key areas. Indeed, the Office of Management and
Budget in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy
provides annual budget guidance to all agencies participating in
support of priority research areas in preparing the Federal budget for
submission to Congress. Too, agency budget submissions must be
developed in the context of the Government Performance and Results Act,
which requires that agency supported research activities have
measurable outcomes toward achieving agency missions. We note in
particular that the committees of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) provide coordination in areas of special national
interest, such as global change, the development of less polluting
transportation, energy, specific health areas, childhood development,
and the future of the U.S. program in the Antarctic.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Science and Technology Council, Technology for a
Sustainable Future/A Framework for Action. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1994, and Infectious Disease--A Global
Health Treat. Washington, DC: September 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These efforts benefit from special Administration studies,
including reports of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) and the NSTC.\13\ But, beyond those special
areas, coordination depends on individual agency-to-agency agreements,
informal cooperation across agencies at the program level, and the
memories of Congressional committees. Sometimes important decisions
about the allocation of limited resources happen by default, without
explicit weighing of alternatives. There remains a need to examine and
coordinate the science and engineering research budget as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the
Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: November 5, 1997. National
Science and Technology Council, National Security Science and
Technology Strategy. Washington, DC: OSTP, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that the Federal government take upon itself the
high-level coordination of the diffuse sources of Federal funds for
research as suggested in the Press report. Improved coordination and
decision-making at the Federal level could lead to a better alignment
of expenditures with respect to national priorities without in any way
replacing the spontaneous generation of ideas and proposals by
individual research workers and teams. Such coordination could correct
deficiencies that will inevitably surface in its absence. The main
deficiencies are gaps, overlaps, and failures to meet priorities.
Decentralized allocation will sometimes result in separate agencies
unintentionally pursuing the same agenda.\14\ Duplication of research
efforts is not always a bad thing, even when funds are scarce. It may
encourage competition among investigators and advances in knowledge
across a broad front. Whether or not any particular duplication is
desirable competition or wasteful overlap has to be decided explicitly.
There is no reason to expect the optimum answer to arise by
happenstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The funding environment is an ecosystem. Changes in a
particular agency's budgets and programs may have unintended
consequences by creating gaps in significant areas of research and
increased pressure on other agencies that may not be in a position to
respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In exactly the same way, decentralized allocation will sometimes
leave important areas of research inadequately covered. Individual
funding agencies and individual researchers may incorrectly presume
that others are pursuing particular topics and related areas. Although
such gaps may correct themselves over time as the writers and readers
of proposals see what has happened, this can be a wasteful process, and
even quite destructive if young researchers decide to leave important
unfunded fields. Coordination would allow one to see gaps in advance
and judge whether they should be eliminated.
Sometimes there will be a clear sense within the Federal government
that some areas of research merit particularly high priority for social
or economic reasons (examples: climate, hydrology, violence, materials,
transportation, etc.). The uncoordinated generation of research
proposals will not completely ignore such priorities, but cannot be
expected to reflect them with great fidelity. It was already noted that
important applications of research are not always foreseen when the
research is planned. This observation does not deny that research aimed
at a particular application is more likely to achieve it than research
aimed in some other direction. Comprehensive coordination can achieve a
rough conformity between accepted priorities and the allocation of
resources. This fact becomes increasingly important when funds are
scarce. As an extreme example, it is a common observation that
completely decentralized modes of allocation run into particular
trouble when budgets must be cut. At such a time it is easy for the
general interest to be overridden by parochial interests.
Whenever there is some amount of comprehensive coordination and
decision-making, it is supremely important that the criteria of choice
be appropriate. There is no virtue in doing the wrong thing
efficiently. Any scheme of oversight must begin with explicit
discussion of and agreement about the goals to be achieved.
section iv: federal science priorities
Within the Federal budget, there should be an overall strategy for
research, with areas of increased and areas of decreased emphasis. The
budget as a whole should be adequate both to serve national priorities
and to foster a world-class scientific and technical enterprise. To
this end, Congress and the Administration need to establish a process
that examines the complete Federal research budget before the total
Federal budget is disaggregated. Departments and agencies should make
decisions based on clearly articulated criteria that are congruent with
the overall strategy.
Within the Executive branch, the interagency NSTC, and before it
the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET), have successfully organized crosscutting research
areas of national interest, such as global change, energy,
transportation science, environmental science and technology, and human
resources for the twenty-first century. However, in order for broader
coordination and priority setting to be successful, general guidelines
are required to provide clear direction.
The most recent effort by the scientific community to recommend
guidelines for the allocation of research resources across all fields
of science and engineering appears to be the COSEPUP report. That
report proposes that Federal research resources be allocated among
different scientific fields and Federal agencies and departments so
that the United States will be among the leaders in all major fields of
science and the leader in selected major fields.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ pp. 18-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Science Board supports the spirit of the COSEPUP
recommendations but believes that they may not go far enough. The
COSEPUP criteria would assure that the United States would be
competitive with, indeed somewhat ahead of, other nations. This, we
believe, is highly desirable but may not be sufficient. In addition to
questions of world leadership, one must also ask what is the
appropriate scale of the investment to meet the needs of the greatest
economic power in the world. Given the broad range of national needs
that can benefit from the results of scientific research, the Nation
may choose, and may be able to afford, to invest beyond the levels that
the COSEPUP criteria would suggest. Thus the Board believes that
further study is needed before a particular methodology for setting
priorities is adopted.
To ensure the most effective use of Federal discretionary funding
it is essential that agreement be reached on which fields and which
investment strategies hold the greatest promise for new knowledge that
will contribute most effectively to better health, greater equity and
social justice, improved living standards, a sustainable environment, a
secure national defense, and to extending our understanding of nature.
It is intrinsic to research that particular outcomes cannot be
foretold; but it is possible, indeed necessary, to make informed
choices and to invest wisely. The need for better coordination and
priority-setting is not related to cycles of fiscal constraint alone.
It is, rather, an integral aspect of a sound, future-oriented strategy
for the investment of limited Federal dollars.
Although the need for establishment of research priorities has been
discussed often, no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this
task. Moreover, no consensus has been built to support such a
methodology. Several subfields of science have long-established
methodologies for producing ranked lists of new construction projects:
for example, the Decadal Studies in Astronomy, the periodic reports of
the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) ranking accelerator
projects, and the occasional reports ranking investments in x-ray and
neutron scattering sources.
However, these priority-setting exercises have been within fields
and subfields of science. We are aware of no examples of the scientific
community agreeing on the relative priorities for investment across
scientific fields. Although many scientists consider the task both
undesirable and undoable, the National Science Board believes that this
difficult task will become increasingly important and must be faced
over the next few years.
The Board has concluded that an appropriate next step is to
initiate a study of guidelines that go beyond those proposed in the
COSEPUP report. The purpose of this task would be not to set
priorities, but rather to undertake a study of how they might best be
set. Specific charges would be to: [a] review, in light of changing
circumstances, the goals for Federal investment in scientific research
as stated in the Administration report, ``Science in the National
Interest;'' \16\ [b] examine what methodology and criteria might best
be used to set priorities across different scientific fields and
disciplines toward the attainment of those goals; and [c] consider what
mechanisms will be effective in building broad public and scientific
support for, and involvement in, priority setting. The study should
involve the opinions of a diverse group including, among others, active
researchers with breadth of vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ William J. Clinton and Albert Gore, Jr., Science in the
National Interest (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology
Policy, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Science Board recommends further study of priority-
setting methodologies involving appropriate stakeholders. The Board
believes that this task is of paramount importance to the future health
of U.S. science and technology. It should be undertaken to assure the
continued flow of wide-ranging benefits to society from Federal
investments in science and engineering research. The Board offers its
assistance on this critical task in any way that the President and the
Congress would find helpful.
statement of neal lane
Senator Bond. Dr. Lane.
Dr. Lane. Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, I really want to
begin by thanking you and the subcommittee most sincerely for
your consistent, bipartisan support of NSF science and
engineering activities. I would especially like to thank you
for your support of NSF's NGI activities in the recently
completed settlement legislation which provided funding to help
us play a leadership role in advancing networking in this
country.
plant genome research initiative
I am also pleased to note that many of the other
initiatives championed by the subcommittee are integral parts
of the fiscal year 1999 NSF budget request, such as the plant
genome research initiative and significant increases in Arctic
research and education.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1999 budget request for NSF
represents an unprecedented vote of confidence from the
President. If enacted, this budget would be the largest dollar
increase the Foundation has ever received, as the President
noted in his State of the Union Address. This investment will
help set the stage for a new century of progress, through
learning and discovery.
For the coming fiscal year, NSF requests $3.773 billion.
And this represents roughly a 10-percent increase. Overall,
that is over $340 million. This investment, part of the
President's 21st century Research Fund for America, is all
about keeping U.S. science and engineering at the very leading
edge of learning and discovery.
investment in knowledge and distributed intelligence
I have attached to my testimony a more detailed summary of
our budget request. So instead let me focus on a major theme in
the request: NSF's continued investment in knowledge and
distributed intelligence, or what we call KDI.
NSF's KDI investments aim to turn today's deluge of
information into a wellspring of discovery, learning and
progress. A great example of KDI's influence can be seen in the
challenge of generating the massive sets of data needed to map
the genomes of key crops like rice and corn, genomes that are
as large or larger than the human genome. The generating of
this data is the relatively easy part. The next and most
important step will be to turn this information into useful
knowledge--knowledge of how the different pieces of the genome
do business and affect resistance to drought and diseases,
yields, growth cycles, and other plant processes.
All of this will require developing networks and
collaboratories of electronically connected scientists, to help
us pick out key patterns from the underlying volumes of data
and information. The power of KDI is enabling exciting
discoveries in nearly all areas of science and engineering. For
example, using interconnected facilities, located all over the
country, scientists and engineers are able to remotely create,
design and manipulate ordinary objects, like ceramics and
metals, one molecule or even one atom at a time.
nanotechnology
This manipulation of materials at the smallest scales is
commonly referred to as nanotechnology, the prefix ``nano''
meaning one-billionth of a meter, the scale at which most
nanoscientists and nanoengineers work. NSF's support over the
years has allowed nanoscale science and engineering to go from
the realm of science fiction to science fact. Some scientists
even envision nanofabricated objects that can change their
properties automatically, or repair themselves. And when you
think about it, it is not so outlandish. DNA molecules in our
own bodies can replicate themselves with incredibly small rates
of error.
Much of the inspiration for nanoscale science and
engineering comes from the biosciences and bioengineering,
making nanoscale science a perfect example of the integration
of the physical sciences and the biosciences, the dry world and
the wet world. These connections, across seemingly unrelated
areas of science and engineering, highlight a central feature
of NSF's fiscal year 1999 request, three integrating themes--
KDI, life and Earth's environment, and educating for the
future--provide a framework for the Foundation's investment
strategy. And these are each discussed in greater detail in my
written statement.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that the
entire NSF investment portfolio sets the stage for the 21st
century research and education enterprise, focused on national
priorities. Guiding all these activities is the Foundation's
longstanding commitment to merit-based investments in learning
and discovery that adhere to the highest standards of
excellence. This request marks a significant step forward for
U.S. science and engineering.
prepared statement
The requested increase of 10 percent provides a level of
investment in keeping with the wealth of opportunity that
science and engineering offer to society. In addition, it will
help position America to remain a world leader in the
information-driven economy of the 21st century.
Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Dr. Lane.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Neal Lane
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on the budget request
for fiscal year 1999 for the National Science Foundation. I want to
begin by thanking you and the subcommittee for your generous show of
support for NSF over the years. We appreciate the subcommittee's
consistent, bipartisan support for NSF's science and engineering
activities and we look forward to working with you during this year's
appropriations process.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for NSF represents an
unprecedented vote of confidence from the President. If enacted, this
budget would be the largest dollar increase the Foundation has ever
received--as the President noted in his State of the Union address.
This investment will help set the stage for a new century of progress
through learning and discovery.
For the coming fiscal year, the NSF requests $3.773 billion. This
represents a substantial increase--10 percent overall--over $340
million. This investment, part of the President's 21st Century Research
Fund for America, is motivated by a clear vision of how science and
technology can shape our future as a nation and drive progress,
productivity and innovation across our society.
This budget request will allow NSF to continue our tradition of
supporting a diverse array of excellent research and education
activities ranging from individuals working on their own, to large,
collaborative activities involving groups and teams of scientists and
engineers. This investment in the best people and the best ideas will
advance research and education across the frontiers and help keep U.S.
science and engineering at the leading edge.
I have attached to my testimony a more detailed summary of our
budget request, so let me instead focus on the major themes within our
proposal.
nsf major themes for fiscal year 1999
NSF proposes to continue our investment in broad thematic areas
that combine exciting opportunities in research and education with
immense potential for benefits to society. These are not budgetary
categories but integrating themes that help us coordinate activities
across the Foundation and better articulate the connections between
discovery and service to society. For fiscal year 1999 the major themes
include Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), Life and Earth's
Environment (LEE), and Educating for the Future (EFF).
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence
The explosive growth in computing power and communications
connectivity has brought forth unprecedented opportunities for
providing rapid and efficient access to knowledge and information, for
studying complex systems, and for advancing our understanding of
learning and intelligent behavior of people and machines. KDI is a
Foundation-wide effort that aims to improve our ability to discover,
collect, represent, transmit, and apply information.
Within the KDI theme we intend to emphasize research on knowledge
networking, learning and intelligent systems, and new challenges to
computation. Also included is a request for $25 million to continue our
support for research and infrastructure related to the interagency Next
Generation Internet program. The request also continues investments in
the very high-speed backbone network, which has brought new levels of
networking capabilities to many of the nation's research universities.
Life and Earth's Environment
The fiscal year 1999 request looks to expand support for specific
activities that relate to our second theme of Life and Earth's
Environment. LEE encompasses a wide range of activities on the complex
interdependencies among living organisms and the environments that
affect, sustain, and are modified by them.
Fiscal year 1999 investments will emphasize research on life in
extreme environments, urban communities, environmental technologies,
global change, integrated environmental research challenges, and
environmental observatories. Within LEE, funding for the U.S. Global
Change Research Program will emphasize climate modeling, earth system
history, human dimensions of global change, and global ecology.
Educating for the Future
The request also includes continued support for innovative
approaches aimed at meeting the challenge of educating students for the
21st Century. For example we intend to provide:
--$25 million to initiate a program on Research on Education and
Training Technology--a joint research initiative with the U.S.
Department of Education. This program is a direct outgrowth of
the recommendations by the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) for a research program focused
on ``the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of technology use
within our nation's schools.'' The program will include support
for efforts such as basic research on educationally relevant
technologies, research aimed at developing new forms of
educational software, and studies to determine the best and
most effective ways to use new technologies in the classroom.
--$28 million for joint efforts with the U.S. Department of Education
to fund peer reviewed proposals in K-8 mathematics education to
focus on the professional development of teachers and on the
implementation of standards-based instructional materials.
--Nearly $9 million to initiate a Children's Research Initiative that
focuses on children's cognitive development and readiness to
learn.
--Significant increases for NSF-wide programs that stimulate the
integration of research and education including a 14.5 percent
increase for the REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates)
program, a 16 percent increase for the CAREER (Faculty Early
Career Development) program, and a nearly 35 percent increase
for the IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Training) program.
nsf investments: meeting the challenges of the 21st century
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, NSF investments in the
best people and the best ideas will help keep U.S. science and
engineering at the leading edge. Above all, however, I believe that
these activities will enable new discoveries that result in the new
knowledge that will help our nation address some of the most critical
challenges of the 21st Century. These challenges include better health,
increased economic well-being and opportunity for all citizens, a
cleaner environment and better schools for our children.
We are also facing critical challenges relating to the information
age. ``Drinking from a firehose'' is how many people describe the
challenge of coping with the information deluge flooding our society
today. As recently reported in the San Jose Mercury News, `` * * * only
seven percent of the information expansively collected in corporate
databases is used--the rest just sits there, gathering the electronic
equivalent of dust.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert S. Boyd, ``Project aims to make what's available on the
Net manageable,'' San Jose Mercy News, February 10, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF investments in Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) aim
to turn this information deluge into a wellspring of discovery,
learning and progress. Doing this requires much more than just building
bigger and better machines. It requires addressing some of the most
fundamental questions and challenges in all of science and engineering
such as the workings of the brain, how we learn and the nature of
intelligent behavior.
I have long felt that the questions and challenges of KDI are best
exemplified by the NECK-top computer, not by the desktop computer. Our
own brains are among the most complex, efficient and powerful
instruments on Earth, yet we are just beginning to understand how our
brains operate or understand how we learn.
Understanding the workings of the brain is critical if we are to
treat disorders like dyslexia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But solving
the mysteries of the brain requires answers to more than just medical
questions, it requires fundamental breakthroughs across a number of
scientific and engineering fields.
To better understand the brain's secrets, researchers have to be
able to view it functioning in real time. NSF support has enabled the
first real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. This
required bringing together cutting-edge work in statistics,
neuroscience, and computer science. Because the imaging process shows
how areas of the brain ``light up'' when in use, it is yielding
invaluable insights into our understanding of learning and other
cognitive processes. Of course MRI technology came out of physics--
another reminder that the physical sciences underpin much of biomedical
research and medical technology.
Another area that gets a great deal of attention is NSF's support
of faster and more experimental computer and communications networks
that will better link researchers and educators at colleges and
universities. The use of high-speed networks to enable distributed
groups of scientists and engineers to work together as one--in almost
real time--is transforming the way discoveries and innovations are
occurring. Their use of these cutting edge experimental systems will
also lead to more powerful communications tools for society.
The NSF-supported National Nanofabrication Users Network is a good
example of such a distributed network or ``virtual center'' as some
like to describe the arrangement. In the ``virtual center'' concept,
high speed connections allow any researcher--regardless of where he or
she may be located--to remotely use the capabilities and instruments of
each of the five locations across the country \2\ that constitute the
users network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The five NNUN sites are: Stanford University, UC Santa Barbara,
Cornell University, Penn. State, and Howard University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while the Nanofabrication Users Network is an exciting example
of how KDI can transform discovery, the actual research conducted over
the network is probably even more exciting. By using the facilities
connected through the network, scientists and engineers are able to
create, design and manipulate ordinary objects like ceramics or metals
one molecule or even one atom at a time. This is research and
engineering at incredibly small scales--a nanometer--often the measure
used in this research--is one billionth of a meter, about the length of
3 or 4 atoms. If I were asked for an area of science and engineering
that will most likely produce the breakthroughs of tomorrow, I would
point to nanoscale science and engineering, often called simply
``nanotechnology''. The general idea of nanotechnology is not new--it
has been studied since Nobel laureate Richard Feynman outlined the idea
in a speech in 1959--but only recently have scientists been able to
glimpse Feynman's vision by creating rudimentary nanostructures.
NSF support over the years has allowed nanoscale science and
engineering to go from the realm of science fiction to science fact.
One of the most notable NSF-supported discoveries was the Nobel Prize
winning discovery by Richard Smalley and Robert Curl at Rice University
and Harry Kroto of Sussex University in England of a hollow form of
carbon known as Buckyballs. Subsequent research has shown that a
related class of molecules--the fullerenes--can form ``nanotubes'' only
a few atoms in diameter \3\ that could be the basis for a stunning
array of new environmentally friendly, carbon based materials never
known before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Next Electronics Breakthrough: Power-Packed Carbon Atoms,''
The New York Times, February 17, 1998, Malcolm W. Browne.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The possibilities of nanotechnology are endless. Entirely new
classes of incredibly strong, extremely light and environmentally
benign materials could be created. Other possibilities include:
--New generations of metals and ceramics several times harder and
more ductile that today. This could enable the creation of
inexpensive and readily available superconductive materials;
--medical implants that are constructed to be accepted by the body;
and
--medical probes so small that they won't damage the tissue.
Some nanoscale scientists and engineers even envision
nanomanufactured objects that could change their properties
automatically or repair themselves. When you think about it, this idea
is not so outlandish--DNA molecules in our own bodies can replicate
themselves with incredibly small rates of error. Much of the
inspiration for nanoscale scientists and engineers comes from the
biosciences and bioengineering--making nanoscale science a perfect
example of the integration of the physical sciences and biosciences.
the bottom line
Through these and other investments described in our budget
request, NSF's portfolio sets the stage for a 21st Century research and
education enterprise that continues to lead and shape the information
revolution, addresses key national priorities in such areas as the
environment and nanotechnology, improves teaching and learning at all
levels of education, and commits itself to reaching out and advancing
public understanding of science and technology. Guiding all of these
activities is the Foundation's longstanding commitment to merit-based
investments in learning and discovery that adhere to the highest
standards of excellence.
A wealth of evidence testifies to the impressive returns generated
by these investments. One ground-breaking study funded by NSF and
published in the Fall 1997 issue of the journal Research Policy found a
rapidly growing linkage between industrial innovation and scientific
research. The study examined patents in key areas of industrial
technology, including biomedicine, chemistry, and electrical
components. It found that nearly three-fourths of the research papers
cited by U.S. industry patents are what the study termed ``public
science''--papers authored at universities, government laboratories,
and other public and non-profit centers. Furthermore, the research
underlying the cited papers was found to be heavily supported by NSF
and other federal agencies.
These latest findings add to an already compelling body of evidence
on the contributions of fundamental science and engineering to economic
growth, productivity and innovation. As President Clinton noted in a
speech given on December 16, 1997: ``Half our economic growth in the
last half-century has come from technological innovation and the
science that supports it.''
This request marks a significant step forward for U.S. science and
engineering. The requested increase of 10 percent provides a level of
investment in keeping with the wealth of opportunity that science and
engineering offer to our society. In addition, rigorous priority
setting within the investment framework, with its emphasis on
multidisciplinary approaches and the integration of research and
education, will help position America to remain a world leader in the
information-driven economy of the 21st Century.
Thank you.
______
National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request Overview
The National Science Foundation requests $3.8 billion for fiscal
year 1999, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1998, to invest in
nearly 20,000 research and education projects in science and
engineering. This investment, part of the President's Research Fund for
America, is motivated by a clear vision of how science and technology
can shape our future as a nation and drive progress, productivity and
innovation across our society.
The discovery 100 years ago of the electron led to a broad range of
industrial technologies. The transistor--first developed 50 years ago--
was foremost among these, as it ushered in what has become the
``information revolution.'' Today, 3 million transistors can fit on a
chip no larger than those first fingernail-sized individual transistor
devices, with cost-savings of a similar scale. The future holds the
possibility of even greater gains. NSF's investments in nanotechnology
and ``thin films'' are expected to help generate a further 1,000-fold
reduction in size for semiconductor devices, which will make computers,
telecommunications and other advanced technologies even more powerful,
more portable, more affordable, and more useful.
Technology is beginning to live up to its promise in education. NSF
today invests in a number of efforts that give students at all levels
the chance to witness the leading-edge of science and engineering.
Writing in the July 28, 1997 issue of Business Week magazine, a teacher
from Lamar County, Georgia credited these NSF-supported activities with
helping to ``show rural kids * * * that they can become scientists.''
The students ``get to know working researchers. They read their
journals on line, have their questions answered, and watch researchers
on closed-circuit TV from such places as Antarctica [and] aboard
aircraft flying in the stratosphere.''
This winter, a team of researchers is living on an icebreaker that
is frozen into the pack ice in the Arctic Ocean, drifting with the ice
floes as a floating science station. The project is part of a set of
activities known as SHEBA (Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean),
which pulls together data and information on how the sun, clouds, air,
ice, and ocean interact and affect the annual melting and refreezing of
the Arctic ice cap. This has long been a major uncertainty in climate
models, and the SHEBA project has already helped to fill what one
observer termed ``embarrassing holes'' in our understanding of climate
change.
More and more practical benefits are emerging from science and
engineering ``at the extremes.'' Just over 30 years ago, researchers
discovered a hot-water-loving microbe living in the thermal pools and
geysers at Yellowstone National Park. The unique properties of this
``hyperthermophile'' were key to the development of the polymerase
chain reaction, or PCR, the so-called Swiss army knife of molecular
biology that has led to DNA fingerprinting, enzymes for non-polluting
detergents' and a myriad of state-of-the-art materials.
These striking examples speak to the priorities and directions
contained in NSF's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request. The request is
built upon NSF's strength--a broad base of research and education in
science and engineering that enables people and ideas to flourish. This
strength is derived from the agency's effective use of merit review to
identify the most promising ideas and most capable researchers and
educators. NSF's investment strategy also emphasizes focused emerging
areas that hold great promise both from a research and education
standpoint and as drivers of economic growth and societal benefit.
NSF FUNDING BY APPROPRIATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------
1998 Percent
Current 1999 change
plan \1\ Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Related Activities........ 2,545.70 2,846.80 11.8
Education and Human Resources.......... 632.50 683.00 8.0
Major Research Equipment............... 109.00 94.00 -13.8
Salaries and Expenses.................. 136.95 144.00 5.1
Office of Inspector General............ 4.85 5.20 7.2
--------------------------------
Total, National Science 3,429.00 3,773.00 10.0
Foundation......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, in fiscal year 1998 NSF was provided $23 million from
the Internet domain name registration fees.
highlights and priorities
The fiscal year 1999 request provides over $2.1 billion, a 12.0
percent increase, for investments in research project support across
NSF's appropriations. Education and training activities across the
Foundation increase by 10.7 percent to a level of $737 million. Funding
priorities throughout this request are shaped by NSF's ongoing
strategic planning process which identifies research and education
activities to advance science and engineering across all fields and
disciplines.
NSF will provide significant resources for efforts to address
serious concerns about grant sizes. The substantial increase will
enable NSF to support forefront research activities across the
Foundation by increasing award sizes and award durations, with
particular attention to new investigators. These efforts will
contribute to increasing the efficiency of the Foundation's merit
review process and achieving greater cost-effectiveness for both NSF
and the university community.
Among the priorities for fiscal year 1999 are activities associated
with the areas of Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), Life
and Earth's Environment (LEE), and Educating for the Future (EFF).
These represent areas for focused investment which combine exciting
opportunities in research and education with immense potential for
benefits to society.
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence.--The explosive growth in
computing power and communications connectivity has brought forth
unprecedented opportunities for providing rapid and efficient access to
knowledge and information, for studying complex systems, and for
advancing our understanding of learning and intelligent behavior. KDI
is a Foundation-wide effort that aims to improve our ability to
discover, collect, represent, transmit, and apply information.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes an increase of almost $78
million to substantially enhance specific activities that relate to
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence. Key emphases in fiscal year
1999 include research on knowledge networking, learning and intelligent
systems and new challenges to computation. Also included are activities
related to the Next Generation Internet to increase basic understanding
and usability of networks. The request also continues investments in
the very high-speed Backbone Network Service, which has brought new
levels of networking capabilities to the nation's research
universities.
Life and Earth's Environment.--The fiscal year 1999 request
includes an increment of more than $88 million for specific activities
that relate to the theme of Life and Earth's Environment. LEE
encompasses a wide range of activities designed to foster research on
the complex interdependencies among living organisms and the
environments that affect, sustain, and are modified by them.
Fiscal year 1999 investments will emphasize research on life in
extreme environments, urban communities, environmental technologies,
global change, integrated environmental research challenges, and
environmental observatories. Within LEE, funding for the U.S. Global
Change Research Program increases by 12 percent, with emphases on
climate modeling, earth system history, human dimensions of global
change, and global ecology.
Education for the Future.--The request includes continued support
for innovative approaches that are intended to meet the challenge of
educating students for the 21st Century. NSF's fiscal year 1999
investments in EFF activities increase by $107 million and include:
--$25 million to initiate a program on Research on Education and
Training Technology--a joint research initiative with the U.S.
Department of Education.
--This program is a direct outgrowth of the recommendations by the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) for a research program focused on ``the efficacy
and cost-effectiveness of technology use within our
nation's schools.''
--The program will include support for efforts such as basic
research on educationally relevant technologies, research
aimed at developing new forms of educational software, and
studies to determine the most effective educational
approaches and practices.
--A $28 million increase for a joint effort with the U.S. Department
of Education in K-8 mathematics education to focus on the
professional development of teachers and on the implementation
of standards-based instructional materials.
--Nearly $9 million to initiate a Children's Research Initiative that
focuses on children's cognitive development and readiness to
learn.
--Significant increases for NSF-wide programs that stimulate the
integration of research and education including a 14.5 percent
increase for the REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates)
program, a 16 percent increase for the CAREER (Faculty Early
Career Development) program, and a nearly 35 percent increase
for the IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Training) program.
additional highlights for fiscal year 1999
Complementing activities related to these themes are a number of
other Foundation-wide programs designed to address particularly
important elements of the support of research and education.
Arctic Research and Education.--Recognizing the importance of the
Arctic to studies of resource development and global phenomena such as
climate change and ocean circulation, NSF's fiscal year 1999 Request
includes more than $80 million for investments in Arctic research and
education across the Foundation. Within this amount, funding for Arctic
logistics more than doubles.
Emphases of NSF's enhanced activities in the Arctic include:
expansion of logistical capabilities, research platforms and
facilities; extension of education and outreach activities, especially
those exploring new technology venues and distance learning;
connections to Year of the Ocean activities; increased scientific
cooperation at international levels; and further development of
research programs on the human dimensions of global change.
Major Research Equipment.--The Request includes $94 million for
Major Research Equipment, which will support:
--Initial investments in the construction of detectors for the Large
Hadron Collider,
--Support for the ongoing modernization of South Pole Station,
--Continued prototype development for the Millimeter Array,
--Construction of the Polar Cap Observatory, and
--Reconfiguration of polar support aircraft.
Plant Genome Research.--NSF will provide $40 million to continue
investments in the Plant Genome Research Program begun in fiscal year
1998. This effort is built upon an existing base of genome research
supported by NSF. The overall goals of the NSF Plant Genome Research
Program are to support research that will advance our understanding of
the structure, organization and function of plant genomes, with
particular attention to economically significant plants, and to
accelerate utilization of new knowledge and innovative technologies
toward a more complete understanding of basic biological processes in
plants.
GOALI.--Support for the GOALI program (Grant Opportunities for
Academic Liaison with Industry) will total almost $34 million, an
increase of 13 percent, to facilitate collaborative research activities
between academe and industry.
EPSCoR.--Funding for EPSCoR (the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research) will total more than $50 million. This includes
$38 million provided through the Education and Human Resources
appropriation, and approximately $15 million through NSF's research
programs, to enable researchers supported through EPSCoR to participate
more fully in other Foundation-wide activities.
Other Areas of Opportunity.--NSF will enhance investments in areas
of opportunity across NSF, in priority areas such as nanoscale science
and nanoengineering, bioengineering, research on the quantum realm,
active tectonics, and innovative human/computer interfaces to aid
persons with disabilities.
GLOBE.--NSF continues its participation in the interagency Global
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment Initiative
(GLOBE). The GLOBE Program provides environmental science education to
K-12 students in more than 3,500 schools and 45 countries.
the bottom line
Through these investments, NSF's portfolio sets the stage for a
21st Century research and education enterprise that continues to lead
and shape the information revolution, addresses key national priorities
in such areas as global change and the environment, improves teaching
and learning at all levels of education, and commits itself to reaching
out and advancing public understanding of science and technology.
Guiding all of these activities is the Foundation's longstanding
commitment to merit-based investments in learning and discovery that
adhere to the highest standards of excellence.
A wealth of evidence testifies to the impressive returns generated
by these investments. One ground-breaking study funded by NSF and
published in the Fall 1997 issue of the journal Research Policy found a
rapidly growing linkage between industrial innovation and scientific
research. The study examined patents in key areas of industrial
technology, including biomedicine, chemistry, and electrical
components. It found that nearly three-fourths of the research papers
cited by U.S. industry patents are what the study termed ``public
science''--papers authored at universities, government laboratories,
and other public and non-profit centers. Furthermore, the research
underlying the cited papers was found to be heavily supported by NSF
and other federal agencies.
These latest findings add to an already compelling body of evidence
on the contributions of fundamental science and engineering to economic
growth, productivity and innovation. As President Clinton noted in a
speech given on December 16, 1997: ``Half our economic growth in the
last half-century has come from technological innovation and the
science that supports it.''
Recent NSF-supported work, for example, has led to:
--Identification of genes that control flowering and self-
fertilization in crops;
--Environmentally-friendly processes for manufacturing the aluminum-
based ceramics used in circuit boards and car parts;
--An ``optical resonator'' that could increase the capacity of fiber
optic cables by a factor of 10;
--New approaches to drug development that can aid in the fight
against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and
--Computer-aided text and speech generation and recognition systems
to aid persons with disabilities.
NSF's fiscal year 1999 request seeks to increase the already high
returns on the taxpayer's investment. A special emphasis is placed on
activities that improve the productivity and efficiency of research and
education. Providing larger award sizes with longer award durations,
for example, can enable forefront research, improve research
productivity, and contribute to reducing the administrative burden on
both NSF and the university community. Similarly, priority is given
throughout the Foundation to activities--such as the GOALI program--
with strong ties to industry and other potential users of the results
generated by NSF-supported activities.
This request marks a significant step forward for U.S. science and
engineering. The requested increase of 10 percent provides a level of
investment in keeping with the wealth of opportunity that science and
engineering offer to our society. In addition, rigorous priority
setting within the investment framework, with its emphasis on
multidisciplinary approaches and the integration of research and
education, will help position America to remain a world leader in the
information-driven economy of the 21st Century.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Science and Technology Policy
STATEMENT OF KERRI-ANN JONES, PH.D., ACTING DIRECTOR
Senator Bond. Dr. Jones.
Dr. Jones. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, I am
pleased to appear before you today to discuss OSTP's budget
request for fiscal year 1999.
The administration is encouraged and welcomes the current
efforts in Congress to establish targets for growth in science
and technology funding. As you well know and have stated in
your opening statements, funding for science and technology is
an extremely high-leverage investment for our country.
My written testimony discusses the state of the entire
science and technology enterprise during the past year. I would
like to take this time to briefly describe the mission of OSTP
and our fiscal year 1999 request.
responsibilities of OSTP
OSTP has two primary responsibilities: The first, advising
the President on science and technology; and the second,
providing leadership and coordination of our Federal S&T
effort. In the 1950's, President Eisenhower recognized the need
for expert science and technology counsel. He invited James
Killian, then the president of MIT, to Washington, to head the
first President's Science Advisory Committee, an OSTP
predecessor. Since then, our Nation's Presidents have drawn on
the expertise of our office for science and technology policy
advice.
Within our agency, a small staff of professionals analyzes
developments at the frontiers of scientific knowledge and
provides advice to the President. OSTP also provides scientific
and technical information and recommendations to the Vice
President, other offices of the White House, executive branch
agencies, and to Congress.
A second responsibility of OSTP is to provide leadership
and coordination across the Federal S&T enterprise. The
National Science and Technology Council is an invaluable
partner with OSTP in developing interagency coordination,
evaluations and new initiatives.
I ask today for your continued support of OSTP's role in
coordinating S&T policy for the executive branch and for our
Nation at large. OSTP's budget request of $5.026 million for
fiscal year 1999 represents an increase of less than 2 percent.
This will allow OSTP to fulfill its responsibilities.
After freezing our request at the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level for 2 consecutive years, this increase is essential to
continue to provide quality support to the President and
information to the Congress. Since personnel costs constitute
the largest portion of the OSTP budget, our fiscal year 1999
budget request reflects our commitment to operate more
efficiently and cost effectively, without compromising the
essential element of a top-caliber science and technology
policy office--that is, high-quality personnel.
OSTP, in meeting its mission of advice, leadership and
coordination, oversees two distinct organizations for
developing policy. These are the National Science and
Technology Council [NSTC] and the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST].
national science and technology council
To meet the administration's priority goals in science and
technology, we must combine the efforts and the expertise of
multiple agencies. OSTP personnel support NSTC, the cabinet-
level council that coordinates interagency efforts and
initiatives. Our distributed system of research funding places
a premium on coordination between complementary agency
programs. NSTC, now in its fifth year, is improving such
coordination.
NSTC membership includes cabinet secretaries, heads of
science and technology agencies, and key White House officials.
In the process of generating specific budgetary and policy
recommendations, NSTC routinely reaches out beyond the Federal
Government to the private sector and public interests.
president's committee of advisors on science and technology
As Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,
the Director of OSTP cochairs the PCAST committee with John
Young, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. PCAST consists of
distinguished individuals from industry, education, research
institutes, and other nongovernmental organizations. This
serves as the highest level of private-sector advice for the
President and for the NSTC.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Burns, I hope that this provides a
brief overview, combined with my written statement. And I hope
it conveys to you the importance of S&T to our national
interest, the extent of this administration's commitment to
this effort, and the role of OSTP. Regardless of party
affiliation, we all agree that the investments in science and
technology are in our Nation's interest. I ask for your support
for OSTP's fiscal year 1999 budget.
prepared statement
I also wish to express my appreciation to this committee
for its longstanding bipartisan leadership and support.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kerri Ann Jones
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to discuss the Office of Science and Technology
Policy's (OSTP) budget request for fiscal year 1999.
I very much welcome, and am encouraged by the current efforts in
Congress to establish targets for growth in S&T funding. As you know,
funding for S&T, like funding for education, is a high leverage
investment in our continued quest for peace and prosperity. Support for
such investments has traditionally been a matter of bipartisan
agreement. It is imperative that we build common ground in support of a
shared vision--a commitment to keep America the world's leader in S&T.
As we approach the turn of the century, it seems appropriate to
take stock of the Nation's science and technology (S&T) enterprise, and
to look to the future--to the opportunities that lie ahead as well as
the challenges that we face. The Information Age, driven by rapidly
advancing S&T, is bringing changes to our society that are only
beginning to unfold. Already, new communications technologies are
transforming the way we work, where we work, and what we need to know
to be successful in tomorrow's competitive environment. Five years ago,
``Internet'' was still a word known mostly to those in S&T. Today, this
offspring of federal research activities is the backbone of a new
industry and a window to a tremendous world of information for all
segments of our society, from business executives to school children.
The rapid economic growth of other nations means a future with
greatly expanded markets for U.S. goods and services. Our ability to
move our ideas, our goods, and ourselves swiftly to any place on the
planet, with the help of new technologies, enhances our ability to
share in the growth of global wealth. On the other hand, the increasing
availability of these same capabilities throughout the world also means
greater competition; it means increasing pressures on our shared
environment, health, and natural resources; and it means more diverse
dangers to our security from threats such as terrorism and the spread
of nuclear and other materials of mass destruction.
driving economic growth and improving quality of life
Sustaining U.S. leadership in science and technology has been a
cornerstone of President Clinton's economic and national security
strategy. Investments in science and technology--both public and
private--have driven economic growth and improvements in the quality of
life in America for the last 200 years. They have generated new
knowledge and new industries, created new jobs, ensured economic and
national security, reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency,
provided better and safer transportation, improved medical care, and
increased living standards for the American people.
Investments in research and development are among the highest-
payback investments a Nation can make. Over the past 50 years, for
example, according to a study by the Council of Economic Advisers,
technological innovation has been responsible as much as half of the
nation's growth in productivity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supporting Research and Development to Promote Economic Growth:
The Federal Government's Role The Council of Economic Advisers, October
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We see the fruits of this innovation every day. Many of the
products and services we have come to depend on for our way of life in
America--lasers, computers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), teflon
and other advanced materials and composites, communications satellites,
jet aircraft, microwave ovens, solar-electric cells, modems,
semiconductors, storm windows, human insulin, and others--are the
product of U.S. science support and technology policies.
These innovations also mean jobs and economic prosperity for
America. They've built some of these key industries:
Computers and Communications.--A creative partnership among the
Federal agencies, industry, and academia that led to what has become
the Internet, the backbone of a global electronic communication system.
The Internet has driven the evolution of a $590 billion domestic
telecommunications and information technology industry, which supports
more than 3.6 million American jobs. In just the past 10 years,
American employment in the computer and software industries has almost
tripled.
Semiconductors.--During the 1980's, the U.S. companies lost their
lead in semiconductor manufacturing, resulting by some estimates in $2
billion in lost earnings and 27,000 American jobs between 1980 and
1986. Today, American semiconductor manufacturers are back on top
supplying 46 percent of the world's market for microchips while the
Japanese supply 41 percent. Industry experts credit much of this
resurgence to Sematech, a joint industry-government research
consortium.
Biotechnology.--Discoveries in biology, food science, agriculture,
genetics, and drugs upon which the private sector has been able to
build and expand a world-class industry today support $7 billion in
annual sales and more than 100,000 American jobs.
Aerospace.--Aerospace leads all other industry sectors in net
exports. In 1997, the U.S. Aircraft industry shipped nearly $40 billion
worth of commercial aircraft and employed more than half a million
people.
Environmental Technologies.--Almost unheard of 10 years ago, more
than 30,000 environmental technology and services businesses employ
over 1 million Americans in high-growth, high-wage jobs. The
environmental technology industry has annual sales approaching $134
billion, a number that is expected to grow to $500 billion by the year
2000.
Energy Efficiency.--Consumers and businesses spend some $500
billion per year on energy. If energy intensity had remained at the
same level as in 1970, the country would be spending $150 to $200
billion more on energy each year. Many of the innovations that have
boosted our energy efficiency are the product of partnerships between
the Federal government and private industry. These partnership efforts
produced energy-saving light bulbs and other lighting products, which
alone generate $200 million in annual sales and have saved American
consumers $400 million in energy costs. New designs and materials for
windows have saved consumers another $760 million in energy costs while
simultaneously providing more comfortable living.
Every one of these industries has been built on federal investments
in R&D, and they are not isolated occurrences. From satellites, to
software, to superconductivity the government has supported--and must
continue to support--exploratory research, experimentation and
innovation that would be difficult, if not impossible, for individual
companies or even whole industries to afford.
Recent Advances in Science and Technology
Over the past year there have been numerous scientific and
technological advances, reminding us of how much there is yet to know,
and of the potential of S&T to further enrich and improve our lives. It
is important to note that federal funding was a key to virtually all of
the scientific breakthroughs of 1997, which included:
Synchrotron light sources.--DOE and NSF provide these advanced,
powerful tools that are yielding striking research breakthroughs in
increasingly diverse fields, including revealing the structure of
materials and biological molecules.
Identifying and mapping genes.--Particularly the isolation of genes
involved in the biological clocks of several organisms, from fruit
flies to mammals; analysis of a snippet of DNA from a Neanderthal
skeleton; and the explosion of microbial genetic data, including the
analysis of whole genomes of several microbes, pathogens, and archeons.
This work is funded by NIH, DOE, and NSF.
Understanding the workings of the central nervous system.--Work
funded by NIH leading to significant developments related to
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and regrowing severed spinal-
cord nerves was recognized.
Identification of the most violent events in the universe.--
Specifically, provocative clues to the nature of gamma-ray bursts and
black holes, were obtained using observations in different regions of
the spectrum by space and ground-based instruments operated by several
countries. American participants are sponsored by NSF, NASA, and
private organizations.
Liquid ocean beneath Europa's icy surface.--Detailed views by
NASA's Galileo spacecraft strongly suggest the possibility of liquid
water--key to the chance that living organisms might be found there.
Advances in the production, manipulation, understanding, and
variety of nanometer-sized tubes of carbon.--The structural cousins of
``buckeyballs'' can behave like semiconductors or metals and are
important steps toward future electronic devices and ultrastrong
materials. NSF, DOE and DOD help fund this work.
Forecasting of El Nino.--Capitalizing on a decade of research and
investment in modeling and monitoring technologies, we produced the
first accurate forecast of the El Nino phenomena in the first accurate
prediction of a large-scale onset climate event.
president clinton's fiscal year 1999 r&d budget
The President and the Vice President remain unwavering in their
support for science and technology as crucial investments in our
future. They maintain that such investments enable our nation to
compete aggressively in the global marketplace, protect our environment
and manage our natural resources in a sustainable manner, safeguard our
national security from emerging threats, and spur the technological
innovation that has contributed so much to our economic prosperity and
quality of life. They have brought the budget to balance. They have
increased the investment in science and technology. We all, but
especially our children and our grandchildren, will reap the rewards.
S&T funding is a high-stakes, high-leverage investment in the
Nation's continued stability and prosperity. The President's economic
plan has worked. For the first time in 30 years a budget has been
submitted to Congress that is in balance--it also contains the largest
civilian R&D increase since President Carter's fiscal year 1981 budget.
Additionally, the fiscal year 1999 budget is the sixth budget year in a
row that the President has proposed increased investments in research
and development--to a total of $78.2 billion.
The fiscal year 1999 budget continues the important R&D trends
established by this Administration. It boosts funding for basic
research to $17 billion, an increase of 8 percent ($1.2 billion) over
fiscal year 1998. It provides $16.4 billion for applied research, an
increase of 5 percent ($848 million) over fiscal year 1998. Under this
budget civilian R&D will constitute 48 percent of total R&D; our
emphasis increases on university-based research and on scientific user
facilities that serve all of American science and technology. The
impact of these substantial increases in R&D investments on America's
research productivity is amplified by the Administration's concurrent
focus on improving cost effectiveness of R&D by reducing administrative
burdens on researchers in universities and Federal laboratories.
The centerpiece of the President's R&D proposal is the 21st Century
Research Fund. The $31 billion Research Fund is deficit-neutral. It
provides for increases in most of the Federal government's civilian
research programs, which will grow at an overall rate of 8 percent in
fiscal year 1999, and climb by 32 percent over the next five years.
Increases in R&D funding will enable our major S&T agencies to
focus more intensely on the President's goals for science and
technology: promote long-term economic growth that creates jobs;
sustain a healthy, educated citizenry; harness information technology;
improve environmental quality; enhance national security and global
stability; and maintain world leadership in science, engineering, and
mathematics. For example:
National Institutes of Health (NIH).--The budget reflects an
unprecedented commitment to biomedical research with the largest
increase ever for NIH, which is up 8 percent ($1.15 billion) to $14.8
billion. This funding will support expanded research on cancer,
diabetes, brain disorders, drug demand reduction, genetic medicine,
disease prevention strategies, and the development of an AIDS vaccine.
National Science Foundation (NSF).--NSF, which supports much of the
research that trains the next generation of America's scientists and
engineers, increases by 10 percent ($344 million) to $3.8 billion. The
increase is the largest ever for NSF, and includes more than a 16
percent boost for computer science research.
Department of Energy (DOE).--The budget provides $7.2 billion in
R&D funding for DOE--an 11 percent ($697 million) increase over fiscal
year 1998. The budget includes resources for basic research, for
constructing the Spallation Neutron Source, for the international
partnership on the Large Hadron Collider, for DOE research on energy
efficiency and renewable energy under the Climate Change Technology
Initiative, and for maintaining the safety and reliability of our
nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing.
Department of Defense (DOD).--Together, DOD's 6.1 and 6.2 accounts
increase by 5 percent, to $4.3 billion; basic research alone increases
by 6.6 percent. This increase continues the President's commitment to
advancing our defense capabilities efficiently and cost-effectively.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).--NASA will
make a $2.1 billion investment in Space Science in fiscal year 1999,
and add another $700 million for these activities over the next five
years. These additional funds will be used to initiate a new mission to
Jupiter's moon Europa and a series of probes to study the Sun.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).--The Agricultural Research
Service receives a 3 percent increase to $770 million to intensify
research on food safety and the plant genome. The National Research
Initiative competitive grants program increases by 34 percent to $130
million.
Department of Commerce (DOC).--The budget provides $1.08 billion
for R&D activities at DOC, including the Advanced Technology Program
and construction of an Advanced Measurement Laboratory on the NIST
campus in Gaithersburg, MD, and for oceanic and atmospheric research
activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
University Research.--R&D support to Universities increases by 6
percent, to $14.5 billion, recognizing the integration of research and
education in the U.S. University system is its distinctive and vital
feature. The Administration's increased emphasis on university-based
research advances not only cutting edge research, but is also central
to the education and training of the next generation of scientists and
engineers. Highly trained scientists and engineers are prepared to
contribute to public health and safety, national security,
environmental quality, agricultural productivity, and international
economic competitiveness.
Cross-Cutting Initiatives
Increases in the R&D budget also target national priorities
requiring investments across agencies. For example:
Climate Change Technology Initiative.--Following the historic Kyoto
agreement, the Administration is proposing a dramatic new program of
tax cuts and R&D aimed at pursuing relevant science and generic
technologies for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The R&D portion--
$2.7 billion over the next five years--covers the four major carbon-
emitting sectors of the economy (buildings, industry, transportation,
and electricity), plus carbon removal and sequestration, greater energy
efficiency at Federal facilities, and cross-cutting analysis and
research.
Education Research Initiative.--A new partnership between the
Education Department and the National Science Foundation receives $75
million per year for research aimed at raising student achievement
through learning technologies and at research on brain function and
learning to develop innovative approaches to reading and mathematics
instruction.
Large Scale Networking and High-End Computing and Computation.--The
budget provides $850 million for what was formerly known as High
Performance Computing and Communications, which has been restructured
to focus on ambitious goals, milestones, and performance measures. This
undertaking will help to support new efforts such as telemedicine,
distance learning, and real-time collaboration. Included in this effort
is $107 million for the Next Generation Internet Initiative, which will
develop generic technologies needed for a research network that is 100
to 1,000 times faster than today's Internet.
Emerging Infectious Diseases.--The budget provides an increase of
over 9 percent in R&D to aid in the fight against emerging infectious
diseases, up from $339 million to $370 million (excluding the budget
for HIV/AIDS).
U.S. Global Change Research Program.--The budget maintains strong
support of global change research activities, which are furthering our
understanding of climate change and its impacts, climate variability
such as the El Nino phenomenon, Ozone depletion and other atmospheric
chemistry, and changes in ecosystems and the Earth's land cover.
the ostp mission
In support of our Nation's science and technology priorities, OSTP
has two primary responsibilities: advising the President on S&T; and
providing leadership and coordination for our government's role in the
national S&T enterprise.
In the 1950's, in response to Soviet advances, highlighted by the
launch of Sputnik, President Eisenhower saw the need for expert S&T
counsel, and he invited James Killian, then president of MIT, to
Washington to serve as the head of the first President's Science
Advisory Committee, an OSTP predecessor. Since then our Nation's
Presidents have drawn on the expertise of our office for S&T policy
advice, and I see this as a contribution that will continue to grow in
value as the challenges we face become increasingly complex.
Within our agency, a small staff of professionals analyzes
developments at the frontiers of scientific knowledge, and aids the
President in shaping policy. OSTP also provides scientific and
technical information and recommendations to the Vice President, the
White House Offices, the Executive Branch Agencies, and to Congress.
A second responsibility of OSTP is to provide leadership and
coordination across the Administration. OSTP plays this role for a
range of Administration priorities, including national security and
global stability, environment, science, and technology. The National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has been an invaluable partner
with OSTP in developing interagency evaluations and forging consensus
on many crucial S&T issues.
OSTP Budget Request
I ask today for your continued support of OSTP's role in
coordinating S&T policy for the Executive Branch and for our Nation at
large. OSTP's budget request of $5,026,000 for fiscal year 1999,
representing an increase of less than 2 percent, will allow OSTP to
fulfill its responsibilities in a White House that emphasizes the
importance of science and technology in national and international
affairs.
After freezing our requests at the fiscal year 1996 enacted level
for two consecutive years, this increase is essential to continue to
provide quality support to the President and information to the
Congress. Since personnel costs constitute the largest portion of
OSTP's budget, our fiscal year 1999 budget request reflects our
commitment to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively without
compromising the essential element of a top caliber science and
technology agency--high quality personnel.
National Science and Technology Council
To meet the Administration's priority S&T goals we must combine the
efforts and the expertise of multiple agencies. OSTP personnel support
the work of NSTC, a Cabinet-level Council that sponsors interagency
initiatives to advance key S&T objectives.
Our distributed system of research funding also places a premium on
coordination between complementary agency programs. The NSTC, now in
its fifth year, is improving such coordination.
NSTC membership includes Cabinet Secretaries, heads of science and
technology agencies, and key White House officials with significant S&T
responsibilities. In the process of generating specific budgetary and
policy recommendations, NSTC routinely reaches beyond the federal
government to seek input from a wide spectrum of stakeholders in the
public and private sectors.
An important objective of the NSTC is to guide individual agency
budget priorities for R&D and to orient the S&T spending of each
Federal mission agency toward achieving national goals. To meet this
objective, the NSTC has established five goal-oriented committees, each
of which is chaired jointly by a senior agency official and an OSTP
Associate Director. These standing committees, along with ad hoc
working groups within the NSTC, provide an effective forum to resolve
cross-cutting issues such as the future role of the U.S. national
laboratories, or providing a program guide to federally funded
environment and natural resources (see Appendix A for a full list of
NSTC generated reports from 1997.)
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
As Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the
Director of OSTP co-chairs the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) with John Young, former President and
CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. The PCAST, which consists of distinguished
individuals from industry, education, and research institutions, and
other non-governmental organizations, serves as the highest level
private sector advisory group for the President and the NSTC. (see
Appendix B for a full list of NSTC generated reports from 1997.)
President Clinton established the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) at the same time that he established the
NSTC to advise the President on matters involving S&T and to assist the
NSTC in securing private sector involvement in its activities.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief
overview has conveyed to you the extent of this Administration's
commitment to advancing S&T in the national interest. We are delighted
that the fiscal discipline exercised over the past five years has put
in reach the opportunity to place more emphasis on investments that can
assure future economic progress, environmental protection, and other
national priorities which depend so heavily on strong and sustained
R&D.
Regardless of party affiliation, in the end we can all agree that
investments in S&T are investments in our Nation's future. I look
forward to achieving bipartisan support for a national S&T strategy
that will combine the resources of industry, academia, non-profit
organizations, and all levels of government to advance knowledge,
promote education, strengthen institutions, and develop human
potential.
I ask not only for your support for OSTP's fiscal year 1999 budget
request, but also want you to know how much I appreciate the long-
standing bipartisan support of the committee for OSTP and for the S&T
research enterprise. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
______
Appendix A
reports
1. National Environmental Monitoring and Research Workshop, NSTC
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, February 1997.
2. Program Guide to Federally Funded Environment and Natural
Resources, NSTC Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources,
February 1997.
3. Status of Federal Laboratory Reforms, NSTC, March 1997.
4. 1996 Accomplishments of the National Science and Technology
Council, NSTC, March 1997.
5. Integrating The Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research
Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework, Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources, March 1997.
6. National Environmental Technology Strategy: Status and Action,
Committee on Science (Committee on Technological Innovation), April
1997.
7. Manufacturing Infrastructure: Enabling the Nation's
Manufacturing Capacity, Committee on Science (Committee on
Technological Innovation), April 1997.
8. Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, April 1997.
9. Computing, Information and Communications (CCIC) Brochure:
Technologies for the 21st Century, Committee on Technology (Committee
on Communications Information and Computing), April 1997.
10. Investing in Our Future: A National Research Initiative for
America's Children for the 21st Century, Committee on Science
(Committee on Healthy, Safety and Food R&D), April 1997.
11. Our Changing Planet: The fiscal year 1998 U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, June
1997.
12. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, June 1997.
13. Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, Committee on
Technology (Committee on Transportation R&D), September 1997.
14. Technologies for the 21st Century, Supplement to the
President's Budget (Fiscal Year 1998 Blue Book), Committee of
Technology (Committee on Computing, Information, and Communications),
November 1997.
15. Annual Report to the President on Presidential Decision
Directive (PDD)/NSTC-7, U.S. Policy on Emerging Infectious Diseases
(EID), NSTC Committee on International Science, Engineering, and
Technology, EID Task Force, December 1997.
Reports and Further Information may be obtained by calling: 202-
456-6100 (phone) or 202-456-6026 (fax). Reports are Also Available on
the NSTC Home Page via Link from the OSTP Home Page at: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/OSTP--Home.html.
______
Appendix B
activities of the president's committee of advisors on science and
technology (pcast)
In 1997, PCAST provided the following reports:
R&D Priorities for Sustainable Development.--Released in January
1997, reports that the rapid growth in the world's population and its
rates of consumption of natural resources has led to a deterioration of
environmental conditions which threaten global stability and limit
future human prospects. Five interrelated areas--climate change,
biodiversity, energy, ecosystems, and food supplies are recommended as
S&T investments that would have substantial returns for the health,
economic prosperity, security, and well being of all Americans.
Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12
Education in the United States.--Released in March 1997. The panel's
findings and recommendations are: (1) focus on learning with
technology, not about technology; (2) emphasize content and pedagogy,
and not just hardware; (3) give special attention to professional
development; (4) engage in realistic budgeting; (5) ensure equitable,
universal access; and (6) initiate a major program of experimental
research.
Letter Report on Cloning Technology.--Released April 11, 1997. The
report endorsed the Administration's prohibition on Federal funding for
cloning of human beings and the request that the private-sector adopt a
self-imposed moratorium on cloning human beings. PCAST also supports
the important and continuing contributions of biotechnology to
agriculture and biomedical science and the request of the NBAC for
advice on legal and ethical implications of extending the animal
experiments to human studies. PCAST recommended that the National
Academy of Sciences, Institutes of Medicine ensure that the public
understands the complexities surrounding cloning.
Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the
Twenty-First Century.--Released November 1997. The report recommended
focusing the government's energy R&D on projects where high potential
pay-offs for society as a whole justify bigger R&D investments than
industry would be likely to make on the basis of expected private
returns and where modest government investments can effectively
complement, leverage, or catalyze work in the private sector.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Dr. Jones.
Let me ask Senator Burns if he would like to make an
opening statement.
Senator Burns. No, sir.
Senator Bond. All right.
Senator Burns. Does that surprise you?
Senator Bond. It is going to be a good day.
Senator Burns. Whatever they want, just give it to them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. I believe that was a cheap shot. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. We have got to get an airplane on one leg of
the trip, however. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. I think Senator Mikulski has gone to vote.
And I will ask her to reconvene the hearing as soon as she
returns, and begin the questioning. But I have a number of
things I want to go through, so I will start at least the first
round.
Senator Burns. I will go vote, then.
Senator Bond. Well, maybe you all can have at it until I
get back.
Senator Burns. I will go save America. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Just vote. [Laughter.]
nsf budget priorities
Dr. Lane, we appreciate the job that you have done at NSF
and wish you the best. As I mentioned, we face a very tight
budget allocation. And the funding sources that have been
included in the budget are speculative at best. So we are
faced, from a budget standpoint, with some major challenges.
Because of these fiscal concerns, what I would like to hear
from you, and I would like to ask both you, Dr. Lane and Dr.
Zare, to identify your key priorities for 1999. If we cannot
provide the full request, what programmatic advice would you
offer this subcommittee as we go about making funding
allocations?
Dr. Lane. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that this is a very
large request for NSF. And we believe that if the funds can be
provided, it will be very well invested because of the way NSF
does business. In particular, we will use these funds to
increase our encouragement of science and engineering to work
across disciplinary lines, in such areas as KDI and life and
Earth's environment, and such projects as the genome
initiative, and many others.
We also recognize, as has been the case for many years,
that every year we leave on the table on the order of 7,500
grant applications, proposals, that could be funded in a
minute, that are reviewed to be excellent or very good, that
certainly meet our standards for funding. That amounts to about
$900 million. So it means that there is a considerable cushion
of excellence there that is unrealized. So with the additional
money, we would be able to address that.
In addition, we would be able to make the whole process
more efficient and more effective. We, at the present time,
have an average grant size of about $83,000. It is really a bit
small. And with the increased money, we would increase that on
the order of 7 percent. We would also increase the duration of
the grants. And that would lower the burden on the community
for writing proposals and reviewing proposals. And, in
addition, we would be able to fund more of these grants that
otherwise are going to stay on the table.
So with the funds, we will do good things. Without the
funds, where would we cut?
Senator Bond. That is the question. I understand the
preamble. Now, for the question.
Dr. Lane. First of all, let me say, we put the budget
request together, working with our directorates and our
programs, in a bottom-up manner. You know, if you only got 90
percent of the funds you had last year, what would you do? That
is how we built up the budget. So the priorities that are
present and reflected in the budget work from that kind of a
base.
And, therefore, if we were unable to receive the 10-percent
increase, the relative priorities in the budget would remain.
We would still expect to emphasize as best we could these
interdisciplinary areas. We would not be able to increase the
average grant size or the duration of the grants or make the
system more efficient. But we would make every effort to meet
the priorities that are in the same relative description that
you find in the budget request.
Senator Bond. Dr. Zare?
Dr. Zare. And that is very much the Board's opinion, in
terms of putting together the budget and approving it.
Let us look at the situation. Thirty thousand proposals
come in, approximately; 10,000 get funded--1 in 3. Easily 7,500
are left that could be funded. They meet our standards. If we
had funds, we would do it.
We fund within a median of about $62,000 for a grant.
Compare that, for example, to the NIH basic research grants,
which average $240,000. Our average duration is not as long. We
already are, in my opinion, underfunded. We are going to lose
more if we are cut back.
The idea of keeping the NSF budget, as it has been
constructed, is really very much a bottom-up approach, with
top-down priorities imposed on what comes together. This is the
process that goes on in this. Because you are asking how this
happens. We would try to preserve what we could with what funds
we are able to get.
major policy issues facing nsf
Senator Bond. Let me try to ask one last, quick question.
Dr. Lane, as you are in transition--and I wish you luck--what
major policy issues do you expect NSF to have to face over the
next few years? What are the tough questions that you are going
to be leaving behind?
Dr. Lane. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that
everything is just fine, and all of the issues that faced me
when I came in are now taken care of. But I would not be
telling the truth if I said that.
I believe the first thing to say is that the Foundation is
in excellent shape. It has a level of credibility that is very
high. It is unique in its mission and its ability to perform
that mission. So whatever challenges the Foundation faces with
its new Director--and I am delighted that Rita Colwell has been
nominated and I look forward to her confirmation--the
Foundation will be able to handle them very well.
But in direct answer to your question, what I am most
concerned about is that because the Foundation has such a
wonderful record of achievement, it is asked to do more and
more. Increasingly, the Foundation is being asked to take on
larger challenges, of course, with a strong scientific and
engineering basis, but somewhat larger than its tradition has
been. The most recent questions coming to us on the National
Institute for the Environment are just an example of many.
So I think that it is very good that the Foundation is
asked to do those things. The expectations are high. And the
Foundation will undoubtedly do an excellent job. But the more
of these other things it does, the less it is able to invest in
what we are really calling the fabric, or the core, of the
disciplines. And if those do not remain strong, then the Nation
is not as able to use that knowledge for societal benefit.
So it is a balance issue. And I think that is the major
programmatic challenge that the Foundation faces.
Senator Bond. Thank you all very much. I am going to have
to adjourn the hearing temporarily. And whoever returns first,
Senator Mikulski or Senator Burns or anybody else, will start
up. I will be back as quickly as I can. We will temporarily
stand in recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Mikulski [presiding]. Senator Bond heard me this
morning when I said I wanted to be the chairman. So here I am.
[Laughter.]
nsf themes
Now, that is bipartisan cooperation. But the Senator,
because of the vote, he needed to finish something on the
floor. But we do not want to inhibit the flow of this hearing,
so I am going to announce that the committee is reconvened and
officially in session. And I will do my questions while we are
waiting for Senator Bond's return.
One of the issues--well, I will wait for Senator Bond to
come on this. I would like to go to my question on strategic
initiatives. As you know, I was instrumental in directing NSF
to develop those. You now have organized yourself along certain
themes. And I understand from this, the budget has been set up
to reflect those strategic themes. Can you describe how these
will advance science and engineering across all fields of
discipline and how this will then move in a strategic way?
Dr. Lane. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Mikulski. Because you are essentially reorganizing
the way you do your budget; am I correct?
Dr. Lane. That is a very good way to describe what these
themes are--a way to coordinate activities all across the
Foundation in areas that we feel are strategic in nature. They
are larger than just the fundamental questions of science and
engineering. So I talked about KDI in my testimony. And I think
that is a particularly good example.
What it really does is to illustrate that if this Nation is
going to remain on the leading edge in information technology
and provide that technology for the benefit of all Americans,
so that everybody can benefit in their homes and their schools
and in their jobs, we have got a lot more to learn.
There are fundamental research questions that have to be
answered. But they cannot be answered by just the computer
scientists or just the chemists or just the engineers. It takes
scientists and engineers from many different disciplines,
willing to work together, to make this happen.
So that is what KDI is all about. It is an investment of an
additional about $78 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
And we spend probably just under a one-half-a-billion dollars
across the whole agency in research and education activities
that relate broadly to this area of KDI. So it is an
integrating theme. It is not a budget category in itself. It is
not a new division of the Foundation.
The way we make it happen is to pull together program
officers or division directors from all over the Foundation,
get them in a room, and get them to flesh out this
multidisciplinary program. And then we go out to the community
and we say, give us your best ideas and send us your proposals.
Once we get those proposals in, we have them reviewed, and then
we put this group together again and decide where the funds are
going to be allocated to support the work.
Senator Mikulski. So is then, really, the coordination of
every aspect related to math, science and engineering, which
are, if you will, the traditional categories of the National
Science Foundation and one of the primary purposes for which it
was founded?
Dr. Lane. Yes; that is correct.
knowledge and distributed intelligence
Senator Mikulski. Then, by your internal coordination, you
are then maximizing where you think the breakthroughs will come
in what you call the distributed intelligence. What is
distributed intelligence? We think it is randomly distributed
here. [Laughter.]
I am really interested in it, and in how you are going to
do it.
Dr. Zare. Well, I am delighted you were willing to grant
that there is any intelligence at all. [Laughter.]
Dr. Lane. Senator, what knowledge and distributed
intelligence means--why we use those words--is the fact that
information is now spread out all over the world in all kinds
of different forms. It is hard to access. What we need to be
able to do is, each of us, get at that information to generate
knowledge that we can then use. And so we do that by building
smart systems, new software, new hardware, to get into
databases and find what we want, to bring it forward so that we
can make use of it.
So we use distributed intelligence--we use the word
intelligence because it is not just raw data that we want out
there, we have got a hard question and we want the answer to
it. We want to be able to go to the network and say, Find me
who makes a thingamajig that is about this big and does the
following sorts of things. That is not very specific. But we
ought to be able to ask that kind of question, go out all over
the world, and find the information necessary to answer it. And
we do not know how to do that right now.
So we use the word intelligence because it is more----
Senator Mikulski. You say you do not know how to do it, or
you are in the process of learning how to do it?
Dr. Lane. We are in the process of learning how to do it.
We have not given up. There are fundamental research questions
that have to be addressed in order to enable us to develop the
systems to allow us to do what I just described.
Senator Mikulski. Well, this is exactly the model--not
exactly, but I mean this is very similar to what I was hoping
would be accomplished. Because from what I--and we need to
quickly garner this--is from the most fundamental research in
physics, then into also I am sure fields like fiber optics and
other transmissions of data, is one area which is enormously
technical. But then the other is that if you can do high-speed
data transmission, what does it mean?
Dr. Lane. That is right.
nsf research relationship with private sector
Senator Mikulski. And then could you tell me, though, in
this organizing of this then, what would be your relationship--
you meaning the National Science Foundation and the research
you fund--with the private sector?
Dr. Lane. We relate to the private sector in many ways.
There are a number of centers that we support on university
campuses that do research in this general area. And they have
industrial partnerships. And so people from industry come and
spend time in the laboratory, meet the students, bring their
ideas from industry. So it is a real, genuine partnership where
both sides benefit and both sides provide some of the support.
Another way we work with the private sector is to, wherever
we can, call on the private sector to provide the
infrastructure that we need to do the experiments on. So, for
example, the Internet itself.
information technology and private sector linkages
Senator Mikulski. Well, let me raise this, because again I
know the time is limited and this will be an ongoing
conversation, particularly then as you move to OSTP. And I am
going to stick strictly now to information technology. I think
we are all clear, again, if we go back to those original
competitive reports that sparked the thinking and the critical
technologies of the 21st century, information technology was
the fundamental one. Life science was certainly up there
because of its consequences and breakthroughs.
Now, so much of the breakthroughs in information technology
are coming from the private sector. And, therefore, I am
wondering what are the appropriate linkages where one maximizes
the other, and in a way that we also benefit from the
breakthroughs that the private sector is doing, who, quite
frankly, can put more into it than you can. I mean, $3 billion,
whether we find it from other sources, as Senator Bond said, a
10-percent increase is really heartening. But $3 billion, in
terms of the technology that will determine the--we could put
$3 billion just in information technology; am I right?
Dr. Lane. Of course, you are right, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. I mean, I am maybe overstating it.
So you see how I am looking at leveraging--not leveraging--
how the linkages need to be made.
Dr. Lane. Well, one example I think is the Internet itself.
We estimate that, sort of through the recent history of the
NSF, we probably invested as much as maybe a half-a-billion
dollars in the whole general area of networking, the research
activities and the infrastructure. The whole Federal Government
may have invested as much as a few billion dollars. But that
has blossomed quickly into a $200 billion industry, with the
jobs and the profits and the benefits to education and to the
economy and to health and to every other area that is provided
by these breakthroughs.
So even though the amount of money at the front end was a
relatively small part of the whole, and industry certainly
added substantial investments on top of that, it was a critical
piece. It was at the front end. It was high risk. It was at a
time and a place when industry was not willing to make the
investment.
We ought to be in early. We ought to be in at the front
end. We ought to be highly leveraged. And we ought to be
connected, as our strategic plan says--we ought to connect our
discovery and our researchers with the people in the industry
and in other walks of life who can take advantage of it.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we are looking forward on how you
want to develop those plans. Because I understand this is
taking the traditional role and putting it in a new framework
both internally and externally.
Dr. Zare.
Dr. Zare. I would like to add another aspect to KDI, and it
is also relevant to what Senator Bond asked about how we
support researchers in all types of universities, community
colleges, elsewhere. KDI allows people to be connected together
in a way that has not been possible before, so that they can
participate in doing things.
Let us take an example. Namely, the plant genome project.
And now I would like to ask, if I might, Mary Clutter to make
sure of my facts.
Senator Mikulski. Well, before you talk to Mary Clutter, I
have got a limited amount of time. And maybe Mary Clutter could
answer the genome project with Senator Bond. I mean I
appreciate that. Or could we be crisp? Because I get 10 minutes
here.
Dr. Zare. Thank you. I will just point out that this allows
you to go from an egosystem of individual pillars of excellence
to an ecosystem in which many types of scientists can
participate in doing research. Like 400 scientists in the plant
genome project scattered in more than a hundred institutions.
educating for the future
Senator Mikulski. Well, that is fascinating. That is
fascinating. And I know we want to hear more about it. But
while we are looking at KDI, which does that, I want to go to
Educating for the Future. Could you tell me in a more detailed
way what your plans are in terms of--because as we do these
enormous--the work force shortage now in technical fields is
astounding. And we need to also be promoting at the earliest
level, whether someone picks a field in math or science or not,
essentially we all need to be scientifically literate.
Dr. Lane. Senator, actually we are all scientists. However,
we are not as good scientists as we would like to be, as we
need to be, for the increasingly technological jobs of the
future. And that is where the challenge really is.
Educating for the Future, one could well ask, ``Well, if it
is not for the future, what is it?'' So what do these words
mean? The reason we write it that way is to say we are going to
try to invest in high-risk activities that anticipate that
people are going to need different job skills and different
bases of knowledge in the future than they do right now. And we
are going to try to work with the experts to anticipate that.
We have stressed for many years the integration of research
and education, because we believe that the way young people and
not so young people learn about anything is by experiencing.
They need skills. You have got to know the times tables. There
are fundamental basic things that you have to know.
But the way you really learn how to use your mathematics
and your science is by doing. You ask questions. You do
experiments. And you learn.
That is the basis of everything we are doing. Our systemic
reform programs in K through 12 education are relatively new
initiatives with community colleges, to help link those
community colleges with high schools on the one end and 4-year
schools on the other end. It is an immensely powerful effort
that is so important to the work force.
And in many other ways, we are trying to focus on those
activities that will assure that our young people are ready to
compete in the global environment of the 21st century.
nsf interaction with department of education
Senator Mikulski. First of all, we are very heartened by
this. And, again, I am going to ask you to look ahead to both
not only what you are doing here at the Science Foundation
but--and perhaps Dr. Jones could participate--I do believe that
people learn by doing. And that is how I like best to learn, by
being out in my State, going to visit projects, seeing hands-on
things. And we have the great Federal laboratories in our State
that enables me to do it.
But I am thinking about a 9-year-old, whether it is in
Baltimore or Bethesda or in St. Louis. And I am wondering what
is the coordination that is going on both with the Department
of Education to do this and, No. 2, also because I know both
sides of the aisles are tremendously interested in structured
after-school activities as well as summer school activities,
which in and of itself could provide opportunities for
learning--the Girl Scout that is working on a Mission to Planet
Earth Badge is learning about that. The Boy Scout working on
blazing a new trail has to do math, computers, even maybe early
elements of celestial navigation--not quite the way the
computations they would be doing at the Naval Academy, but
still learning how to look at the stars, see the stars, and
know how to get back home.
And what I am looking at is not that the National Science
Foundation be all and whatever, but how we can be supportive in
a way that promotes lifetime learning--learning before and
after school, and recognizing that not all learning occurs in a
classroom, or the integration of learning occurs most through
play and creative activity.
Dr. Lane. I believe, Senator, as you do, that people learn
by doing. And that if in their early years, particularly pre-K
even through 12, they are taught science, mathematics and other
things by inquiry, then they will learn how to learn. They will
be much better as they get older in accessing the knowledge
that they are going to need as they develop their own careers.
With regard to NSF and the Department of Education, let me
just say very quickly, to be sure that you know about this
program, we are working with the Department of Education
primarily in two areas. First, to try to improve the delivery
of middle school mathematics. This concern was stimulated by
the TIMSS test, the results of which were quite disappointing.
And the Department of Education and the NSF were asked by the
President to work together to address this issue.
The effort will primarily address teacher education, but
there will be other aspects to that effort as well.
We will do what we do well. The Department of Education
will do what they do well. And we will work together to ensure
each dollar goes further.
The second area in which we work together is basic research
and large empirical-based studies on the effect of technology
on learning in the classroom. There is no longer a question
about whether we should have technology in the classroom. I
mean it is there. It is coming. There is going to be more of
it. The real question is, how do you ensure those investments
are wisely made and the kids learn more by having the
technology there than they would otherwise?
We are working with the Department of Education in that
area, as well. And that was stimulated by PCAST reports, saying
how important this was, and the President's directive.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator Bond has very gently
reminded me my time is up.
And so I thank you and look forward to working with you.
plant genome initiative
Senator Bond [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
I was most interested in the exchange, but I hear we are
going to have another vote at 10:55 a.m. So before we lose more
time, I am not going to pass up the opportunity to talk about
the plant genome initiative.
Dr. Lane, we provided you with $40 million last year for
the plant genome initiative. Dr. Zare has mentioned it. And I
gather that Dr. Clutter is here. And I cannot pass up this
opportunity to ask you all for an assessment of how the program
is progressing, how it is going to be managed, the plans for
1999, and what involvement you see in the other agencies that
made up last year's OSTP interagency working group.
Dr. Lane. Mr. Chairman, the NSF spending plan for the Plant
Genome Research Program follows the recommendations of the
interagency working group on plant research. That group has
been working very hard. They did a tremendous job. The NSF is
very pleased to be participating.
The funds will be invested using merit review. That is with
peer evaluation. That is how we do our work at NSF. So specific
projects will be funded based on the proposals we receive, and
the scientific merit as determined by the reviewers.
We currently have 67 proposals in hand. They are under
review. We expect to announce awards by September of this year.
Of course, that is for fiscal year 1998.
Senator Bond. It takes that long to get all the proposals
reviewed?
Dr. Lane. I am sorry, Senator?
Senator Bond. The review process is that long?
Dr. Lane. It takes about 9 months total in order to ensure
that you get the information out and give the community time
enough to understand what the program is about, write their
proposals, send them in, have the proposals reviewed, make the
decision, and get the money out the door.
It is quite a major process. We are trying to cut that time
back in the way we do business by using electronic processing.
But that is pretty much the situation right now.
Specifically, with the $40 million in fiscal year 1998, we
will support accelerated sequencings of Arabidopsis, but also
the development of the research infrastructure, new informatics
tools, shared databases, genome mapping, virtual centers,
multi-investigator, multi-institutional research. And, of
course, we will broaden our activities to other plants--
economically important plants.
In fiscal year 1999, we will have a new competition for the
funds that we have requested, $40 million in 1999, plus the
amount of money we have already been spending on genome
research--about $20 million was our base prior to the
additional $40 million that was provided in 1998. So we are
spending a total of about $60 million a year in plant genome
research.
focus on plant genome research
Senator Bond. Now, are the grants you are envisioning for
September going to be focusing on the mustard seed, on the
Arabidopsis mustard seed?
Dr. Lane. The Arabidopsis mustard seed--well, not entirely.
But they will enable us to accelerate that.
Senator Bond. Well, that one is good. Because we are going
to have a few problems unless you branch out beyond that a
little bit.
Dr. Lane. I think we were directed by the committee to
accelerate the mustard seed and extend our research activities
to other economically important plants. And we are certainly
going to do that.
We do not know which genes and which plants will come out
of the solicitation of proposals--but we are not going to spend
all the money on Arabidopsis.
The importance of finishing the Arabidopsis, though I think
we all understand is that there is a gene set there that is
going to be very valuable in understanding rice, corn, wheat,
and other grains. But the additional funds that were provided
in fiscal year 1998, have enabled us to expand the program, to
move more quickly on some of these other cereal grains. And
that certainly is our intention. That is certainly what we are
going to do.
We are also working with USDA, the Department of Energy and
NIH, because there are many commonalities between the human
genome effort and the plant genome effort. We are well along on
human genome, and we are very proud and very pleased to be
moving aggressively on plant genome.
interaction of plant and human genome research
Senator Bond. I gather that the knowledge gained in the
plant genome exploration would profit by the experience and the
information that you have developed for distributing knowledge
through the human genome process? This is where Washington
University has, I think, played a significant role.
Dr. Lane. Absolutely. It goes both ways. And Dr. Zare might
want to comment. We get information both ways.
Senator Bond. Dr. Zare, and maybe, if you would not mind, I
would be delighted to hear what Dr. Clutter has to say, as
well.
Dr. Zare. Why don't we ask Dr. Clutter, please, to speak to
this.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Dr. Clutter, for your leadership
and your strong informed support of this effort.
Dr. Clutter. Thank you very much, Senator Bond.
I think that this program is giving the technology needed
for agriculture of the 21st century a shot in the arm. The
proposals that we have in-house represent the best science in
this area that I have seen. It is also attracting many
scientists who have not been part of the crop genome
initiatives, but who are leading-edge scientists, to work on
these problems. So I am very pleased with what we see.
The proposals are in review right now. And we will not know
the awardees until sometime this summer. But we will also need
to do some site visits. So that is why it takes a little bit
longer. There are more than 400 scientists involved in these
collaboratories, as we call them, virtual centers. So the job
of reviewing these proposals is a little bit more difficult
than an ordinary individual investigator proposal.
Senator Bond. I can assure you, if you are making site
visits, that we can arrange to have the welcome mat out for
you. If you let people know in the areas you are going to
visit, we will make sure that they are properly responsive. I
am sure they will be.
Dr. Clutter. Thank you very much.
Senator Bond. Can you give us an idea of the kinds of
proposals being submitted? I mean, are these broad-based
scientific inquiries? For example, from the 60-some-odd
applications that you have, how do the proposals break down?
What percentage are in specific crops or other aspects of the
project?
Dr. Clutter. I have not read these proposals myself. But I
do know that probably every economically significant crop you
can think of is mentioned in one or more of these proposals. I
think you will be very pleased with the outcome.
effect of plant genome initiative on the environment
Senator Bond. One of the things that is of great interest
to me is we have focused a lot on the economic benefits of the
plant genome initiative, but I believe that there is a
potential for other benefits, which may be extremely important.
I know at the University of Missouri they have recently tested
a hybrid corn which, when fed to swine, decreased phosphorous
in manure by 37 percent. And given the environmental problems
that we have had with livestock waste, it seems to me that
there are potentials in plant-based technologies to deal with
this problem.
Can you give us some ideas, any of you, on the possible
benefits for the environment from this work? Do you think the
project might lead us to tools that would improve the
digestibility of phosphorous in animal feed or improve nitrogen
use efficiency?
Dr. Zare. Well, in the long run, it is going to transform
truly the foods we eat. We will be able to design more
nutritious food for ourselves by what we are doing, and be able
to grow better crops that are more resistant to various
environmental factors, and that are much more friendly toward
the environment, in terms of growing them. That is very much
how I see the future.
Dr. Lane. And the phosphorous example I think is a very
good example. I found that a very exciting result. And the
potential benefit is just so clear, that by successfully
altering the feed, you do not then have to remove the
phosphorous from the environment. It could save money, and
perhaps in other ways would be better for the animals. I think
it is a tremendous example. And it is real, as opposed to my
suggestion of chocolate corn that the chairman did not think
was such a great idea earlier.
Maybe Mary could add a substantive comment. [Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Dr. Clutter?
Dr. Clutter. Well, of course, we have already seen from the
Arabidopsis project, that genes are being isolated and
identified and characterized, which really will make growing
crops more environmentally friendly. So they will be resistant
to various stresses. However, while we expect multiple
benefits, we do not know exactly what is going to come out of
this.
Senator Bond. That is the whole purpose, yes.
Dr. Clutter. That is the whole purpose.
I think that we are going to see many benefits.
Senator Bond. All right, great.
Dr. Lane. The other thing that will happen, Mr. Chairman,
is the feedback effect I was alluding to. Because you have this
very exciting scientific area of the plant genome that needs
KDI kind of research to be done, it is going to stimulate
research activities in computer science and engineering, and
that is going to broadly impact it.
Senator Bond. So you envision a computer hookup with all of
the research going on?
Dr. Lane. There is no question.
coordination of plant genome initiative
Senator Bond. As some of you may recall, one of the things
that I asked about previously was to what extent there was
coordination. Because we know that there are some chemical
companies, in cooperation with seed companies, who were
beginning to do some work totally in the private sector. You
then had the Arabidopsis project. Are you comfortable--and
maybe Dr. Jones would want to weigh in--that there is a
coordination of efforts, so that we are not going to be
reinventing the wheel, but we will be able to take advantage of
the developing and coordinating the knowledge in this area?
Dr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I think the coordination is one of
the key efforts that this initiative has to focus on. And I
think the interagency process that has started will continue to
have to play a role. Because this is not limited to the key
agencies that were mentioned, but also the other agencies that
are out there dealing with sophisticated issues on informatics.
And I think we have to look across the agencies, not just
for the plant genome initiative, but also for information
technology initiatives, and make sure that those are connected.
Coordination is as important a product as the new plants, if
you will, because the coordination will take the informatics
technology to the next generation and to the next level of
being able to connect and give us more information.
I think this coming together of information technology and
biological science is going to be something that is very
important in terms of informing both systems--both the
information technology and the biology.
expanding opportunities for participation in nsf research
Senator Bond. I have quite a few more questions, but the
time is running out. I am really interested in pursuing, and I
will for the record pursue, the questions about how we assure
that there are opportunities to expand the Federal investment
in science research and investigation beyond the top 50
schools. And I know, Dr. Zare, you represent one. And I am sure
I know others who are in that top group.
But Senator Burns and I and others are looking for--is
there anything, briefly, that you would say that we need to do
to make more schools more competitive? Are there any kind of
reforms that could help assure that we elicit the best research
and investigation from schools not traditionally in the top 50?
Dr. Zare. Again, I would urge the support of the KDI
program and the efforts toward developing an ecosystem, whereby
we have regional centers of strength and partners in this, so
that many more people can participate in the integration of
research and education.
Dr. Lane. I second that, and would appreciate the
committee's support of our efforts with EPSCoR to broaden the
impact of that program and to try to get a more integrated
approach to the research going on in all of our States around
the country. EPSCoR is a very important program. But what we
are trying to do is ensure that the researchers in the EPSCoR
States are competitive in the standard programs.
And we are doing that by working across the whole
Foundation, with shared funding between the EPSCoR program and
the directorates, to try to ensure people do not fall through
the cracks. And so we appreciate your support of those efforts.
Dr. Zare. If I might add one more statement on this. The
National Science Board made a study recently and issued a
report, which I would be glad to enter into the record, about
the stresses on graduate education in universities and how we
have a need--one of our recommendations--for more partnerships.
Senator Bond. I would appreciate seeing that. Good.
Additional committee questions
Well, again, I will submit lots of questions for the
record. I think several others will. We would welcome your
further answers.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
national science board's call for setting research priorities
Question. A recent paper from the National Science Board on
government funding for scientific research calls for more comprehensive
coordination of federally funded research. Dr. Zare, as you know, we
have the White House Science Advisor's office and OMB--two entities
that are supposed to address the coordination of federal R&D among and
between agencies. Should the ``take home message'' of your report be
that the OSTP-OMB process is not working? What specific improvements in
the process are you calling for?
Answer. The Board's Working Paper recognizes that a degree of
coordination of Federal research spending exists across disciplines and
that during the last decade the Executive branch has taken steps to
improve coordination of research across agencies in key areas. The
Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy provides annual budget guidance to all
agencies participating in support of priority research areas in
preparing the Federal budget for submission to Congress. Too, agency
budget submissions must be developed in the context of the Government
Performance and Results Act, which requires that agency supported
research activities have measurable outcomes toward achieving agency
missions. We note in particular that the committees of the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) provide coordination in areas of
special national interest, such as global change, the development of
less polluting transportation, energy, specific health areas, childhood
development, and the future of the U.S. program in the Antarctic. These
efforts benefit from special Administration studies, including reports
of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) and the NSTC.
But, beyond those special areas, coordination tends to depend on
individual agency-to-agency agreements, informal cooperation across
agencies at the program level, and the memories of Congressional
committees. The Board has concluded that there remains a need to
examine and coordinate the science and engineering research budget as a
whole. The Board asserts that currently important decisions about the
allocation of limited resources sometimes happen by default, without
explicit weighing of alternatives and that the process can and should
be improved. The Board states that ``[t]here should be an overall
strategy for research, with areas of increased and areas of decreased
emphasis. The budget as a whole should be adequate both to serve
national priorities and to foster a world-class scientific and
technical enterprise. To this end, Congress and the Administration need
to establish a process that examines the complete Federal research
budget before the total Federal budget is disaggregated'' for
consideration in Congressional committees. ``Departments and agencies
should make decisions based on clearly articulated criteria that are
congruent with the overall strategy.''
The absence of a comprehensive strategy for support of science at
the Federal level may inadvertently result in gaps in support to
important scientific areas, with the potential for discouraging
students or scientists from entering or remaining in unsupported fields
of research; contain undesirable duplication; or fail to address
adequately national priorities for research. The Board concludes that
the appropriate next step is to initiate a study of guidelines for
priority setting across fields of science that go beyond those proposed
in the COSEPUP report, ``Science, Technology and the Federal
Government/National Goals for a New Era.'' The purpose of this task
would be not to set priorities, but rather to undertake a study of how
they might best be set. The study should involve the opinions of a
diverse group including, among others, active researchers with breadth
of vision.
international competitors in r&d
Question. (Dr. Lane, Dr. Zare) A recent NSF report that came out in
January (entitled ``The Science and Technology Resources of Japan'')
states that Japan leads the U.S. in the percent of its Gross Domestic
Product (G.P.) invested by government and industry in non-defense
research and development (R&D). It also says that Japan outpaces the
U.S. in the percent of its G.P. invested by government in civilian R&D.
The report describes Japan's growing awareness that it needs more
advanced industries based on fundamental science. This awareness
culminated in a 1995 Science and Technology Basic Law, and the decision
to double the Japanese government R&D budget by the year 2000 or
shortly thereafter. Is that still their objective considering their own
economic woes and does your recent report on Japan's prowess with
respect to science and technology give you cause for concern?
How does Japan's method of investment in R&D differ from U.S.
practice and what lessons can we take away from Japan's approach?
Answer. The Japanese Government is continuing to increase R&D
funding despite its large national deficit and prolonged economic
recession. In its 1995 Basic Plan for S&T, the Government called for a
5-year (1996-2000) investment of 17 trillion yen. Such investment would
require an average annual growth rate in R&D funding of around 10
percent, and would result in almost doubling the Government's 1990
budget of $11 billion (constant 1992 dollars). Japan may reach their
investment goal by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter.
Besides increased government R&D funding, Japan's Basic Plan for
S&T called for structural changes in S&T. Japan is continuing to
implement many structural changes in R&D investments to increase the
national capacity for breakthrough research: expansion of basic science
and competitive research at universities and national laboratories,
expansion of graduate education and postdoctoral research positions,
and more flexibility in funding and hiring of S&T personnel.
The response to the economic recession is fostering government
investment in R&D, but will likely slow industrial R&D investments. The
recent Japanese government's economic stimulus package provides a large
supplemental budget for R&D in 1998. This additional money will likely
go into S&T infrastructure (upgrading university facilities and
equipment) and exchanges (hosting researchers, scholars and foreign
students). However, industry funding and performance of R&D in
industrial laboratories may contract during Japan's recession. While
Japanese S&T personnel continued to expand in the first half of the
1990's despite an economic slowdown, the continuing recession may
constrain industrial employment of new university Ph.D.'s.
Japan is moving away from its former model of adaptive research and
quality engineering of Western technology. What served Japan well from
the 1950's to the 1980's might not serve in future industries that are
very science dependent. For the past 15 years, Japan has been moving
towards an R&D system that more closely resembles that of the United
States.
What might be instructive for the United States, however, is
Japan's regional approach to development assistance and S&T education.
Through direct foreign investment, technology transfer and the
education of significant numbers of foreign students from neighboring
countries in engineering, health, and agriculture, Japan is one of the
Asian region's growth engines. The education and training is provided
both within developing countries and within Japanese universities. S&T
education is provided within Japan by funding scholarships for students
from poorer surrounding countries to study S&E fields. The Japanese
Office of Development Assistance (ODA) continues its strong outreach
program for more integration with China and South Korea, and for
technical assistance to developing countries in the Asian region. This
three pronged approach (direct foreign investment, technical
assistance, and science and engineering education) has likely
contributed to Japan's competitiveness in the Asian region, and to
Japan's role in fostering regional economic development.
The United States could learn from Japan's approach and investigate
how efforts such as S&T development assistance and S&E educational
outreach could further the economic development of the Americas.
carnegie foundation report on undergraduates
Question. New Study Says Higher Ed Institutions Short Change
Undergraduates: Dr. Lane, within the last two weeks, the Carnegie
Foundation released a new report that added to the criticism of our
major universities. As I understand it, the report said that
undergraduate students get the short end of the stick in terms of
instruction at the major institutions of higher education. What do you
think of that conclusion and what is NSF doing to influence colleges
and universities to elevate the importance of teaching and instruction
to the same level of prestige that research enjoys in the mind of
university administrators.
Answer. The undergraduate education experience--at large, research-
oriented or comprehensive universities or at four-year, liberal arts
institutions and two-year institutions--is critical to the intellectual
and career development of students. The report by the Boyer Commission
on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, created under
the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, discusses the undergraduate education experience at a total
of 125 ``Research I'' and ``Research II'' universities in the United
States where approximately 15 percent of the nation's undergraduate
students are enrolled. The Report makes numerous recommendations for
change in undergraduate education, especially at those institutions.
The report also includes a number of ``Signs of Change''--
vignettes--that describe existing outstanding programs at these same
institutions that have been implemented explicitly to enhance the
education of undergraduates. These programs illustrate some of the ways
to meet the recommendations in the Carnegie Report, and many of these
programs have received support from the NSF.
Having made similar observations to many of those highlighted in
the Carnegie Report, NSF had begun taking action prior to the issuance
of the report. New merit review criteria which went into effect in
October 1997 for all proposals submitted to the NSF, require reviewers,
for all programs across NSF, to consider how effectively investigators
link their research and education responsibilities. The informal
response from the research and education community has been quite
positive, and the new criteria expand our abilities to fund exemplary
projects that can improve undergraduate classroom education.
NSF sponsors a variety of efforts that address many of the
suggestions in the Report. Our programmatic focus includes students
enrolled at research universities and those enrolled in comprehensive
universities, baccalaureate (four-year) institutions, and the community
colleges (two-year institutions). A number of NSF programs are designed
to support traditional, basic research with a required component being
the inclusion of opportunities explicitly designed for the education of
undergraduate students. Such programs include the Engineering Research
Centers, Science and Technology Centers, Materials Research Science and
Engineering Centers, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, and
Research in Undergraduate Institutions. In addition, NSF's Faculty
Early Career Development program is aimed at young faculty who
effectively integrate research and education and NSF's Recognition
Awards for the Integration of Research and Education acknowledge
exemplary institutional efforts at combining research activities with
high-quality education efforts.
Other programs of the NSF focus on curricular reform at the
undergraduate level and make use of the research expertise of faculty
from research institutions to inform the effort. Some of these programs
also include opportunities for research experiences for undergraduate
students as an integral part of the projects. These programs include
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement, Alliances for Minority
Participation, NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation, Combined Research-Curriculum Development, and the
Engineering Education Coalitions.
next generation internet and internet fund
Question. Dr. Lane, last week the Congress passed, and the
President signed into law, a provision that should provide the
Foundation with a total of about $60 million in fiscal year 1998 to
support research and other activities related to the Next Generation
Internet and other related networking activities. Tell us little about
how you will go about using these resources.
Answer. There are three goals in the NGI: (1) Conduct research in
next generation networking technologies; (2) Establish and operate
networking testbeds hundreds to thousands of times faster than today's
Internet and capable of providing advanced networking services; and (3)
Develop revolutionary scientific and engineering applications requiring
high performance networking. If and when the $60 million becomes
available, following court actions now in progress, they will be
utilized in a balanced fashion across all three NGI goals and related
information technology activities.
nsf funding to a few universities
Question. Dr. Lane, I raised in my opening statement a concern
about how NSF funds are distributed to universities and colleges, as
well as to various areas of the country. I understand that a recent NSF
survey of federal R&D expenditures based on data collected through
fiscal year 1996 indicated that the top 50 recipients of university-
based research received about 60 percent of all available federal
research dollars (some $8.3 billion out of $13.8 billion).
In addition, a number of these ``top 50'' schools received an
additional $4.3 billion because they manage large federally funded
research and development centers for various federal agencies. For
example, MIT receives $271 million annually in academic R&D
expenditures, plus an additional $334 million of its DOD-supported
Lincoln Lab. Likewise, Stanford receives $282 million in academic R&D
dollars, plus an additional $120 million through its DOE-supported
Stanford Linear Accelerator Facility.
While the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR) is a attempt to simulate R&D competitiveness in universities
in states which receive relatively little federal R&D funds, this
program has relatively little funding with the NSF budget request
totaling some $53 million for fiscal year 1999.
Is there a way to make schools more competitive? Is the grant
system flawed in some way and in need of reform. For example, are the
peer review panels structured in a way which weighs the consideration
of grants toward these so-called ``top 50'' schools?
Answer. NSF has several programs in addition to the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) that are designed to
stimulate systemic and sustainable improvements in universities'
capabilities to compete successfully for Federal R&D funds. These
programs play a key role in promoting greater diversification of the
infrastructure for basic research in the United States. Other programs
include:
--Support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's);
--Collaboratives to Integrate Research and Education (CIRE)-
collaborations between NSF-supported research centers and
facilities and minority serving institutions;
--Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST)-
enhancement of research and education activities at the most
productive minority institutions; and
--Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)-research support for
faculty in predominantly undergraduate institutions.
Depending on appropriations, fiscal year 1999 funding for these
five programs will total more than $100 million.
NSF facilitates the transition of scientists and engineers into
regular Foundation programs in several ways. The Foundation encourages
researchers to participate in other NSF programs such as Small Business
Innovation Research and Industry/University Cooperative Research
Centers. In addition, NSF research program officers are briefed on
research efforts from these programs and frequently serve on site visit
teams. This helps to build relationships between researchers and
program officers throughout the Foundation.
NSF also encourages states and institutions to participate in other
agencies' programs. For example, NSF works to maintain coordination and
communication with other agencies' EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs
through the EPCSoR Interagency Coordinating Committee (EICC).
NSF strives to involve researchers from a broad range of
institutions in the merit review process. For example, in the recent
STC competition, researchers from twelve EPSCoR states served on the
preproposal review panel. This experience helps researchers to
understand the merit review process and the requirements of successful
proposals.
NSF's policy on the selection of peer reviewers addresses the
importance of wide representation--including characteristics such as
geography, type of institution, and underrepresented groups. A 1994
study by the GAO found that, overall, the peer review process used by
several federal agencies appeared to be working reasonably well, and
that the intrinsic qualities of a proposal were important factors in
reviewers' scoring. Regarding institutional factors, GAO found that
reviewers were not more likely to come from elite institutions than
were applicants, and there were few differences in region of origin.
NSF believes the merit review system maintains high standards of
excellence and accountability in the proposal decision process, and
thus pays close attention to the workings of the system. For example,
The National Science Board and NSF staff recently completed an
examination of the merit review criteria which had been in use since
1981. This examination, which involved the broad scientific community
through the opportunity for public comment, led to the adoption of two
redefined criteria in fiscal year 1998: the intellectual merit of the
proposed activity, and the broader impact of the proposed activity. The
second criterion is expected to address a range of issues, including
how well the proposed activity broadens the participation of
underrepresented groups (e.g. gender, ethnicity, geographic, etc.).
r&d funding trends
Question. According to the Association for the Advancement of
Science, since 1976, in constant dollars, funding for the health
sciences has just about doubled, while at the same time funding for
just about every other field of science--engineering, physical, social,
environmental, etc.--has remained virtually level. Dr. Lane, Dr. Zare,
and Dr. Jones, what do you think about these trends? Is this in the
best interest of the nation?
Answer. The Board agrees that the Federal government should
continue to play a major role in supporting research in the health
sciences as a national priority, as it has over the last half century.
In addition the Board, like the NIH Director, Harold Varmus, and other
members of the scientific and engineering community, is concerned that
support for research be balanced across the portfolio. Effective
allocation of Federal funds to sustain and enhance the Nation's science
and technology enterprise requires a comprehensive assessment of which
fields and which investment strategies hold the greatest promise for
new knowledge to achieve national objectives. These objectives include,
in addition to better health, greater equity and social justice, higher
standards of living, a sustainable environment, a secure national
defense, and growth in our understanding of nature. It is necessary to
recognize that areas of scientific knowledge do not advance in
isolation. New knowledge or cutting-edge instrumentation from one field
of science frequently catalyzes breakthroughs in other areas of science
and technology, including among others, health applications.
concerns of the national science board
Question. In a few weeks, we will see the Board's latest report on
science and engineering indicators. Dr. Zare, perhaps you can give the
subcommittee a preview of what this new report will tell us with
respect to the health and future of our Nation's research and education
enterprise?
Answer. An important feature of the Science and Engineering
Indicators--1998 report is an increased emphasis on international
comparisons and on indicators of Science and Technology globalization.
We are living in an increasingly global economy. Science and
engineering activities have always had a global dimension, but this is
now intensifying.
Science and Engineering Indicators.--1998 also contains a new
chapter entitled, ``Economic and Social Significance of Information
Technologies.'' There is an increasing need to understand better the
contributions and impacts of science and technology. Measurement of the
economic and social impact of science and technology is a special
challenge--particularly for rapidly developing technologies, such as
information technologies (IT). The Board believes that this new
chapter, which addresses both positive and negative aspects of IT,
makes a significant contribution to synthesizing and crystallizing what
is currently known about selected aspects of this important topic.
The report ``Overview'' highlights five cross-cutting themes that
are important trends. These are:
Increasing globalization of science, technology and the economy.--
Other countries besides the United States are investing in financial
and human resources for science and technology, recognizing that such
investments are essential underpinnings for social and economic well
being in the global economy. Individual scientists and engineers,
industrial firms, and academic institutions are taking advantage of the
increasingly international character of science and technology, as
witnessed by enhanced international mobility of the science and
technology workforce, international co-authorship of scientific
publications, the development of international industrial alliances,
and the global flow of technological know-how.
Greater emphasis on science and engineering education and
training.--Many countries, including the United States, recognize the
importance of providing an excellent education to their population in a
global, knowledge-based economy. At the professional level,
universities in the United States and elsewhere face the challenge of
introducing greater flexibility and breadth into their curricula in
order to improve the employment prospects of their students at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels. More broadly, the nation as a whole
faces the challenge of assuring that its diverse workforce will possess
sufficient technological literacy, and its citizenry sufficient
knowledge and understanding of science and technology and their socio-
economic impacts, to address the requirements of the new century.
Structural and priority changes in the science and engineering
enterprise.--The decreasing Federal share of financial support for the
Nation's R&D effort, evident since the beginning of the decade,
persists. The Federal role remains essential, however, in the support
of basic research in the academic sector and in the integrally linked
education of the nation's science and engineering workforce. Even as
the role of industry in supporting R&D has become more prominent, the
structure of research in industry itself is changing, as is evident
from the increasing prominence of R&D in the service industries.
Industrial R&D support remains most heavily concentrated on applied
research and development, as opposed to basic research.--That private
industry recognizes the importance of U.S. colleges and universities to
the national enterprise is evident from the growing linkages between
the industrial and academic research sectors, a trend also explored in
our occasional paper, Industry Trends in Research Support and Links to
Public Research (NSB-98-99), accompanying Indicators.
Increasing impact of science and technology on our daily lives.--
The impact of science and technology on our daily lives is profound,
however difficult to track or quantify. The changes brought about in
the workplace, schools and homes by information technologies may be the
most obvious case in point. As one measure of this rising impact,
Indicators reports the results of a survey of the public's
understanding and attitudes toward science and technology.
setting priorities for major themes
Question. Dr. Lane, can you describe to me how NSF determined that
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) and Life and Earth's
Environment (LEE) were the agency's top research theme areas (as
opposed to crosscutting themes in materials, biotechnology,
environmental engineering, or math and science education)? Can you tell
us a little more about what makes these two themes distinct from
traditional disciplinary support NSF has historically emphasized?
Answer. In the early Spring 1996, the Director, Deputy Director and
NSF senior managers met for two days. The purpose of these intense
sessions was to identify and establish the research priorities for the
fiscal year 1998 budget request, as well as future budget requests. The
focus of the discussion was on which areas of science and engineering
were truly on the verge of major discoveries. During these two days
each Assistant Director took turns presenting the emerging
opportunities within their disciplines that warranted greater emphasis
in NSF's funding strategy. From these discussions emerged areas such as
``knowledge networks,'' ``human-centered computer systems,''
``intelligent manufacturing,'' complex biological and human systems,
complex modeling, data mining and learning and cognition, which
eventually came under the umbrella of KDI. LEE emerged from a larger
discussion on the environment and the scientific quest for
understanding the interaction of physical, biological and human
activities. Both KDI and LEE build on recent research emphases, such as
Learning and Intelligent Systems and LExEN, as well as research that
NSF has been supporting for many years. We do not think of KDI and LEE
as opposed to work in particular disciplines or specific cross-
disciplinary areas, such as materials or biotechnology, but as a
broader framework that might variously draw upon these more specific
areas for relevant research and education contributions, or broadly
raise capabilities within them for pursuit of research and education.
What makes the KDI and LEE themes distinct is that is that they:
--Link research and education that is intellectually important with
issues that are societally important.
--Provide frameworks and emphasis areas to which researchers and
educators in many disciplines can respond with creative ideas
leading to discovery.
--Focus on research at the interfaces of extant disciplines where new
knowledge is increasingly created.
--Organize research and education interests in order to improve
communication with the public.
Question. The so-called KDI theme is proposed to increase by $78
million. However, nowhere in the budget can I find a baseline estimate
for this activity. Is this a $78 million increase on top of the
approximately $50 million requested in last year's budget (p.4 of the
fiscal year 1998 Justifications of Estimates) or is this a $78 million
increase on top of some core programs that total $200-$400 million? It
is hard to know what to think of your proposed increase without knowing
its context. I am not asking you to turn the KDI theme into some line
item in the budget, but it would very helpful to the committee if we
had some way to assess what this increase means. Can you help us out
here?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 KDI base of over $400 million supports
a broad range of KDI-related activities, including the Digital
Libraries Initiative, the Biological Databases Program, Partnerships
for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET), a collaborative for upper
atmospheric research, several centers for Collaborative Research in
Learning Technologies (CRLT), and a large number of KDI-related
research projects submitted to NSF disciplinary programs.
The $50 million increase in fiscal year 1998 will fund three KDI
focal areas: Knowledge Networking (KN), Learning and Intelligent
Systems (LIS), and New Computational Challenges (NCC). The KDI proposal
solicitation elicited nearly 700 multi-disciplinary proposals that are
currently undergoing review. NSF expects to fund approximately 60-75 of
these proposals.
The $78 million increase proposed for fiscal year 1999 will support
new investments in the KN, LIS, and NCC focal areas. In the Knowledge
Networking area, digital libraries, high-speed networks, interactive
data sets for real-time simulations, collaboratories, and information
representations are topics of emphasis. Research on legal, ethical, and
social implications of the information revolution also will be given
high priority. For Learning and Intelligent Systems, NSF will support
basic research on learning in natural and artificial systems, as well
as research on learning technologies and the use of such technologies
by teachers and students. In the New Computational Challenges focal
area, priority will be placed on development of computational methods
for collecting, transmitting, and analyzing extremely large data sets
in real time; visualization of results; and simulating complex systems.
The enhanced KDI investment will be administered through a second
focused KDI proposal competition, other KDI-related initiatives such as
Digital Libraries and Next Generation Internet, and support of KDI-
related research projects submitted to disciplinary programs.
knowledge and distributed intelligence
Question. Dr. Lane, again this year we see the NSF budget
emphasizes the theme of knowledge and distributed intelligence. Last
year we had some trouble in getting you to explain to us what this
initiative is all about. So we asked you for some milestones as to what
we could expect as this program moves forward. And frankly, what we got
were not milestones but examples of projects being supported. So let's
try this again, what do you see as the major objectives of the KDI
initiative in fiscal year 1999 and how does it tie back to your core
programs in research and education? Perhaps you can look ahead 10 years
and speculate how the conduct of science--and even how society--might
be different as a result of your emphasis on knowledge and distributed
intelligence.
Answer. Looking ahead 10 years, NSF expects the investment in KDI
to have a substantial impact on how we learn, work, and create, in
science and in society. KDI research will generate widely-applicable
tools and technologies for increasing the efficiency, effectiveness,
and creativity of scientific research (e.g., digital libraries and
scientific databases, high-speed networks for rapid transmission of
massive data sets, web-based `collaboratories' allowing distributed
research teams to share instrumentation, data, and analysis methods,
and advanced computational methods for simulating complex natural
systems). In addition, the KDI initiative will stimulate formation of
the multi-disciplinary research teams and techniques needed to address
many of the frontier problems in science. By emphasizing the training
of graduate and post-doctoral students in KDI-supported projects, KDI
will help create a new generation of multi-disciplinary researchers
with the knowledge and skills required to realize fully the potential
of the new methods and technologies. The overall outcome should be
increased scientific productivity, and reduced compartmentalization of
science.
Many of the tools and techniques developed through KDI research
(e.g., data mining and visualization techniques, computational
simulation methods, digital libraries, high-speed networks) will have
broad application in education, business, and industry. Also, much of
the research KDI is supporting, and will support in the future, speaks
directly to societal needs, issues, and opportunities related to the
information revolution. For example, among the topics currently
emphasized in the KDI initiative are:
--Enhancing the accessibility and utility of on-line information
(e.g., data-mining techniques, access for persons with
disabilities).
--Ethical, social, political, legal and economic implications of the
information revolution (e.g., privacy, confidentiality,
reliability of data; disparities among racial, ethnic, and
cultural groups in use of and benefit from information
technologies).
--Improving education through advances in educational technologies
(e.g., intelligent tutors), and in understanding of learning
processes.
The objectives for KDI in fiscal year 1999 reflect these longer-
term goals. Within NSF, the major objectives for fiscal year 1999 are
as follows:
--Conduct a new KDI proposal competition with a budget of
approximately $60-70 million, funding approximately 70-80
proposals in the focal areas of Knowledge Networking, Learning
and Intelligent Systems, and New Computational Challenges.
--Continue to support other KDI activities (e.g., Digital Libraries
Initiative, research proposals submitted to disciplinary
programs).
--Explore the development of international KDI endeavors involving
cooperation with NSF's counterpart agencies in other countries,
to stimulate international collaborations in KDI research.
--Evaluate NSF's KDI activities funded in fiscal year 1998 and 1999
to assess the need for changes in scope, emphasis, or
management of the initiative.
Scientific research and training objectives for KDI in fiscal year
1999 are difficult to specify precisely, because most of the research
projects that will be supported by KDI in fiscal year 1999 have not yet
been selected or even received. In general terms, the expected outcomes
include the following:
--Formation of multi-disciplinary research teams, and an increase in
the number of such teams supported by NSF;
--An increase in the number of graduate and post-doctoral students
receiving multi-disciplinary training in KDI-related research;
and
--Significant advances in the research areas targeted by KDI in
fiscal year 1998 and 1999, such as:
--digital libraries;
--high-speed networks;
--tools and techniques for collecting, organizing, distilling,
searching, and disseminating information;
--prototype knowledge networks;
--ethical, social, legal, political, and economic implications of
the information revolution;
--computational methods for addressing scientific problems
involving multiple scales in space or time;
--computational methods for scientific problems involving dynamic
interplay between data and computation in real time;
--learning and intelligence in natural and artificial systems; and
--learning tools and educational technologies.
increasing award size and duration
Question. Dr. Lane, one of the objectives you seem to have with
this budget is to increase the average award size--and award duration.
Other than giving researchers more money to cover their work for longer
periods of time, what does the Nation and the research enterprise get
out of this? Remind us what is the average NSF award size and how does
it compare to the average NSF award five years ago--and how does it
compare to the average NIH award?
Answer. In addition to providing more funds for researchers and
stabilizing their research support, there are other significant
benefits to the researcher, the research community, and the government,
associated with reducing the number of applications submitted by the
researcher. Providing extended funding reduces the frequency and amount
of time spent by the investigator in preparing and submitting proposals
and negotiating awards. There is an attendent reduction in the burden
placed on merit reviewers, as well as reduced workload for both the
programmatic and administrative staffs of NSF. Increasing award size
also reduces the instances of multiple proposal submissions which are
frequently necessary in order for the researcher to maintain his/her
research program. This benefits not only merit reviewers and NSF, but
also other Federal agencies to which the researcher may turn for
support. In particular, NSF intends to emphasize stable funding for new
investigators, so they spend more effort establishing their research
programs and professional credibility and are less burdened with
obtaining their next grant.
The NSF fiscal year 1997 annualized award size was a slightly below
$83,000 (average) compared to the NIH basic research grant which
averaged about $245,000. In fiscal year 1992, the NSF annualized
average award size was approximately $74,000; a little over $83,000 in
fiscal year 1997 dollars.
polar cap observatory
Question. Dr. Lane, I see that again this year you are requesting
support for the construction of a polar cap observatory that would be
located at the magnetic north pole in Canada. If you are unable to get
the Polar Observatory on line in time for the next solar max event, is
this project still worth pursuing at this time? Why?
Answer. We have requested authorization to provide up to $5 million
in fiscal year 1998 to initiate the project, beginning with $2.5
million for non-site specific R&D that includes antenna engineering and
design, prototyping of the antenna element unit and validation. The
antenna for the PCO incoherent scatter radar is to be constructed from
about 4,000 individual antenna elements. In 1998, these antenna
elements would be designed and a prototype antenna constructed in
California consisting of about 40 elements. The prototype antenna would
undergo a series of tests to ensure that the waveform and radiation
pattern of transmitted signals are as predicted by the preliminary
design.
With these tasks accomplished in 1998, it will still be possible to
complete construction of the PCO by the summer of 2001. If these tasks
are not begun until the next fiscal year, it will mean a one-year slip
in the schedule. Considering that the maximum of the solar cycle lasts
only about four years, a one year delay will represent a significant
loss in the amount of science that can be performed in the early life
of the observatory. However, because the PCO is expected to operate for
at least 30 years (similar to the other observatories in the chain),
the observatory will operate through several solar cycles. Although it
is not our last chance to operate the PCO during solar max, the growing
susceptibility of technical systems to space weather makes it
imperative that we begin these studies as early as possible.
Even if construction of the PCO were delayed, it would nevertheless
provide very important information over its anticipated 30-year
lifetime. Although the possibility of coordinated observations with
many other national and international projects during the solar maximum
period will have been lost, the scientific impetus for constructing the
Observatory will remain strong. Therefore, if it does not go forward in
the present budget cycle, the NSF and NSB would consider submitting it
in a future budget request.
math and science education international comparisons
Question. Dr. Lane, since 1965, NSF has been involved in
international comparisons of student math and science performance. For
30 years we've known that U.S. students are near or at the bottom of
performance. The recent TIMSS finds that our 12th graders are still
bringing up the rear. On Monday of this week, the Washington Post ran
an opinion piece that advocated a ``back to basics'' approach to
mathematics education. I appreciate that there is a fair amount of
controversy regarding differing approaches about teaching mathematics
at the K-12 levels. Nevertheless, the TIMSS study is a real eye-opener.
What should we be doing and why have we made so little progress in 30
years?
Answer. Progress has been made over the last 30 years. Students are
taking more advanced courses in science and mathematics, and student
achievement has largely returned to or exceeded the levels set in the
early 1970's. Clearly, the rate at which achievement has been
increasing is something we want to accelerate.
The news from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) is both good and bad. Although U.S. fourth-graders scored as
well as their counterparts in some of the highest scoring nations in
the world, and eighth-graders scored about average, U.S. twelfth-
graders ranked at the bottom.
In general, TIMSS revealed that the U.S. curriculum at the 8th
grade level and beyond is not consistent with those of other countries
that performed well on the assessment. The curriculum is less focused
and includes many more topics than is common inter-nationally. The
topics--especially in mathematics--tend to remain in the curriculum for
more grade levels, and there are indications that the material is
pitched at a lower level. In sum, there is too much repetition of
material, not enough coverage of core topics in science and
mathematics, and expectations for student performance are set too low.
NSF supports projects addressing all major facets of teaching and
learning (i.e., curriculum, instructional materials, assessment,
teacher professional development, preparation of future teachers,
reform strategies to improve resource allocation and cultivate change
in school districts). For example, NSF-funded investigators have
recently concluded the design of several comprehensive sets of
mathematics curricula. Elementary science curricula have been completed
and work continues on middle and secondary school science. Newer
instructional materials are coming on-line and will be more widely
available in the near-term. NSF encourages the alignment of curriculum
and assessment, as well as related professional in-service development
for K-12 teachers. NSF-supported products affect the education
continuum at different points, and their impact on student achievement
rates will necessarily vary.
We will have a clearer measure of what happens between elementary
and middle school when the TIMSS study is repeated for the 8th grade in
1999. The 1999 study will tell us whether the relatively high
performance of U.S. 4th graders in 1995 is sustained (relative to other
countries) through the 8th grade. If performance declines, the
accompanying curriculum analysis should help inform us as to why. If
performance of this cohort of students remains strong, then we have
evidence that the 1995 high achievement levels of 4th graders reflected
a revitalized U.S. curriculum at early grades that is now being carried
forward into later grades.
k-8 mathematics initiative
Question. NSF and the Education Department: NSF and the Department
of Education have proposed a strategy for improving mathematics and
science education. One specific focus is on improving mathematics
education at the eighth grade level. Since the two agencies have very
different missions and operating procedures, how will this joint effort
work and what will be the involvement of state and local education
agencies in this activity?
Answer. The joint effort on improving mathematics achievement at
the 8th grade level is moving on several distinct, but related, tracks.
Rather than attempt to develop common operating procedures, the two
agencies are bringing their existing strengths to this effort--
developing better understandings of what each is doing and finding ways
of cooperating where joint efforts could be effective. NSF brings a
strong external peer review process, experience with developing models
of excellence in professional development and instructional materials,
and existing programs that are able quickly to move this initiative
forward.
Specifically, NSF plans to put increased emphasis on a number of
existing programs as follows:
--Increase the number of Local Systemic Change (LSC) teacher
enhancement projects in middle school mathematics;
--Increase emphasis on middle school mathematics in all systemic
initiative sites; and
--Strengthen programming for K-8 mathematics, especially at the
middle school level, within teacher preparation projects.
The U.S. Department of Education (DoED) provides substantial
financial resources through the Eisenhower program, Title I, and other
programs. A major role of DoED in this joint effort is to help state
and local education agencies better understand the range of
possibilities for using federal funds appropriated for education and
ways they can make better uses of these resources for improving
mathematics education.
Additionally, NSF is working with DoED in planning for a
competition for Capacity-Building Planning Grants to school districts
for developing strategies for professional development that supports
implementation of quality instructional materials and for effective use
of federal resources to support related professional development.
State and local education agencies must be heavily involved in
reform efforts and are the ones who must take the initiative in
improving their mathematics education. NSF and DoED can provide
assistance and guidance in navigating existing federal programs,
providing awareness and access to resources (e.g., high-quality
materials, effective strategies), and some financial support for
developing and implementing exemplary models.
educational technology initiative
Question. Dr. Lane, in the budget request you have a total of $25
million laid out for a Foundation-wide initiative--with the Department
of Education--for research on education and training technologies. Can
you give a better idea what this program is all about and how you and
the Department of Education will be working together?
Answer. The objective of the NSF/DoED Research on Education and
Training Technologies initiative is to develop the knowledge base
necessary to improve teaching and learning in reading, mathematics and
science. It is the first phase of a planned interagency research
strategy that derives from the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology's (PCAST) Report to the President on the Use of
Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States (March
1997). In accord with the PCAST Report, the initiative will seek
proposals to perform:
(1) Basic research in various learning-related disciplines and
fundamental work on educationally relevant technologies;
(2) Early-stage research aimed at developing new forms of
educational software, content, and technology-enabled pedagogy; and
(3) Empirical studies to determine which approaches to the use of
technology are most effective.
The program announcement and choice of projects will be guided by
the pursuit of research bearing on two broad objectives: All children
will be able to learn the basics of reading and mathematics and will
have mastered these by the end of grade 3, and all mathematics,
science, and reading teachers will have the high-level content,
cognitive and pedagogical knowledge and skills required to perform
their jobs effectively. It is expected that project proposals will be
received from individual investigators as well as multidisciplinary
teams carrying out large-scale empirical studies of effectiveness
(e.g., using schools connected to systemic initiative projects as
testbeds).
An NSF/DoED working group has been engaged for several months in
defining the initiative, and two workshops are planned for early
September 1998 to provide input for the interagency program
announcement. The initiative will be administered jointly, and it is
planned that proposals will be evaluated using NSF methods of merit
review.
undergraduate math and science education progress
Question. The recent TIMMS study tells us that our Nation's 12th
graders are not doing as well in math and science as our international
competitors. Now for a number of years--spurred on by a National
Science Board report in the late 1980's and this committee--NSF has
invested on a number of fronts to improve math and science education at
the undergraduate level. And late last month, the Carnegie Foundation
came out with a report that was critical of the job our research
universities are doing in undergraduate education. What is NSF's view
on this matter?
Answer. The undergraduate education experience--at large, research-
oriented or comprehensive universities or at four-year, liberal arts
institutions and two-year institutions--is critical to the intellectual
and career development of students. The report by the Boyer Commission
on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, created under
the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, discusses the undergraduate education experience at a total
of 125 ``Research I'' and ``Research II'' universities in the United
States where approximately 15 percent of the nation's undergraduate
students are enrolled. The Report makes numerous recommendations for
change in undergraduate education, especially at those institutions.
The report also includes a number of ``Signs of Change''--
vignettes--that describe existing outstanding programs at these same
institutions that have been implemented explicitly to enhance the
education of undergraduates. These programs illustrate some of the ways
to meet the recommendations in the Carnegie Report, and many of these
programs have received support from the NSF.
Having made similar observations to many of those highlighted in
the Carnegie Report, NSF had begun taking action prior to the issuance
of the report. New merit review criteria, which went into effect in
October 1997 for all proposals submitted to the NSF, require reviewers,
for all programs across NSF, to consider how effectively investigators
link their research and education responsibilities. The informal
response from the research and education community has been quite
positive, and the new criteria expand our abilities to fund exemplary
projects that can improve undergraduate classroom education.
NSF sponsors a variety of efforts that address many of the
suggestions in the Report. Our programmatic focus includes students
enrolled at research universities and those enrolled in comprehensive
universities, baccalaureate (four-year) institutions, and the community
colleges (two-year institutions). A number of NSF programs are designed
to support traditional, basic research with a required component being
the inclusion of opportunities explicitly designed for the education of
undergraduate students. Such programs include the Engineering Research
Centers, Science and Technology Centers, Materials Research Science and
Engineering Centers, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, and
Research in Undergraduate Institutions. In addition, NSF's Faculty
Early Career Development program is aimed at young faculty who
effectively integrate research and education and NSF's Recognition
Awards for the Integration of Research and Education acknowledge
exemplary institutional efforts at combining research activities with
high-quality education efforts.
Other programs of the NSF focus on curricular reform at the
undergraduate level and make use of the research expertise of faculty
from research institutions to inform the effort. Some of these programs
also include opportunities for research experiences for undergraduate
students as an integral part of the projects. These programs include
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement, Alliances for Minority
Participation, NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation, Combined Research-Curriculum Development, and the
Engineering Education Coalitions.
plant genome
Question. Dr. Lane, excluding the funding that has been set-aside
for Arabidopsis and any NSF funds used for the international rice
effort, how much of the remaining Plant Genome funding will be
available for the most economically significant crops? How are you
determining the most economically significant crops? For example, what
are the total, annual receipts needed for an individual species to
qualify for the program?
Answer. NSF plans to spend up to $10M out of the $40M Plant Genome
Research allocation specifically for accelerated sequencing of the
Arabidopsis genome. Therefore, at least $30M is available to support
research on non-Arabidopsis genomes.
The goal of the NSF plant genome research program is to support
research that will lead to understanding of the structure, organization
and function of economically significant plants. In soliciting
proposals for the Plant Genome Research Program, NSF has sought ideas
from the scientific community that will contribute to the program goal.
Under this system, it is incumbent upon the applicants to justify the
use of specific plant species in their research projects and to
convince reviewers how their studies will contribute to the program
goal. Reviewers evaluating the proposals determine whether the proposed
projects will indeed contribute to the program goal. One of the
evaluation criteria for the plant genome research program is
``relevance or potential impact of the proposed project to the
development of improved, economically significant plants.'' So, the
scientists define ``economically significant plants'' collectively, as
applicants and reviewers.
Question. It is my understanding that efforts are underway for an
international consortium on sequencing the rice genome. Recently, the
Japanese government announced a $128 billion package of spending and
tax cuts that includes significant cuts in R&D programs while focusing
most of the research spending on bricks and mortar. I am concerned that
the U.S. will be asked to pay for more than 15 or 20 percent of the
overall effort. What assurances do we have that the Japanese will, in
fact, bear the majority of the cost of sequencing the rice genome?
Answer. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (MAFF) has approved a 10-year project to sequence the rice
genome beginning in fiscal year 1998. While there is no guarantee that
MAFF will be able to keep this commitment for the next 10 years, the
Japanese scientists are proceeding with the plan. MAFF has made a major
investment in the rice genome project for the past 7 years, and as a
consequence, Japan is a leader in rice genome research. It would be to
their advantage to maintain that leadership.
Efforts to establish internationally coordinated rice genome
sequencing have been ongoing at the initiative of interested scientists
from all over the world. Currently, scientists from Japan, U.S.,
European Union, France, China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Korea have
expressed interest in conducting a large-scale high throughput
sequencing of the rice genome. A proposed plan published in February
1998, by an ad hoc committee of international scientists, calls for
completing about one-third of the total sequence by the year 2003, with
Japan contributing 50 percent of that goal and the rest of the
international consortium contributing the balance.
status of supercomputer program
Question. Dr. Lane, last year at this time NSF had just made its
decisions with respect to which university supercomputer centers would
be supported in your new Partnerships for Advanced Computing
Infrastructure program. Can you give us an update as to how the
transition process is going? As I recall, you were going to have to
move users from centers in New York and Pennsylvania to the centers in
Illinois and San Diego. How has that gone and what are we doing to get
the new computing centers up to full power?
Answer. The users of the Centers program have been almost
completely migrated to the new program. When they have requested it,
all of their data and applications have been moved to a Partnerships
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) site.
For fiscal year 1998, the total number of cycles available will be
about the same as in fiscal year 1997, thus assuring no net loss of
cycles during the transition period. We should note, however, that
because of the transition, there will be no growth in capacity for the
year.
An IBM system of more modern design and equivalent in power to the
one at Cornell has been installed and is functional at San Diego. Loss
of access to the systems at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center has
temporarily reduced the computing resources available, especially for
users of the Cray T3E. Many users have had their allocations reduced
below their requests or have had to move their computing to platforms
other than the T3E. Now that the transition period is completed,
acquisition of new systems with fiscal year 1999 funds will enable
traditional annual increases in capacity.
major research instrumentation
Question. Dr. Lane, a few years back, we had a separate academic
research infrastructure account--part of it went for modernizing labs
and other research facilities and the other part of it went for fairly
large scale research supports the laboratory modernization program, but
I believe you still have a $50 million large scale instrumentation
effort. Is that right?
It is my impression that the $50 million is spread out among the
research directorates, yet the budget request provides no details on
the distribution of the instrumentation resources. It would help us if
we could get a table for the record showing how the $50 million in
instrumentation support has been initially distributed among the
directorates and something on the rationale for that distribution.
Answer. NSF currently is supporting a $50 million large-scale
instrumentation effort. The Major Research Instrumentation Program
allocates funds in the range of $100,000 to $2,000,000 for
instrumentation that is not readily available from normal NSF programs.
This $50M cross-directorate instrumentation program seeks the best
investments for instrumentation acquisition and instrument development.
Below is a table of the actual distribution of fiscal year 1998 MRI
funds and the estimated distribution of fiscal year 1999 MRI funds. The
estimated distribution for fiscal year 1999 funds is based on the
three-year (fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998) average of funds actually
obligated by each Directorate.
DISTRIBUTION OF MRI FUNDS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------
1999
1998 Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIO............................................... 9.28 10.25
CISE.............................................. 6.92 7.99
ENG............................................... 10.87 8.93
GEO............................................... 7.78 8.28
MPS............................................... 12.21 12.28
OPP............................................... 0.28 0.64
SBE............................................... 2.67 1.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final fiscal year 1999 distribution of these funds will be
based on the merit of the research and education proposed for the
instrumentation requested.
environmental research and the national institute for the environment
Question. Dr. Lane, recall that this committee asked NSF to report
in April on what it would take to establish a National Institute for
the Environment (NIE) within the Foundation. The Subcommittee received
that report on April 22 and it is pretty clear the Foundation believes
that enhanced support for environmental research makes good sense, but
you would go about it in a way different from the NIE proposal. Please
give us a thumbnail sketch of the Foundation and the Board's view on
this matter.
Answer. The views of the National Science Board on the NIE are
summarized in a resolution adopted by the Board in February 1998. The
resolution, ``The Proposed National Institute for the Environment''
(NSB-98-65), which provides policy guidance to the Foundation, is
attached.
There are three main points, outlined below, articulated in the
report prepared by NSF on this issue.
(1) NSF is committed to environmental research and education and is
eager to expand its role in a manner consistent with overall national
goals and with its mission and strategic plan, particularly in those
areas where NSF can play a catalytic role. NSF currently manages a
complex, merit-reviewed portfolio of basic environmental research and
education in broad areas of science and engineering. In addition, we
are enhancing, consistent with organic developments within science and
engineering disciplines, efforts to integrate environmental research
across the Foundation. By further augmentation of its already
significant role as a sponsor of fundamental, broad-based research and
education activity related to the environment, NSF can serve as a key
component of an enhanced NSTC activity discussed below.
(2) The range and complexity of environmental research, as well as
the diverse needs of those who depend on the results of such research,
require a heightened response involving many Federal agencies. Thus,
the Report has recommended a revision of the existing interagency
strategy into a new National Science and Technology Strategy for the
Environment that involves all relevant agencies; is based on
competitive, merit-reviewed activities; and seeks to define and to link
the information needs of policy-makers as closely as possible with
relevant environmental research opportunities. The structure for
developing and coordinating this Strategy should be led by the White
House, particularly the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
and the relevant committees of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC), with the advice of the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This coordinating structure
should be strengthened in order to carry out the goals of the
``National Strategy.''
(3) The National Science and Technology Strategy for the
Environment should influence agency planning and budgeting. NSTC,
working through the Executive Branch budget process, should establish
priorities and consider the appropriate level of funds to support the
strategy. This could result in a strengthened effort to address the
challenges suggested by the proposers of the institute concept and by
other interested entities. The NSTC and CENR should continue to serve
as a forum for coordinating assessments related to environmental policy
objectives. Such assessment activities and any necessary
``stakeholder'' coordination activities could be conducted by the NSTC
itself, supported by the CENR, along with the appropriate external
entities.
Establishing a stand-alone entity or agency would not be an
effective means of achieving the proposed intellectual goals of an
environmental institute for the reasons articulated in the Report. NSF
believes that the approach outlined in the Report will link
environmental assessment, research, education, and information
dissemination efforts, suggested as functions for such an entity, more
effectively to the missions of the various agencies and to the needs
and interests of the public and its policy-makers.
large hadron collider
Question. This budget proposes a new start for NSF requesting $22
million for an initial contribution to the Large Hadron Collider. And
according to the budget request, by 2003, NSF expects to provide a
total of $81 million towards the construction of detectors to be
installed in the LHC project. It is my understanding that the
Department of Energy is planning on providing a total of $450 million
for this project--located at the CERN laboratory in Switzerland. Given
the heavy involvement of the Department of Energy, what is the
significance and role of the Foundation in this project?
Answer. The LHC has a very high discovery potential for new
physics. The LHC project represents cutting-edge science leading the
frontier in high energy physics for the next two decades or more. The
roles of NSF and the Department of Energy (DOE) are both significant
because each brings critical, yet distinct, intellectual expertise to
the project. The NSF support for this project will allow the full
participation of many NSF-funded university groups. These groups
provide much of the intellectual leadership in this project and will
contribute substantially to the technical expertise and infrastructure
needed for its successful completion. The involvement of these
universities will also allow their students to gain experience working
at the research frontier, and will allow the outreach activities
connected to the LHC to benefit as wide a community as possible.
It is important to note that because of the high cost associated
with projects like the LHC, international partnerships are now
considered almost essential. The LHC has established a joint management
structure whereby the decision-making process is equal, regardless of
the funding provided.
millimeter array radio telescope
Question. Dr. Lane, this budget is requesting an additional $9
million for the second installment in the design and development phase
of the millimeter array radio telescope. As I understand it, you need a
total of $26 million to complete the design and development phase. Then
to actually build the telescope--which would consist of a substantial
number of individual 8-meter radio telescopes all linked together
electronically--it will cost something like an additional $200 million.
Where are you in putting together an international partnership to help
defray the total cost of the telescope. And what level of international
participation are you attempting to obtain? Provide for the record you
current set of milestones for this project.
Answer. NSF has encouraged the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
(NRAO), the organization that developed the Millimeter Array (MMA)
proposal, to explore possible partnerships with foreign organizations.
The European Southern Observatory (ESO) has expressed strong interest
in becoming a partner. ESO may reach a decision on this matter as early
as the end of 1999. A collaboration with Japan, which seemed promising
one or two years ago, currently seems less likely due to economic
constraints there.
NSF considers international and/or other-agency participation at
the 25-50 percent level important for both the construction and
operations phases of the MMA project. The National Science Board has
indicated that it intends to evaluate cost sharing arrangements when it
considers whether to authorize Phase II construction of the MMA.
Current milestones for the MMA project are:
Fiscal year 1998 milestones.--Design antenna; Select MMA site;
Begin negotiations with possible international partners; Design and
begin construction of prototype receivers; Design prototype correlator,
computer/software system, LO and fiber optics systems; Select project
architect/engineer; and Begin design of civil works.
Fiscal year 1999 milestones.--Deliver first prototype receiver and
computer/software system to test site; and Select Photonic or Gunn LO
system.
Fiscal year 2000 milestones.--Finalize agreements with
international partners; Deliver antenna 1 to U.S. test site; Begin
antenna 1 single dish testing; and Deliver all remaining receivers to
test site.
zare's term on the nsb ending in may
Question. Dr. Zare, since you joined the Board about six years ago,
you have served with distinction. For the last two years you have
guided the Board as its chairman and have sought to revitalize the
Board as a major player in national science policy. Should this turn
out to be your last appearance before this subcommittee as a member or
chairman of the board, do you have any final observations you might
care to share with us today?
Answer. Chairman Bond, Thank you for giving me the special
opportunity to share with you some thoughts as I step down as Chairman
and leave the National Science Board after six years of service. With
your permission, I would like to enter for the record the farewell
remarks I made to the National Science Board (attached). I also would
like to offer three personal observations:
First, the best science policy for our country is to continue
strong bipartisan support. We need buy-in from as many different points
of view as possible. By its very nature, scientific research is a long-
term undertaking that requires sustained support for its payoff. Only
with a bipartisan consensus can we expect this enterprise to flourish.
To do otherwise is to invite a roller coaster ride that is a dangerous
path to follow.
Second, let me commend Congress for repeated support for growth in
the Federal science and technology budget. For ourselves and for the
generations of Americans to come, we must continue and substantially
increase investment in science and technology. Such investment really
has provided handsome returns in creating new jobs and new wealth. What
is more difficult to measure but may well be more important is the
following: The investment in scientific research directly affects the
quality of life, the health, and the defense of the country. Moreover,
it provides the capability of finding successful answers to unimagined
new problems and threats drawing on the reservoir of knowledge and
human resources developed through research.
It is easy for some to say that this response is just what you
expect from a working scientist, that the scientific community is never
satisfied. I for one think that as a community we have demonstrated
leadership in setting priorities within individual fields, and I am
impatient to taste and savor the benefits that increased funding of
identified priority areas of science and technology would bring to our
society. We truly are on the threshold of wonderful new discoveries and
advances, and we must find the will to commit resources to reach these
goals.
Finally, a smart science policy does not make all its new
investments in just a few areas, no matter how promising or inviting
these areas might seem to be. We must recognize that one of the most
striking changes taking place in science and technology is the rapidly
increasing interdependence on all types of knowledge and know-how.
Breakthroughs in a given field frequently have profound consequences
for distant and unexpected areas of knowledge. We must avoid optimizing
near-term returns to the exclusion of long-term benefits that come from
a balanced science policy of widespread but carefully chosen support.
In this context, let me offer a caution: The popular debate on whether
it is better to support practical versus curiosity-driven research can
blind us to an important fact. Research, whatever it is labeled but so
long as it is of high quality, invariably has broad benefits, both to
advancing fundamental science and finding important applications.
Moreover, let me emphasize that the consequences of research remain
unpredictable. A wise science policy is not one that foresees the
future but rather one that enables it to unfold.
______
Attachment NSB-98-83 (Revised)
richard n. zare, chairman, nsb may 1996-may 1998
report to the national science board may 7, 1998
Winston Churchill said, ``Success consists of going from failure to
failure without loss of enthusiasm.'' In that spirit let me describe to
you what progress I think the National Science Board has made during
the time I was its chairman. To me, the most significant change has
been a reaching out by the Board to address issues bigger than the
immediate concerns of the National Science Foundation. As you know, the
Board has by statute a dual role, namely, to set policy for the
National Science Foundation and to report to the President and to
Congress on the state of health of the nation's science and engineering
enterprise. It is in that second realm, I believe, that the Board has
assumed a much larger presence.
nsb oversight of the national science foundation
I will not recite a litany of standard though important activities,
such as approval of the NSF budget, work on long-range planning,
approval of various large NSF awards and programs, supervision of the
Inspector General, approval of the Vannevar Bush and Waterman Award
winners, etc. Instead, let me highlight some specific items from NSB's
special responsibility to oversee NSF. The Board has taken its
responsibilities most seriously, approving several actions of
consequence. It has:
--Revised the criteria for merit review of all NSF proposals,
reducing the number from four to two and sending a clear
message that what counts, in brief, is a proposal's intrinsic
excellence and impact;
--Established that the default policy on renewal awards is that all
expiring awards be recompeted unless it is judged in the best
interest of U.S. science and engineering that they not be;
--Approved a Science and Technology Centers Program and provided
guidelines for its management that stress educational outreach
and the creation of partnerships;
--Approved NSF's participation in the Large Hadron Collider project,
which involves multi-agency support of a large facility not
located in the U.S.;
--Approved a major revamping of the nation's supercomputer activities
which has broadened from centers to partnerships enlarging the
base of supercomputing and the reach of this program;
--Issued policy guidance on NSF's role in the assignment of domain
names;
--Participated in a multi-agency discussion of what is scientific
misconduct and how misconduct proceedings should be carried out
in general;
--Provided oversight, through an NSB/NSF staff working group, for the
development of the NSF Strategic Plan and NSF Performance Plan
under the Government Performance and Results Act; and
--Approved a resolution on the proposed National Institute for the
Environment that actively supports the Foundation's role in
fundamental environmental research but does not support a
separate, stand-alone organization for this purpose.
Reform of NSB Operations
We began, under the most able leadership of our Vice-Chair, Diana
Natalicio, by significantly revising Board operations, particularly its
calendar.
--We agreed to reduce the number of Board meetings to five and to
have one of these meetings each year in a location outside NSF
and the Washington, DC area;
--The Board made an important decision about its organization in
addressing NSF responsibilities by agreeing to have non-
overlapping memberships in its three standing committees: Audit
& Oversight (chaired by Charles Hess), Education & Human
Resources (chaired by Shirley Malcom), and Programs & Plans
(chaired by John Hopcroft). These standing committees have been
put on a comparable footing with various task forces reporting
to each standing committee. It is my impression that this
division of labor has served us quite well;
--We delegated additional responsibility to the Executive Committee,
specifically, the authority to approve the budget that NSF
submits to the Office of Management and Budget each year;
--We have moved to modernize the NSB meeting procedures, encouraging
reliance on information technology to conduct our work; and
--We have produced an election protocol for filling the positions of
Chair, the Vice Chair, and four of the five positions on the
Executive Committee.
NSB National Policy Role
I turn to activities ``external'' to NSF. To provide a quick
summary, we:
--Established a National Science Board Public Service Award, to be
given annually to an individual and to a group who foster the
public's understanding of science and technology;
--Produced a Working Paper on Federal Support of Science Research
that called for more understanding of the methodology of
priority setting;
--Held our first off-site policy meeting in Houston, Texas, on the
campus of the University of Houston on the subject of the
Federal role on graduate and postdoctoral education;
--Produced a National Science Board Paper entitled ``The Federal Role
in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education.'' This work came out of
our meeting in Houston, Texas, and responded to the
Presidential Review Directive to contribute to this assessment
process. It also came out of the continuing NSB-GUIRR project
on Stresses on Research and Education in Higher Education
Institutions. This project has gone through two phases and has
so far involved a total of 25 universities and colleges that
are prominent in science and engineering research and education
and that have participated in campus discussions and in one or
both national meetings in Washington, DC;
--Approved a resolution confirming NSB's intention to prepare
analyses (``occasional papers'') for input to the process of
developing the Federal budget for science and engineering
research and education;
--Prepared and approved for release the paper ``Industry Reliance on
Publicly Funded Research,'' which should be available in the
next few weeks;
--Worked to revise and improve Science & Engineering Indicators,
which will also be available in a few weeks; and
--Published a collection of papers delivered at the NSB symposium on
the University of the 21st Century, held during the March 1996
NSB meeting at the University of California, Davis, chaired by
Dr. Frank Rhodes, just before I became chair.
A good measure of our desire to reach out can be found in the
attached Appendix, which lists the invited visitors and speakers we
have had at NSB meetings or functions during the past two years. I
think that this collection of people is very revealing of our
intentions.
We know that it is easy for people to stumble and fall when they
seek to follow a new path. In particular, we have become aware that it
is awkward for the NSF Director, as a member of the Board, to vote on
the clearance and approval of NSB reports on national research and
education policy that may affect Federal agencies other than NSF. These
considerations have led us to urge the Director to abstain as a matter
of principle from such votes. In this regard, we are also developing a
separate Board logo (not yet approved) to help distinguish ourselves
from NSF in this new policy role. To me, these are clear signs that we
are breaking new ground, but we have much more to do and to learn
before we become really effective. It is my belief that the Board's
appetite has been whetted for this new role and that there is now no
turning back.
Reflections and Comments
Let me add a more personal note on what being Chair of the Board
has meant to me. These past years have been my most rewarding
experience of public service of any type. The more I gave, the more I
received from others. During this period I authored seven editorials
(two in Chemical and Engineering News, two in the Journal of Chemical
Education, one in Science, one in The Scientist, and one in the New
York Times Op Ed page). I appeared five times at Congressional hearings
and I twice had the misfortune of traveling across the country to
attend hearings that were cancelled at the last moment--something I
call painful loss of hearing! I also made official visits to New
Zealand (where I had the pleasure of dedicating a C-130 transport), to
Antarctica, to Mexico, and to China.
This ``burst of activity'' by the Board would not have occurred
without strong support from others, especially the NSF Director, Neal
Lane, who let it happen, and Dr. Marta Cehelsky, NSB Executive Officer,
who provided the Board and me with huge assistance in spite of being
quite understaffed to handle an activist Board trying to blaze new
trails.
What advice might I offer future members of the National Science
Board? When I reflect on what needs to be done to sustain our progress,
I recall a powerful statement whose source is unknown to me: ``To
succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your
principles.'' When I first heard these words, I thought them strange.
They are quite different from what Groucho Marx said: ``Those are my
principles, and if you do not like them, * * * well, I have others.''
The statement about the need to rise above principles, I have come to
realize, contains special wisdom. I suggest that future Board members
must be guided by their principles in carrying out all the tasks of the
National Science Board, but once the Board has decided on a course of
action, its members must learn to pull together in support of one
another provided that our decision is not offensive to our most deeply
held principles. Too often consensus is equated with near unanimity. We
must learn how to reach consensus and then move on to do other
business. The National Science Board is not a faculty senate meeting in
which those who do not get their way remain free to object
indefinitely, a behavior pattern not limited to those in universities.
It has been a true pleasure and a high privilege for me to have had
this opportunity to serve on the National Science Board for six years
and as your Chair for the past two years. I will miss the good
companionship it has provided me, and the opportunity for my own
personal growth. In following along these new paths, the National
Science Board can make an even more positive contribution to the
nation.
Richard N. Zare,
Chairman, 1996-1998.
addendum, may 8, 1998
To complete the record for this term, after this report was
written, during its May 6-8 meeting, the Board:
--Approved a logo for the NSB; and
--Met with Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
______
Attachment 2
government performance and results act--performance plan
Question. Dr. Lane, earlier this month the committee received your
performance plan as mandated under the Government Performance and
Results Act. We noticed that you elected to use a more qualitative
approach rather than the quantitative approach used by some other
agencies. In other words, you took advantage of the flexibility
provided in the act for a so-called ``alternative'' approach in setting
goals and outcomes and then assessing your progress towards their
attainment. Briefly describe your approach to performance assessment
with respect to research and education and why you believe the
alternative approach makes the most sense for your research and
education programs.
Answer. The National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1999 GPRA
Performance Plan includes a combination of qualitative outcome-oriented
goals and quantitative output goals. The quantitative goals are used to
establish measures for the performance of NSF's investment process and
management. The qualitative goals are used to assess the outcomes of
NSF's investment in science and engineering research and education.
The National Science Foundation uses a process of merit review with
peer evaluation to identify the most promising proposals from
researchers and educators. In addition, NSF has in place a mechanism
for assessment of these processes. Each NSF program is evaluated by an
external panel of experts (called a Committee of Visitors or COV) every
three years. COV's evaluate the thoroughness, impartiality, and
credibility of the merit review process. The reports from COV's are
transmitted to Directorate-level Advisory Committees, to the cognizant
NSF Assistant Director for response, and ultimately to the Director,
Deputy Director, and Chief Financial Officer.
As noted in NSF's fiscal year 1999 GPRA Performance Plan, ``NSF is
committed to using panels of external experts to assess on a regular
basis its effectiveness and directions.'' NSF will operate this
assessment process through the directorate-level advisory committees.
The COV process is being modified to include attention to results as a
source of input to the advisory committees. This will provide
consistent, comparable evaluation information that can be integrated at
the Foundation level.
NSF's process of merit review with peer evaluation focuses on the
individual project level. The Foundation's staff of scientists,
engineers, and educators consider the expert advice of peer evaluators
from the research and education community and recommend support for the
most promising research and education project proposals. Since both the
substance and the timing of outcomes from these NSF-supported
activities are unpredictable, performance standards for the results of
NSF's investments in research and education cannot be adequately
expressed in quantified, annual performance goals. NSF has expressed
its performance goals for results as descriptive standards under the
GPRA option for use of the alternative format. NSF's level of success
in achieving these results-oriented goals will be determined through
external assessment processes as described above. This approach allows
for a responsible and comprehensive assessment of the continuous flow
of results from NSF-supported activities.
year 2000 computer problem
Question. Dr. Lane, describe where you are in getting a handle on
the year 2000 computer problem. I understand in the House, the
Government Reform Committee reviewed all agencies for their work on
getting the Y2K problem under control. Where did NSF come out in that
review?
Answer. NSF is on schedule for achieving Year 2000 (Y2K) compliancy
well before the turn of the century. OMB has consistently classified
NSF as making satisfactory progress (the highest classification given)
on its Y2K activities. During the last Y2K reporting period (May 15,
1998), NSF received an A- from the House's Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight. Only four agencies received a grade of A.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
experimental program to stimulate competitive research
Question. EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research) has been important to Montana and some 18 other states which
are largely rural. The heart of the program consists of infrastructure
awards, EPSCoR grants and, more recently, co-funding. I am deeply
concerned about the ability of the program to move forward without an
increase in the base EPSCoR program. How can we insure that all three
components--infrastructure awards, EPSCoR grants and co-funding
advance?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 EPSCoR co-funding from research
programs increases to approximately $15 million, $5 million over fiscal
year 1998. In fiscal year 1999, EPSCoR will: (1) make approximately 19
infrastructure development awards and (2) match the $15 million of
available co-funding from the Foundation's regular research programs.
EPSCoR's highest priority is to ``mainstream'' EPSCoR researchers and
their institutions into the Foundation's regular grant programs. The
co-funding effort thus represents the cornerstone of EPSCoR's
``mainstreaming'' strategy, since each dollar of EPSCoR support has the
potential to leverage one additional dollar of research program support
(i.e., the proposed $30 million total research grant support in fiscal
year 1999). Under the fiscal year 1999 EPSCoR budget request of $38.41
million, operation of the EPSCoR Grant program would be modified; e.g.,
smaller, more-targeted awards would be made.
epscor state representation in nsf advisory capacities
Question. We have, for some time, been concerned about the lack of
representatives from EPSCoR states on science boards and advisory
committees and peer review panels. Are we making any progress on this?
Answer. The EPSCoR Office reports annually to the Director on the
level of participation of scientists and engineers from EPSCoR
jurisdictions as NSF merit reviewers. In fiscal year 1996, the EPSCoR
Office compiled and distributed to the Foundation's Directorates a list
of over 1,900 potential reviewers from EPSCoR states. The intent was to
provide the Directorates with a pool of available EPSCoR merit
reviewers from which NSF program staff could select. In fiscal year
1997, a total of 449 EPSCoR scientists and engineers, identified in the
database, were selected by NSF programs as review panelists. This
number compares to 333 in fiscal year 1996 and represents a 34.8
percent increase in the use of those individuals identified by the
EPSCoR states as being highly qualified to participate in the NSF merit
review process. In addition, EPSCoR membership in the Foundation's
``General Advice Committees'' has also been examined. These committees,
which provide general or specific advice on NSF programming, include:
(1) The advisory committees for the seven directorates and the Office
of Polar Programs; (2) the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science
and Engineering; (3) the Advisory Committee for Industrial Innovation
Interface; (4) various public award committees (e.g., the Alan T.
Waterman Award); and (5) ad hoc special topic committees (e.g.,
Antarctic Blue Ribbon Panel). Excluding members of the Foundation
staff, membership on the ``General Advice Committees'' totaled 285 in
fiscal year 1997. Of this number, nine people were identified as being
from EPSCoR states.
status of v bns grant to montana state university
Question. Montana State University has been awarded a vBNS high
performance networking grant. When do you expect funding to be
available?
Answer. An initial installment of $175,000 was awarded in February
1998. The remaining $175,000 will be awarded when the University
notifies NSF that it has signed an agreement with a high performance
network provider to use its system and has an anticipated connection
date. The Principal Investigator plans to be connected in September
1998, so the notification is expected in the near future.
epscor state benefits from domain name registration fees
Question. In the recent Supplemental Appropriations Bill, we
included language which hopefully will meet the legal objections which
had been raised in connection with the use of domain registration fees.
What do you see as the outlook for these funds? How will EPSCoR states
benefit from them?
Answer. Section 8003 of the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions Act (H.R. 3579) included language
ratifying NSF's use of domain name registration fees that had been
collected by our awardee, Network Solutions, and placed into a fund for
the preservation and enhancement of the intellectual infrastructure of
the Internet. Presently, NSF is in the process of seeking judicial
release of these funds--which amount to approximately $58 million--for
use as part of our Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative and
related information technology activities. While NSF's request to the
Court is being contested, the Office of General Counsel anticipates a
favorable district court ruling by late summer. These funds would then
be available for the NGI initiative and related information technology
activities, subject to possible district court review.
The influx of these funds will carry the Foundation toward our NGI
and broader information technology goals which include conducting
experimental research in new networking technologies, creating
experimental network testbeds at research institutions nationwide and
developing new revolutionary research applications. Moreover, in order
to address inequities that may be caused by the remote location of
research institutions in many EPSCoR states, NSF has arranged to review
successful high performance connections proposals from research
institutions in EPSCoR states and to award up to an additional
$200,000, beyond the $350,000 maximum, where extraordinary costs are
required to connect to the NSF NGI backbone network.
epscor state connections to v bns
Question. How many institutions in EPSCoR states have now been
awarded vBNS connections grants and at what level of connectivity? How
many are actually connected?
Answer. Eight institutions in EPSCoR states have been awarded high
performance connections grants. As of June 15, 1998, one awardee has
been connected (University of Alabama at Birmingham).
advanced networking infrastructure
Question. How does the Internet 2's Abilene project relate to the
NSF's VBNS?
Answer. The Vice President, on April 14, 1998, unveiled the
University Consortium for Advanced Internet Development (UCAID) project
named ``Abilene.'' This UCAID project, to be undertaken in partnership
with Qwest, Nortel, and Cisco, would build a second Internet2 backbone
network to serve the research community along with the existing NSF-
supported vBNS backbone network. It is anticipated that universities
may receive NSF support to connect to and use either vBNS or Abilene.
The Abilene network is complementary to the vBNS and will assist NSF in
performing its mission to support the U.S. research and education
community. Because of the extraordinary demand for bandwidth and
advanced networking services, no single network would be able to fill
the needs of the research and engineering community by itself. Having
multiple experimental networks will also facilitate very important and
interesting research that remains to be done to enable end-to-end
services such as quality of service and security across multiple
networks. This activity illustrates the increasing breadth of the
networking partnership with the private sector that will help assure
the preeminence of U.S. industry in this important new technology, and
will help provide capabilities needed by the nation's academic
community to continue to retain its preeminence in cutting-edge
research.
geographic distribution of gigapops
Question. What responsibility does NSF have for assuring reasonable
geographic distribution of gigapops? What can you do to help insure
that rural areas have reasonable access to gigapops?
Answer. The current NSF high performance connections program
provides support directly to universities. Universities, both NSF-
funded and others, may band together to create regional gigapops if
they decide that it is in their interests to do so. High performance
connections awards funded by NSF may be used by the universities to
support gigapops as well as other efforts. Since the geographical
distribution of universities receiving high performance connections
awards is quite broad (we anticipate that at least one location in each
state will receive an award), gigapops should arise where and when the
awardees and others decide that they are appropriate.
epscor state participation in advanced computing applications
Question. EPSCoR was, I understand mentioned in both the successful
NCSA and the NPACI advanced computing applications. How are EPSCoR
states included in these programs?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the EPSCoR Office sponsored a
technical workshop for EPSCoR researchers at the National Computational
Science Alliance (NCSA) on the campus of the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign to acquaint them with opportunities available through
the Foundation's Partnerships in Advanced Computational Infrastructure
(PACI). As a result of these efforts, 32 EPSCoR institutions in 14
states have become affiliated with the NSCA initiative through their
status as EPSCoR program participants. An orientation and planning
meeting of EPSCoR researchers and federal R&D personnel was also held
in October 1997 at the Earth Resources Observation System Data Center
(Department of the Interior, Sioux Falls, South Dakota) to develop
partnerships among NSCA, federal R&D agencies and Midwest EPSCoR
institutions. An additional technical workshop was conducted in June
1998 at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The purpose of the
workshop was to form R&D collaborations among the NCSA and EPSCoR
researchers.
Two EPSCoR institutions (University of Kansas and Montana State
University) are currently members of the National Partnership in
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI). To increase EPSCoR
participation in NPACI, EPSCoR is sponsoring an information workshop in
October 1998 at the San Diego Supercomputing Center on the campus of
the University of California, San Diego. The workshop will acquaint
university presidents and members of EPSCoR state higher education
governing boards with the opportunities that NPACI membership affords.
Special emphasis will be placed on acquiring NPACI membership for
institutions in the western EPSCoR states (Idaho, Kansas, Montana,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming).
plant genome
Question. How is NSF addressing the Congressional language which
indicates that plant genome funding should be focused on ``economically
significant'' crops? How will you proceed on this in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The focus of the Plant Genome Research Program is
determining and understanding the genetic structure, organization, and
function of economically significant plants. Many of these
characteristics are common across species lines in plants. What is
unique for a specific genome can often best be learned through
comparative genomics, which requires studying genomes of diverse plant
species including relatives of economically significant plants. NSF has
sought ideas about the choice of experimental material from the
applicants, who must convince the reviewers that their projects will
produce results leading to new discoveries about the genomes of
economically significant plants.
In fiscal year 1999, NSF plans to continue to support the best
science that will lead us closer to a complete understanding of the
genomes of economically significant plants.
life in extreme environments
Question. What are your plans for Life in Extreme Environments
(LExEn) in fiscal year 1999? We have several areas in Montana that
might be considered to have ``extreme environments''. Do these come
within the parameters of the program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the LExEn program will continue to
emphasize collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts to build a
scientific community that can study how organisms have adapted to
environments at the extremes of life, both in the present and in past
geological sites. ``Extreme'' conditions are understood to include very
high or very low temperatures, salt concentrations, acidity, pressure,
or concentrations of toxic chemicals. Montana has sites with extremes
of temperature and pressure. Examples would be at great depths under
ground level, at nearby hot springs where scientists from Montana carry
out their research, and permanent snowfields found in the alpine zone
of the Rocky Mountains. LExEn-supported scientists can have their
laboratories located anywhere in the United States, and the gathering
of specimens that they study can occur anywhere in the world, including
thermal vents on the floors of the oceans or Antarctica. A LExEn award
was made to Montana State University last year for studies of microbial
populations in Antarctica. (Edward E. Adams and John C. Priscu are co-
principal investigators on the award.)
epscor state participation in small business innovative research
Question. Some of the EPSCoR money goes into NSF's SBIR program.
How are EPSCoR states faring with NSF SBIR's? Can you document any
improvement over the past five years? Do you know how EPSCoR states are
doing in other departments and agencies?
Answer. EPSCoR spends its Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)
funds for projects that are consistent with EPSCoR's objective of
utilizing the science and technology resources that reside within a
state's higher education institutions on behalf of its economic
development. In fiscal year 1998, EPSCoR invested approximately $1.2
million in SBIR grants. In addition, EPSCoR Cooperative Agreement
awards support SBIR-related activities that help to develop
partnerships between local entrepreneurs and university researchers.
During the period fiscal year 1994-98, NSF SBIR awards to businesses in
EPSCoR states increased. The 19 EPSCoR states received eight SBIR
awards in fiscal year 1994 and nine awards in fiscal year 1995. In both
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, the number of awards doubled to
18. In addition, nine Phase II SBIR awards were made in fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 1998 NSF Phase II awards are
currently being processed.
Anecdotal information from NSF's EPSCoR state Project Directors
regarding SBIR activities indicates that progress also is occurring in
other agencies. However, the lack of a government-wide SBIR data base
precludes a quantitative analysis of the performance of EPSCoR states
in the SBIR programs.
polar research
Question. Under your Polar Research Programs, how much do you plan
to spend on Arctic research and how much on research conducted in the
Antarctic? How much on logistics to support each polar program?
Answer. NSF provides over 20 percent of the total Federal support
for Arctic research and logistics and approximately 95 percent of U.S.
funding for Antarctic research and logistics.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the U.S. Arctic Research
Program within Polar Research Programs is $41.16 million. This request
includes $9.5 million for Arctic logistics. An additional estimated $39
million--including $21 million for the Polar Cap Observatory--is
estimated for Arctic research and education by other directorates
within NSF.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $32.8 million for the
U.S. Antarctic Research Grants Program, $108.4 for Antarctic Operations
and Science Support, and $62.6 million for U.S. Antarctic Logistical
Support Activities provided by DOD.
Question. I recently visited the International Arctic Research
Center (IARC) located in Fairbanks. Does NSF support this concept of
international cooperation for research into the Arctic?
Answer. NSF supports a broad range of international cooperation. In
research related to global change, for example, the Foundation
participates in many coordinated international activities. As the lead
federal agency for global change research, NSF has been cooperating
with Japan, especially its Science and Technology Agency, to develop
concepts for exploring global change research and prediction under the
aegis of the U.S.--Japan S&T agreement--including through the
International Arctic Research Center in Alaska and the International
Pacific Research Center in Hawaii. Other agencies, such as NASA, NOAA,
and DOE, are participating in this interaction. It is expected that
such centers would ultimately involve broader international
participation as well. As with all its activities, NSF relies on merit-
reviewed proposals to support the research undertaken at such centers.
Question. With most of the world's population living in the
northern hemisphere, does it make sense to dedicate more resources to
exploring and understanding the impacts of human activities there?
Answer. The Arctic plays a central role in regional and global
environmental issues, especially those related to climate and resource
development. It also is of considerable importance from economic and
national policy perspectives, since the Alaskan Arctic and adjacent
areas contain significant petroleum, natural gas, and marine resources.
The need for additional scientific information is matched by new
opportunities for research. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
U.S. Arctic Research Program represents an increase of 26 percent from
fiscal year 1998, including studies of human dimensions of the Arctic
system focused on the interaction of global environmental changes,
vegetation and marine productivity, and human activity.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
total cost of south pole station
Question. Total Cost of South Pole Station Increases by $35.9M: Dr.
Lane, let's turn to the request for South Pole Station. On page 71 of
the Augustine Panel report, we find their recommendation to modernize
the South Pole Station. If you follow the panel's arithmetic they seem
to recommend a total modernization effort that comes in at $145
million. To pay for the project, they recommend that $20 million can be
found in the temporary cut back in research during the years the
station is being rebuilt. They also suggest that an additional $30
million could be found in savings to be achieved by the transition from
the Navy to the Air National Guard and the civilian contractor for
logistics support. The panel then goes on to call for a net
appropriation of $95 million over several years for the station's
modernization activity.
Last year we appropriated a total of $70 million to substantially
start the modernization effort. Now if NSF was following the Augustine
Panel's funding recommendations for the station--and by that I mean
savings front logistics and research deferral, we would have expected
to see in your budget for fiscal year 1999, a request of about $25
million to finish off the south pole project.
Well, in your fiscal year 1999 budget there is in fact a request of
$22 million for South Pole Station--but you also say that beyond the
fiscal year 1999 request, an additional $35.9 million will be need in
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to complete the station.
So what we are thinking here is either: (1) the cost of the station
is up--in part--because NSF is seeking to avoid the deferral of
research support as recommended by the Augustine panel, (2) NSF is not
expecting to realize the savings in logistics estimated by the
Augustine panel; or (3) we have just seen the $145 million station
increase by nearly $36 million in one year.
Can you help us understand this situation?
Answer. The Augustine panel recommended expenditure of $145 million
for Antarctic facilities, including $125 million for South Pole
Station. Incorporating small adjustments to the Augustine Panel numbers
due to the use of updated inflation factors the estimated cost of South
Pole Station Modernization is $127.9 million.
The Panel also recommended that $30 million anticipated from
operational savings due to the transition from the Navy be used for
Antarctic infrastructure renewal. NSF does expect to see savings, but
not in the time frame envisioned by the Panel. The $30 million in
savings estimated by the Augustine Panel was based on NSF's estimate of
savings over the five year period fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2002
($44 million) offset by the cost of modifying three NSF-owned LC-130
aircraft for use by the Air National Guard (the Augustine Panel had
used $14 million as the offset).
NSF's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued two recent
analyses of estimated transition costs and savings. The estimated
savings for fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2002, based on net savings due
to the transition of functions and implementation of various OIG
recommendations, is about $31 million. This would be offset by $36
million, the current estimate for the cost of modifying the three NSF-
owned aircraft.
Overall, according to the OIG analyses, NSF could expect to see an
annual savings of about $3 million in fiscal year 1999, rising over
time to approximately $9 million. It is anticipated that such savings
will be used to address infrastructure upgrades at McMurdo and Palmer
Stations, as recommended by the Augustine Panel.
Question. What kind of construction management strategy do you
expect to employ as you move forward on the modernization effort and
how will you ensure the project remains on schedule and within budget--
particularly given the difficult environmental conditions you are going
to have to confront?
Answer. NSF will contract for procurement and construction
management for all phases of the project, including design reviews of
all drawings and specifications; conformance of the designs and
procurements with established standardization criteria; assistance in
establishing functional interfaces; transition from the existing to the
new facilities; and systems integration. Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Pacific Division--with long-term experience in Antarctic
construction projects--will select, monitor and manage architectural
and engineering firms for design, post construction services, and
construction inspection for the project.
Any significant changes to project requirements and conceptual
design will have to be approved by the project manager, project
engineer, construction manager, and a Project Oversight Committee with
members representing facilities, technical, scientific, budgetary, and
contractual areas, to ensure cost and schedule control.
The project cost estimate is composed of 1,200 activities. Each
activity (material procurement, labor or logistics) has a projected
cost that is tracked against actual expenditures. The project cost
estimate used by the Augustine Panel did not include any cost
contingency provision, although the Panel noted that this represents a
departure from commercial practices. Any over-runs will be balanced
with under-runs or scope reductions to keep the total costs within the
overall project budget.
aircraft upgrades
Question. Dr. Lane, in your fiscal year 1998 current plan, you
proposed spending $4 million to begin the reconfiguration of your LC-
130 aircraft to meet Air Force safety standards. The budget we have
before us requests an additional $20 million for this effort. And I
suspect that we may even see the need to spend even more in fiscal year
2000 on this effort. It seems that these additional costs are related
to the transition from the Navy to the Air National Guard. This
Committee was under the impression that the cost of transition was
expected to be fairly modest--certainly nothing like the $24 million
needed this year and next. Give us some sense as to what these upgrades
will accomplish in terms of safety and service life extension of the
aircraft.
Answer. Ski-equipped LC-130 aircraft are the backbone of the polar
air transport system for the U.S. Antarctic Program. The LC-130's also
support NSF's research in the Arctic. By March 1999 the Air National
Guard (ANG) will provide the sole LC-130 support to the polar regions.
Three NSF-owned LC-130's will be transferred to the operational
control of the ANG, for a total ANG fleet of ten LC-130's. The NSF-
owned aircraft require substantial upgrades and modifications to meet
Air Force safety and operability requirements and FAA standards. The
modifications include engineering, avionics, airframe, safety,
propulsion, electronics and communications, equipment for black box
installation, storage, and project administration. The modifications
will improve safety of operations by providing identical cockpits and
operating systems on all ten aircraft operated by the ANG. The service
life of the aircraft will be extended, since each aircraft will be
flown fewer miles annually when it is integrated into an overall fleet
of ten aircraft.
The transition from the Navy to the Air National Guard and other
civilian contractors is expected to yield significant savings over the
long term, starting in fiscal year 2000. The aircraft modifications
take approximately two full years to complete. If the anticipated
savings in operations were used to fund the modifications, it would be
fiscal year 2005 before all three aircraft would be available. This
would seriously impact support of polar missions, including the current
schedule for rebuilding South Pole Station.
arctic research
Question. Dr. Lane, in the request, you identify some $80 million--
Foundation-wide--to support Arctic research and education activities.
Within that amount you suggest that you are proposing to double your
support for Arctic logistics. That does not seem to be the case and I
would like a complete accounting of all proposed funding for both
research and logistics for the Arctic. Also, please compare and
contrast your role in the Arctic with your role in the Antarctic.
Answer. The Office of Polar Programs, the Directorate for
Geosciences, and other directorates within the NSF have proposed to
direct more than $80 million in fiscal year 1999 to address emerging
opportunities and needs in the Arctic, as detailed below:
NSF ARCTIC FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
Proposed
1998 1999 1999
Estimate Request increment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Education................. 44.8 50.2 5.4
Logistics.............................. 4.5 9.5 5.0
Facilities \1\......................... 5.0 21.0 16.0
--------------------------------
Total NSF........................ 54.3 80.7 26.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Polar Cap Observatory.
Arctic emphases Foundation-wide include expansion of logistics
capabilities, research platforms and facilities; extension of education
and outreach activities, especially those exploring new technology
venues and distance learning; increased scientific cooperation at
international levels; and further development of research programs on
the human dimensions of global change.
Arctic Logistics support will increase $5.0 million to $9.50
million in fiscal year 1999--more than double the fiscal year 1998
level. These funds will support research in Polar Programs and joint
programs across NSF that require coordinated logistics support. In
addressing the recommendations of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission
in Logistics Recommendations for an Improved U.S. Arctic Research
Capability (July 1997), funding will be provided in the following
priority areas:
--safety upgrades for field parties (GPS, communications, shelters);
--improved scientific instrumentation for Navy Arctic submarine
cruises and workshops for planning future cruises;
--tests of science systems and instrumentation during sea trials of
the new research icebreaker USCGC Healy;
--upgrades to the Toolik Lake Long Term Ecological Research (LTER)
site and to the Barrow Environmental Observatory in Alaska;
--extension of winter-over camp at Summit, Greenland to a year-round
camp; and
--feasibility studies of autonomous vehicles and instruments for
Arctic observations.
In comparing and contrasting NSF's role in the Arctic with its role
in the Antarctic, several points can be made. Because both Antarctica
and the Arctic are dominated by extreme cold and characterized by days
to months of continuous daylight alternating with periods of complete
darkness, they are apt to be thought of in terms of their similarities.
However, there are also major differences which affect NSF's role.
Federal funding for research in Antarctica and the Arctic is
managed differently. Three federal agencies provide funding for
Antarctic research, with NSF providing approximately 95 percent of the
funds. The National Science Foundation has been assigned the
responsibility for budgeting and managing the entire U.S. Antarctic
Program. Twelve federal agencies currently support Arctic research and
associated activities, with the National Science Foundation and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration providing the largest
shares. NSF is responsible for providing interagency leadership for
research planning as directed by the Arctic Research Policy Act of
1984.
With a permanent population in excess of 2 million, the Arctic has
settlements, villages, towns, and cities with an existing workforce and
structure to provide food, material handling, shops, and warehouses.
Support for scientists working in the Arctic, including utilities and
communications, is arranged largely through commercial organizations.
In contrast to the situation in the Arctic, there is no indigenous
population in Antarctica. U.S. stations are established and maintained
by the National Science Foundation to maintain a national presence on a
continent with overlapping territorial claims and to support science
conducted there. All life support as well as infrastructure and
equipment maintenance--aircraft, runways, communications, passenger
movement, and baggage handling--are provided by NSF.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
antarctic program
Question. What activities does NSF carry out in the Antarctic that
make the South Pole Station necessary?
Answer. Since 1970, the National Science Foundation has been
charged with the responsibility for managing and budgeting for the U.S.
Antarctic Program. This responsibility, which has been articulated
through a series of National Security Decision and Executive Memoranda
and confirmed most recently in a report by the National Science and
Technology Council, requires that the U.S. maintain an active and
influential presence in Antarctica, including the year-round occupation
of the South Pole. The conduct of science is the principal expression
of U.S. presence in Antarctica.
Occupation of the geographic South Pole is of particular
geopolitical significance due to its location at the convergence of the
territorial claims of six of the Antarctic Treaty nations. As a result
of the singular geophysical conditions, the South Pole Station provides
a unique observatory for several fields of science. Due to its location
on the rotational axis of Earth, the South Pole is valuable for study
of seismic and atmospheric waves. Its remoteness from population
centers makes South Pole ideal for observing long-term effects of human
activities on the atmosphere. Its altitude of nearly three kilometers
combined with the cold dry atmosphere make it ideal for infrared and
submillimeter astronomy.
For the classes of observations that benefit from being at the axis
of rotation, there is no reasonable alternative. For many astrophysical
objectives, the best alternative would be space or lunar-based
instruments, which would be considerably more expensive. Research
funded at South Pole is that which can best, and in some cases only, be
done there.
South Pole Station is a hub for research on the high Antarctic
plateau, as noted by the report of the Committee on Fundamental Science
of the National Science and Technology Council (United States Antarctic
Program, April, 1996.) Sites accessed via the station include some
Antarctic Geophysical Observatories (AGO's), Antarctic Weather Stations
(AWS's), and glaciology and geology projects requiring access to the
continental interior. Without the station at South Pole, the report
noted:
``The loss of AWS's would reduce acquisition of climate and weather
data from this extremely data-sparse region and would break the
continuity of the data sets, further increasing the uncertainty of
global models that attempt to quantify and understand Antaractica's
dominant force in global climate and climate variability * * *. The
loss of the AGO's would inhibit U.S. mapping of the cusp region of the
ionosphere, which complements the space physics observations of NASA,
NOAA, and DOD * * * NOAA's long-term record of ozone and other
greenhouse gas measurements would end. Loss of UV monitoring would be
significant because the South Pole is at the center of the ozone hole.
Loss of the seismic station would create a void in the global coverage
(the South Pole sensor is recognized for probing remotely the Earth's
interior and for monitoring earthquakes and nuclear weapons testing).
Finally, the investment in AMANDA, the prototype of a new astronomy
using the ice sheet to detect neutrinos, would be lost. Closure of
South Pole would leave Russia as the only country with a station,
Vostok, in the Antarctic interior.''
Question. What is the South Pole Station Modernization project?
Answer. The present U.S. research station at the South Pole, the
most remote outpost on Earth, is aging. The U.S. Antarctic Program
External Panel concluded in its report of April 1997 that the South
Pole Station needs to be replaced soon for economic, safety and
operational reasons. The Panel's recommendation of an ``Optimized
Station'' was the basis for Congressional discussions, leading to the
fiscal year 1998 appropriation to initiate the South Pole Station
Modernization (SPSM) project.
The concept of South Pole Station Modernization has evolved from
engineering and architectural studies of all aspects of the station,
including projected science requirements, logistics, construction
limitations, and operation and maintenance of the completed facility.
Studies have been conducted from 1989 through the present, during which
time more than 40 reports were prepared, conclusions of which were
incorporated in plans for modernization of the station. Throughout this
process the following goals, consistent with U.S. Antarctic policy
goals, were considered:
--Maintain a U.S. presence in accordance with national policy;
--Provide a safe working and living environment;
--Provide a platform for science; and
--Achieve a 25-year station life.
The resulting South Pole Station Modernization project is an
elevated station complex with two connected buildings, supporting 110
people (46 science personnel and 64 support personnel) in the summer
and 50 people (31 science personnel and 19 support personnel) in the
winter. The current budget profile for SPSM is below:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- Total
1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Pole Station Modernization 70.0 22.0 22.4 13.5 127.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs include materials, labor, logistics for transportation of
all material and personnel to the South Pole, construction support,
inspection, and equipment, as well as demolition and disposal. The
location at the South Pole requires significant lead time for
construction projects because of the long procurement cycle, the
shipping constraints (one vessel per year to deliver materials for all
South Pole and McMurdo Station needs), and the shortened summer period
for construction at the South Pole (100 days per year). It is
anticipated that the station will be completed in fiscal year 2005.
Question. Where are you in implementing the recommendations
highlighted in the Augustine Report?
Answer. NSF is responding to all the recommendations that required
action. For example:
--funding received in fiscal year 1997 is being used to eliminate the
most critical safety and health problems at the South Pole
Station, and these upgrades are currently on schedule;
--detailed plans for the recommended optimized station were developed
and NSF has begun the South Pole Station Modernization project
with the appropriation received in fiscal year 1998;
--operational savings are being tracked and it is anticipated that
such savings will be used to address infrastructure upgrades at
McMurdo and Palmer Stations;
--the fiscal year 1999 Budget Request reflects the Panel
recommendation that science funding be reallocated to
infrastructure needs;
--an integrated long-range plan based on realistic out-year budget
expectations and the prioritization of research and facilities
needs in both the Antarctic and the Arctic is being developed;
and
--guidelines and procedures are being developed to incorporate
science support costs into the merit review.
Question. The budget justification mentions possibly adding a $10
million cost contingency provision to the estimated project cost. Is
this project on schedule and on budget?
Answer. The cost estimate of the Augustine Panel and the
corresponding Budget Request for South Pole Station Modernization does
not include any cost contingency. Commercial construction projects
usually do include such a contingency. The contingency covers
variations in cost that may arise between the design of a project and
the actual award of a construction contract. The discussion in the
budget justification is intended to provide information on cost
contingency if commercial practices were applied to the South Pole
Station Modernization project. The cost contingency would be about $10
million at this stage of the project.
The South Pole Station Modernization Project, currently in its
first year, is on schedule and on budget. Any cost over-runs will be
balanced with under-runs or scope reductions to keep the total costs
within the overall project budget.
informal science education
Question. Isn't the need to increase our efforts in Informal
Science Education one of the key messages you have been delivering to
the science community in recent years as the NSF director?
Answer. Informal science education plays a critical role in
informing our citizens about science, technology, and mathematics. It
is instrumental in exciting our youth about science and motivating them
to pursue science and mathematics in their schooling and, possibly, in
their careers. I have, indeed, encouraged the science community to
become more involved in informing our citizens through activities in
our K-12 schools, contributing expertise to informal science education
projects, and, more generally, reaching out by making themselves
available for presentations or discussions in public forums.
Question. How do you reconcile flat funding a program that seems to
be supporting the very activities you are encouraging the science
community to carry out on a daily basis?
Answer. When one looks at the total education picture and
prioritizes needs, support for our schools and our teachers ranks high.
The flat funding request for the Informal Science Education program
does not diminish in any way the importance of this endeavor, but
rather is a reflection of overall priorities.
Within the planned funding for Informal Science Education, our goal
is to reach as many people as possible. This is most effectively
accomplished through media programs (``Bill Nye,'' ``Reading Rainbow,''
``3-2-1 Contact,'' IMAX films), youth groups (Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs)
and Museums and Science Centers. We estimate that we reach over 100
millions citizens annually.
Our current emphasis is to involve parents and caregivers,
particularly as part of the K-12 systemic initiatives; foster linkages
with ongoing research through grant supplements and to continue to
strengthen ties between formal and informal science education.
We are partnering with the Department of Education in public
understanding activities and the mathematics initiative to reach a
broader audience.
Question. Have the programs not been effective at meeting their
mission? How do you measure that effectiveness?
Answer. A comprehensive, third-party evaluation of the Informal
Science Education (ISE) program was recently concluded for NSF. Based
on site visits, random sample surveys, and interviews with focus groups
who were participants in ISE activities, the evaluation concluded that
the program has:
--increased the number of youth who are excited by science,
mathematics, and technology, and who pursue such activities in
and out of school;
--promoted greater linkages between formal and informal education;
--stimulated parents and other adults to be informed about science,
mathematics, and technology education;
--encouraged parents to support their children's science and
mathematics in the home and in school;
--improved the science literacy of children and adults; and
--had a broad and long-term impact on the informal science education
field.
Projects supported by the Informal Science Education program,
increasingly, are developing and implementing new summative evaluation
strategies that will assess the impact the projects are having on the
children and adults they reach.
Also, a Committee of Visitors recently came to NSF and provided a
review of operations under the Informal Science Education program. The
preliminary report of the Committee gives high ratings to the program
and cites many of its positive achievements.
Question. What is NSF doing to integrate research and education so
that our college graduates are better prepared to compete in today and
tomorrow's job market?
Answer. NSF is increasingly proactive in encouraging integration of
research and education as a means of strengthening the science,
mathematics, and engineering (SME) preparation of U.S. college
graduates. Integral to NSF's strategy was the October 1997 revision of
merit review criteria that signals potential Principal Investigators
(PI's) and reviewers of the importance of linking research and
educational responsibilities. A growing number of NSF programs and
activities explicitly encourage faculty to integrate research and
education, e.g., an education plan is required for proposals submitted
to the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program that supports
promising young faculty. The Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Training (IGERT) program provides financial support while
affording graduate students numerous career opportunities through their
involvement in cutting-edge interdisciplinary research in academic,
industrial, federal laboratory, and international settings.
The Foundation's systemic reform of undergraduate mathematics,
chemistry, and engineering curricula aim to strengthen the preparation
of SME majors and non-majors alike, and to improve preparation for a
workplace increasingly dependent on science and technology. Reform
efforts under the Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation
(CETP) program are breaking down barriers between SME disciplinary
departments and schools of education at universities producing K-12
science and mathematics teachers. In addition, NSF continues to
encourage involvement of undergraduates in research at NSF's Science
and Technology Centers, the Engineering Research Centers, and the
Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers--adding teamwork and
real-world problem solving skills to student educational experiences.
These centers enable faculty and students to make connections with
industry, as does the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with
Industry program. The Research in Undergraduate Institutions and
Research Experiences for Undergraduates programs also bring research
experiences directly into the education of undergraduates.
Question. What NSF programs seem to work effectively, and what
lessons have been learned from programs that weren't as effective in
preparing students to compete?
Answer. The Foundation's strategic goals call for high quality,
advanced training of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers as an
investment in the nation's productivity for the 21st century. This
requires innovative strategies for improving undergraduate and graduate
education. We have learned from past activities that truly meaningful
undergraduate and graduate science, mathematics, engineering and
technology (SMET) education require classroom instruction combined with
the real-world challenges posed by a research environment.
Third-party external evaluations of undergraduate curriculum and
laboratory programs indicate successful achievement of improvements in
faculty practices and student learning outcomes. ``Evaluation of the
Division of Undergraduate Education's Course & Curriculum Development
Program,'' (The Network, Inc., 1997) found increased student
understanding of scientific approaches to problems and their increased
competence in applying concepts, principles or theories; in using
methods or equipment; and in working in teams. ``A Report on an
Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Instrumentation and
Laboratory Improvement Program,'' (NSF 98-33) evidenced the program's
impact on improved courses and research opportunities for students.
Both evaluations made recommendations related to the reform of
undergraduate education through adaptation and implementation of proven
curricula, laboratory instructional models, and related faculty
enhancement. These recommendations led to the programmatic enhancements
incorporated into the successor, Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory
Improvement (CCLI) program. CCLI focuses on the adaptation and
implementation of proven curricula and laboratory instructional models,
related faculty development, as well as innovative instructional
strategies that use research as a vehicle for strengthening learning.
The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is designed to
improve education (at both the secondary and two-year college levels)
of the Nation's future high-technology technician workforce to enhance
global competitiveness. In addition, NSF has developed programs that
recognize and foster dissemination of effective strategies for
integrating research and education.
At the graduate level, the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Training (IGERT) program seeks to develop activities that
produce a diverse group of new scientists and engineers who are well-
prepared for a broad spectrum of career opportunities. IGERT emphasizes
multi-disciplinary research themes within a framework for the
integration of research and educational activities. Importantly, IGERT
requires that institutions offer interdisciplinary training experiences
relevant to both academic and non-academic settings (e.g., industry,
national laboratories). In addition, NSF is aiding the dissemination of
creative models of undergraduate education by acknowledging exemplary
efforts for combining research with high-quality education activities
through the Awards for the Integration of Research and Education at
Baccalaureate Institutions (AIRE) and Recognition Awards for the
Integration of Research and Education (RAIRE).
u.s leadership in research and technology
Question. Can the NSF justify a 10 percent increase for fiscal year
1998 to fiscal year 1999?
Answer. NSF's investment portfolio is intended to set the stage for
a 21st Century research and education enterprise that is focused on
national priorities. As noted in the President's Budget, several
studies show that scientific discovery and technological innovation
have been responsible for at least half of the nation's productivity
growth in the last 50 years, generating millions of high-skill, high-
wage jobs and substantially improving the quality of life. (Budget of
the United States Government, fiscal year 1999, p. 93.) Conservative
estimates of the social rate of return from academic research exceed 20
percent, based on overall effects on society (Mansfield, E. 1995.
University Research and Industrial Innovation: An Empirical Study of
Linkages. AAAS). The Federal government provided about two-thirds of
the academic research cited. A more recent, ground-breaking study
funded by NSF (Narin F. et al., 1997. The increasing linkage between
U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy 26 pp 317-330) also
found a rapidly growing linkage between industrial innovation and
scientific research.
NSF contributes to building a strong foundation for progress in the
21st century through its support of research and education projects
that meet the highest standards of excellence in competitive merit-
based selection processes. Through appropriate allocation of resources
and design of programs and competitions, NSF ensures that national
priorities are addressed.
NSF continues to receive many more proposals that it deems worthy
of funding than it has resources to support. The success ratio of
competitively reviewed proposals is about one in three. While NSF
awarded 10,000 new awards last year, an additional 7,500 proposals,
requesting about $900 million, were evaluated as very good or
excellent, but were not funded.
In addition, in order to fund as many worthy projects as possible,
NSF often provides lower levels of funding for successful proposals
than it would if increased funding were available. NSF would like to
increase the award size and duration of its average award. The average
award duration has been steadily declining for the past five years.
Moreover, NSF intends to continue the momentum and development of
its three theme areas, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Life and
Earth's Environment, and Educating for the Future.
Question. Has this increase been targeted toward certain
directorates and programs?
Answer. NSF requested increases for fiscal year 1999 have been
targeted in connection with its three major themes, Knowledge and
Distributed Intelligence (KDI), Life and Earth's Environment (LEE) and
Educating for the Future (EFF). These themes are broadly integrated
throughout the Foundation's directorates and programs. They represent
areas of focused investment which combine exciting opportunities in
research and education with immense potential for benefits to society.
Question. How can you convince the committee that the dollars would
be spent wisely and efficiently?
Answer. NSF's investment portfolio is intended to set the stage for
a 21st Century research and education enterprise that is focused on
national priorities. Since its inception, NSF has been committed to
making merit-based investments in research and education that meet the
highest standards of excellence. We believe the establishment of NSF's
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan, and the
incorporation of its attendant performance plan and report, will help
ensure that NSF is continuing to invest wisely and will enable us to
identify improvements in our decision-making. In addition, NSF
continues to play a leading role in government-wide initiatives to
clarify and simplify research administration, with particular emphasis
on Electronic Research Administration (ERA), while simultaneously
maintaining proper accountability of federal funds.
Question. What is the estimated return on federal investment in
R&D?
Answer. As noted in the President's Budget, several studies show
that scientific discovery and technological innovation have been
responsible for at least half of the nation's productivity growth in
the last 50 years, generating millions of high-skill, high-wage jobs
and substantially improving the quality of life. (Budget of the United
States Government, fiscal year 1999, p. 93.)
Conservative estimates of the social rate of return from academic
research exceed 20 percent, based on overall effects on society
(Mansfield, E. 1995. University Research and Industrial Innovation: An
Empirical Study of Linkages. AAAS). The Federal government provided
about two-thirds of the academic research cited. A more recent, ground-
breaking study funded by NSF (Narin F. et al., 1997. The increasing
linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy 26
pp 317-330) also found a rapidly growing linkage between industrial
innovation and scientific research. The study examined patents in key
areas of industrial technology, including biomedicine, chemistry, and
electrical components. It found that nearly three-fourths of the
research papers cited by U.S. industry patents are what the study
termed ``public science''--papers authored at universities, government
laboratories, and other non-profit centers. Furthermore, the research
underlying the cited papers was found to be heavily supported by NSF
and other federal agencies. Federal investment in R&D continues to
provide a critical seedbed for economic growth and for overall growth
in job opportunities.
Question. If the tobacco settlement is not forthcoming, what types
of reductions in program support are you prepared to make and where?
Answer. The priorities in the Foundation's fiscal year 1999 budget
request were developed through a planning process that identified new
opportunities as well as ongoing core activities from which the new
opportunities emerge. If NSF does not receive the increase requested,
the relative priorities in the budget would remain, with emphasis on
the interdisciplinary areas encompassed in the themes of Knowledge and
Distributed Intelligence, Life and Earth's Environment, and Educating
for the Future. However, it would not be possible to increase the
average grant size or the duration of grants, which would make the
system more efficient or to move as aggressively as we feel appropriate
in these important thematic areas.
strategic initiatives
Question. Can you describe how this year's budget will help advance
science and engineering across all fields of disciplines?
Answer. All of NSF's programs are aimed at achieving the
Foundation's outcome goals. These goals as stated in NSF's GPRA
Strategic Plan, are:
--Discoveries at and across the frontier of science and engineering;
--Connections between discoveries and their use in service to
society;
--A diverse, globally-oriented workforce of scientists and engineers;
--Improved achievements in mathematics and science skills needed by
all Americans; and
--Timely and relevant information on the national and international
science and engineering enterprise.
Activities in the themes of Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence
(KDI) Life and Earth's Environment (LEE) and Educating for the Future
(EFF), like all of NSF's efforts, are aimed directly at these goals.
In the early Spring 1996, the Director, Deputy Director and NSF
senior managers met for two days. The purpose of these intense sessions
was to identify and establish the research priorities for the fiscal
year 1998 budget request, as well as future budget requests. The focus
of the discussion was on which areas of science and engineering were
truly on the verge of major discoveries. During these two days each
Assistant Director took turns presenting the emerging opportunities
within their disciplines that warranted greater emphasis in NSF's
funding strategy. From these discussions emerged areas such as
``knowledge networks.'' ``human-centered computer systems,''
``intelligent manufacturing,'' complex biological and human systems,
complex modeling, data mining and learning and cognition, which
eventually came under the umbrella of KDI. LEE emerged from a larger
discussion on the environment and the scientific quest for
understanding the interaction of physical, biological and human
activities. EFF reflects NSF's strong emphasis on integration of
research and education and our systemic approach to K-12 mathematics
and science education.
The themes reflect the Foundation's mission to support basic
science and engineering research, and to promote science and
engineering education at all levels. The activities supported under
these themes are integrated into programs across the Foundation and
provide a solid framework for the Foundation's investment strategy.
Many of today's most promising discoveries are made at the intersection
of different disciplines, as is reflected in these themes. We expect
these cross disciplinary efforts to provide a foundation for enhanced
collaboration and new approaches to the conduct of research and
education that will benefit all NSF programs.
In addition, the Foundation intends to make significant investments
in other Foundation-wide efforts that we believe are important elements
in the support of research and education. These efforts include such
activities as Arctic Research and Education, Major Research
Instrumentation and Plant Genome Research.
Question. How will setting up this year's budget in themes help you
capitalize on opportunities in research and education and what are the
benefits to society?
Answer. Because activities organized under these three themes,
Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), Life and Earth's
Environment (LEE) and Educating for the Future (EFF), are thoroughly
integrated into programs across the Foundation, we expect the enhanced
efforts within these themes will strengthen all of NSF programs, and
provide a foundation for enhanced collaboration and new approaches to
the conduct of research and education.
NSF expects that investments made within the themes will have long-
term significant benefits for society. Basic research is the driver of
progress in many industries--for example, communications, electronics,
and materials manufacturing--and over the longer term, contributes in a
variety of ways to economic competitiveness and quality of life.
NSF expects its investment in KDI to have a substantial impact on
how we learn, work, and create. For instance, many of the tools and
techniques developed through research supported under the theme of KDI
should have broad application in education, business, and industry.
Examples include tools that enable users to search huge depositories of
data for critical pieces of information; techniques for transforming a
stream of data into a visual format; methods for simulating behaviors
of complex systems from minimal amounts of data; and libraries in
digital form and networks that enable all people to access them
wherever they may be. All have obvious relevance beyond the realm of
basic research. Indeed, many KDI projects involve collaborations
between basic researchers and industrial or educational partners.
Much of the research supported under KDI also speaks directly to
near-term societal needs, issues, and opportunities related to the
information revolution. For example, among the topics currently
emphasized in the KDI initiative are:
--Enhancing the accessibility and utility of on-line information
(e.g., data-mining techniques, access for persons with
disabilities);
--Ethical, social, political, legal and economic implications of the
information revolution (e.g., privacy, confidentiality,
reliability of data; disparities among racial, ethnic, and
cultural groups in use of and benefit from information
technologies); and
--Improving education through advances in educational technologies
(e.g., intelligent tutors), and in understanding of learning
processes.
Activities under the theme of LEE are also expected to provide
benefits:
--Research In Engineered Systems may provide benefits in the areas of
hazard mitigation, biological remediation of degraded
ecosystems, impact-reducing closed-cycle manufacturing, and the
development of advanced technology for detection and
monitoring.
--Life In Extreme Environments (LExEn) research may reveal
fundamentally new biochemical systems and associated genetic
forms that may open new doors for bioengineering and industrial
chemistry;
--Global change research deepens our understanding of the planet's
climate, oceans, and polar region, and assists in predicting
long term climate and environmental change; and
--The environmental observatories include simultaneous cross
disciplinary measurement of environmental processes, helping to
identify and mitigate problems like the Hantavirus outbreak in
New Mexico and Pfiesteria-caused fish kills In the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
Over a longer time frame, increased understanding of ecosystems and
human impact on the environment may result in sustainable natural and
engineered systems, stabilization of at-risk species, and a significant
reduction in the loss of biological diversity. Education efforts within
LEE will contribute to increased public awareness of scientific issues
associated with the environment.
The theme of EFF includes a range of programs supporting innovative
approaches to educating our citizens to live and work in a technology
driven society. EFF focuses on developing new knowledge and strategies
to strengthen the teaching and learning of science, engineering,
mathematics, and technology at all grade levels, from kindergarten
through early career development. The expected benefits of EFF include:
--Increased application of learning technologies to K-12 education,
making high quality education more available to all
communities;
--Strategies and models for reform of K-16 education, with special
emphasis on K-8 mathematics. These strategies are expected to
promote enhanced student performance in science, engineering,
mathematics and technology at all levels; and
--Enhanced worker productivity through the development of improved
problem-solving skills and a smoother transition from school to
the workplace.
advanced computing
Question. The four national supercomputer centers under NSF have
undergone a ``re-competition'' phase that has reduced the number of
these centers. Has this change made for a more efficient use of NSF
funding?
Answer. The Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure
(PACI) program, which replaced the NSF Supercomputer Centers program in
fiscal year 1998, has two partnerships--the National Computational
Science Alliance (NCSA) and the National Partnership for Advanced
Computational Infrastructure (NPACI). Each has multiple sites which
provide resources to the national academic science and engineering
community. In NCSA, computing resources at the leading edge site at the
University of Illinois, Urbana, and partners Ohio State, Argonne
National Laboratory and Maui High Performance Computing Center, are
allocated to the user community. At NPACI, the leading edge site at
University of California, San Diego, and partners Caltech, University
of Texas (Austin), University of Michigan and Berkeley provide
resources.
PACI represents a more efficient use of NSF funds, because the
large computers are now concentrated in two locations instead of four.
The resulting savings in operational costs of more than $10 million per
year are being invested in software infrastructure critical to make
effective use of parallel architectures.
Question. What types of research activities are now underway at
these supercomputer center sites?
Answer. Research underway at the Partnerships for Advanced
Computational Infrastructure (PACI) partnerships is supported by NSF
and other agencies. There is considerable work on the computer science
areas of parallel tools, data mining and visualization, as well as on
applications in the areas of physics, chemistry, geophysics, biology,
and engineering. Research problems range from astrophysics and
molecular conformation to environmental modeling.
Question. Would you give us some sense as to how and why the new
supercomputer initiative differs from the previous NSF advanced
scientific computing program?
Answer. The Supercomputer Centers program consisted of four centers
while the new PACI program is a distributed partnership involving about
100 institutions with the two leading edge sites. While provision of
computing resources to the science and engineering research community
is still a primary function, the charter of PACI goes beyond the
Supercomputer Centers program and specifically emphasizes the need for
application of advanced computer science research to improve the
efficiency of utilization of modern parallel computer architectures.
Thus, many of the partner institutions have groups of computer
scientists applying the results of their research to large scale
computation.
PACI also involves two other new components, application
technology, and education, outreach and training (EOT). The members of
the application teams were chosen for their expertise in utilizing
parallel architectures and are tasked with making their techniques
available to a larger community. The EOT program, which is a joint
effort of the two partnerships, responds to the need for additional
human resources in computational science and engineering.
academic infrastructure
Question. Is $50 million for instrumentation sufficient? Does NSF
plan to continue supporting this effort in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Proposal pressure for major research instrumentation awards
has been fairly stable over the life of the program, with approximately
400 to 500 proposals each year. MRI funding rates average about 20
percent. In addition to the MRI program, NSF supports instrumentation
through more than 15 different instrumentation programs Foundation-
wide, as well as through research awards. In fiscal year 1997, funding
for MRI and other instrumentation programs totaled more than $200
million.
NSF expects to continue to support the Major Research
Instrumentation Program in fiscal year 2000.
government performance and results act
Question. How do you go about assessing research progress in a
realistic or meaningful way if your main objective is to support
discoveries at and across the frontiers of science?
Answer. The objective to support discoveries at and across the
frontiers of science is one of a set of outcome goals that NSF has
established to guide its investment decisions and assessment processes.
As described in NSF's fiscal year 1999 GPRA Strategic and Performance
Plans, NSF will rely on external panels of experts to apply their
experience and judgment in assessing the progress of NSF-supported
research and education activities. These assessments will use a
qualitative approach in determining the progress in all areas of
research investments and will allow for a long time horizon for
research results to be reported and captured for assessment. These
assessments in turn will help NSF's staff of scientists, engineers, and
educators to strengthen the agency's investment portfolio.
In addressing research results, NSF took advantage of the GPRA
provision for an alternate, qualitative format for performance goals.
In spite of the rather unusual character of the resulting GPRA
strategic and performance plans, they have been ranked highly by
responsible Congressional staff, ranking third and seventh,
respectively, among the twenty-four agencies ranked.
Question. What efforts are underway now that the performance plans
have been issued by all agencies, to assess coordination of annual
efforts in such crosscutting issues as global change, computer
networking and education and training technologies?
How are you addressing crosscutting factors such as budget cuts by
other funding organizations?
Answer. The four areas listed are all under consideration by
interagency working groups (IWG's) established under the auspices of
the National Science and Technology Council. These IWG's establish the
objectives of such cross-cutting interagency programs and consider the
appropriate role for participating agencies. They are now turning their
attention to issues more directly linked to performance as well. They
will need to consider how to modify performance goals in cases where
one or more agency is not able to make planned contributions. For other
areas, NSF is in constant dialogue at the staff level with various
agencies that have crosscutting issues. NSF relies heavily on its merit
review system to continue to support the most advantageous research
opportunities for the country. NSF is aware of budget cuts at other
agencies and considers how these cuts will affect Foundation programs.
nsf-nasa coordination/planning for origins
Question. Have the NSF and NASA efforts in Astronomy been
coordinated to prevent duplicative efforts? How has this coordination
taken place and who is or was involved.
Answer. Federal support for astronomical research is provided
primarily by NSF and NASA. NSF supports ground-based research, while
NASA supports space-based investigations. NSF and NASA have jointly
supported a number of research activities, particularly in the area of
planetary astronomy, and staff from the two agencies meet as needed to
ensure coordination of research support to avoid unnecessary
duplication. During the past few years, the two agencies have jointly
supported activities on Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Comet Hyakutake, Comet
Hale-Bopp, the ``Origins'' initiative, and currently, in comparative
investigations of planetary atmospheres. In the case of the cometary
and planetary atmospheres initiatives, NSF and NASA carried out joint
solicitations for proposals as well as joint reviews to ensure the
coordination of ground-based and space-based research.
With respect to ``Origins,'' there has been active contact and
cooperation between the two agencies. Because NASA's ``Origins''
program pre-dated NSF's activities in this area, NASA generally takes
the lead in ensuring coordination for origins research. NSF and NASA
have jointly supported a number of ``Origins'' activities, and staff
from the two agencies meet as needed to ensure coordination of research
support to avoid unnecessary duplication. NSF staff take the initiative
to ensure coordination when new NSF initiatives have the potential to
overlap with activities supported by NASA.
NSF requires that investigators who submit proposals indicate
whether the proposal has been submitted to another agency. If this is
so, NSF Program Directors contact their sister-agency counterparts to
ensure that there is no duplication of effort. Further, NSF Program
Directors are often asked to serve on NASA advisory and review groups,
and a complementary situation exists for NASA Program Directors. This
serves as another means to ensure that Program Directors remain current
about activities at both agencies. Finally, NSF staff periodically
attend administrative meetings at NASA (and vice-versa) in order to
ensure coordination of efforts without duplication.
Question. Does NSF's outyear planning estimates for the Math and
Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate assume any funding in optical
astronomy for the Origins Initiative over and above the base funding
for astronomy? If so, please explain? If not, please advise the
Committee on why this has been given a relatively lower priority
relative to other NSF programs, particularly with MPS.
Answer. Outyear planning within the MPS Directorate does assume
funding in optical astronomy for the ``Origins'' Initiative over and
above the base funding provided for astronomy. Indeed, such planning
has been highlighted in the MPS budget submission for fiscal year 1999
and extends well beyond the area of optical astronomy. Within
astronomy, support for the operations of the Gemini Observatories and
for NSF's interdisciplinary studies of ``Life in Extreme Environments''
will contribute to the advance of origins research. Further, a primary
goal of ``Origins'' is the detection of planets around other stars, and
MPS is particularly interested in fostering and supporting the
development of new techniques in high resolution optics, as they are
fundamental to the detection of other planetary systems. For example,
within the Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation program, funding
above the base level will be provided for adaptive optics and for
optical/infrared interferometry at university and national optical
observatories.
programs for underrepresented groups
Question. What is the status of the minority education programs
funded last year off the ground?
Answer. A special initiative for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU's) was begun in fiscal year 1998. This activity
places particular emphasis on innovative strategies (e.g., strengthened
research infrastructure and research-based education) with potential
for significantly increasing baccalaureate and doctoral degree
production in science, engineering, and mathematics by underrepresented
minorities. The initiative is funded at $6 million. Three awards are
anticipated in fiscal year 1998 at a level of up to $2 million each for
a duration of three years. The program guidelines were distributed on
April 2, 1998, with a deadline of June 15, 1998 for receipt of
proposals (14 proposals have been received). The evaluation process for
the most meritorious HBCU proposals is now occurring.
Another minority education activity that was initiated in fiscal
year 1998 is the Minority Graduate Education (MGE) program. The MGE
program seeks to significantly increase the number of African American,
Hispanic, and Native American students receiving doctoral degrees in
the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (SME). The lack of role
models and mentors in the professoriate constitutes a significant
barrier to producing minority SME graduates, and NSF is particularly
interested in increasing the number of minorities who will enter the
professoriate in these disciplines. For fiscal year 1998, the program
is funded at $5 million, and it is expected that up to eight MGE awards
will be made at $500,000 annually, with duration of up to five years.
Proposals must be submitted by July 15, 1998. In addition, up to ten
supplements will be made to Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP)
projects for development and/or enhancement of activities that will
support achievement of MGE program goals.
Question. What is driving your decision to flat-fund your minority
research programs?
Answer. Minority institutions participate in programs across NSF,
not just in ``minority research programs.'' NSF continually seeks out
opportunities to increase their involvement. For example, one major NSF
activity focusing on minority research programs is the Centers of
Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST). In fiscal year
1998, CREST continues activities in 12 Centers, with a competition for
those completing their awards. While the CREST projects are making
significant achievement in this arena, it is the intent of the NSF to
provide more research support to minority-serving institutions from the
formation of collaborations between CREST and the NSF-supported Science
and Technology Centers (STC's), Engineering Research Centers (ERC's)
and Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC's).
Although the funding level of CREST is flat, the process of providing
additional collaborative research dollars to these projects from other
research programs at NSF has been achieved. In fiscal year 1998, NSF
initiated a new, cross-directorate effort, Collaboratives to Integrate
Research and Education (CIRE), to establish long-term research and
education relationships between minority-serving institutions and NSF-
supported facilities and centers. In addition, the Historically Black
College and University (HBCU) initiative begun in fiscal year 1998
focuses on research infrastructure at HBCU's as well as faculty and
student research experiences.
Question. Describe what plans and benchmarks NSF has in place to
increase the number of women and minorities in the science and
engineering field?
Answer. All NSF programs respond to the need for increasing
participation of underrepresented groups (i.e., women and minorities)
in science and engineering. Major programming efforts specifically
targeted on women include: the Program for Women and Girls (PWG);
Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education (POWRE)
program; and graduate fellowships for women in engineering and the
computer sciences. The overarching approach to these program activities
involves setting quantitative goals and objectives, and providing
comprehensive strategies across all educational levels--precollege,
undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate. Staff for the PWG program
are currently working to establish quantitative benchmarks for women
and girls. While PWG affects more than 17,000 girls annually, there has
not been enough time to do a longitudinal study on how many of these
participants choose science and engineering careers, and how many go on
to college in these disciplines. However, PWG is now undergoing an
evaluation by an external contractor, and we should have answers to
several benchmark issues from that study.
For minorities, the Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP)
program is the major program activity for increasing baccalaureate
graduation rates among minorities and, hence, to increase the size of
the pool of interested and academically qualified minority students
eligible for graduate study in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology (SMET). AMP projects are now producing annually over 18,000
minority students who earn baccalaureate degrees in SMET fields. By the
year 2000, the program expects an increase in SMET degree production to
over 21,000 graduates. At the turn of the century, it is anticipated
that educational improvements supported by AMP will enhance SMET course
opportunities for nearly 200,000 students per year. At the graduate
level, the new Minority Graduate Education (MGE) program, instituted in
fiscal year 1998, seeks to significantly increase the number of African
American, Hispanic, and Native American students receiving doctoral
degrees in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. A longitudinal
study, as well as indicator development related to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GRPA), is being designed as part of the
MGE evaluation effort.
NSF also supports efforts to improve the research infrastructure of
post-secondary institutions through the Centers of Research Excellence
in Science and Technology (CREST) program and the new Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) initiative. Programs such as
CREST and HBCU can increase the likelihood that minority students will
successfully complete undergraduate and graduate education, and pursue
careers in SMET fields. As part of NSF's activities under GPRA, the
agency will measure the impact on recruitment, retention and graduation
rates.
Question. Could NSF expand the partnerships to develop resource
linkages designed to promote and develop opportunities for women and
minorities in the science and engineering fields? (i.e., partnerships
with other federal agencies, state and local governments,
universities).
Answer. The NSF views partnering as an integral component for
successful projects in a number of programs for underrepresented
groups. Partnerships among project collaborators are a serious
component to all awards for underrepresented groups in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) fields. Principal
Investigators are required, for example, in programs such as the
Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP) and the Comprehensive
Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) to reach
out and establish linkages with universities, local and/or state
governmental agencies, community groups, etc. in order to leverage
resources for a successful intervention strategy.
For minorities, NSF has an on-going partnership with the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). This partnership was established through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies. NSF and NIH
combine resources to support an effort at forging collaborations
between school districts with significant minority enrollments and
colleges and universities in order to do research on teaching and
learning. Under the auspices of the NSF-NIH MOU, there are 12 Centers
of Excellence in Research, Teaching, and Learning (CERTL) projects that
are connected to the CPMSA effort. Plans are underway to determine what
other program activities would complement this particular effort. In
addition to NIH, other partnering federal agencies include the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of
Education.
k-12 student achievement
Question. What causes U.S. students to score lower than their
foreign peers on science tests?
Answer. The 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) reported student test scores in both mathematics and science
for grades 3-4 and 7-8. At grade 12, scores were reported for general
students and physics students. At the lower grades, science scores of
U.S. students were among the highest in the world. In middle school
grades, science scores were about average for the 41 participating
countries. At the high school level, however, science scores were among
the lowest in the world of the 16 countries that completed the study at
that grade. There is some evidence as to the reasons for the drop-off
in performance from the study of curriculum materials conducted by
William Schmidt of Michigan State University in conjunction with the
TIMSS testing. Although U.S. students begin their schooling with higher
levels of knowledge in science, their weak performance at the high
school level relative to their foreign peers might be due to an
unfocused middle school science curriculum and less high school science
study. A diffuse science and mathematics curriculum beyond the
elementary level reduces their relative advantage as they proceed
through the system. We will have a clearer measure of what happens
between elementary and middle school when the TIMSS study is repeated
for the 8th grade in 1999.
Question. We thought that NSF programs over the last ten years
would help our students learn better about math and science. What is
wrong with NSF's and other agencies' science education programs if they
don't help our students learn better and perform at higher standards?
Answer. We believe that NSF programs and those of other Federal
agencies, working together with state and local educational
organizations, are having a positive effect. U.S. students are
performing at higher standards today than they were 10 years ago. The
change is slow but is occurring at faster rates in some parts of the
country than others. Test scores for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in the past 10 years have shown general
increases for much of the population in science and mathematics. Recent
state-by-state test scores in mathematics have shown especially
significant increases in states such as Texas, Connecticut, North
Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, and Hawaii. Bringing together the
ingredients for improved achievement by our students is a lengthy
process. As a start, we need agreement on high standards for what
students should know and be able to do; instructional materials that
reflect those standards; and teachers who have the subject mastery and
pedagogical skills to teach effectively. We also need supportive school
systems and assessment processes that incorporate standards.
NSF programs help put these necessary elements of improved
achievement in place. For example, in the early 1990's we supported
development of instructional materials in mathematics and science, with
a focus on the early grades. Those materials, after extensive field
testing that established their potential to improve performance, have
now reached many schools and students. Middle school and secondary
materials are in process, and gradually finding their way into schools.
NSF has coupled this with teacher enhancement and attention to system-
wide issues that affect performance.
Both the TIMSS results and third-party evaluation of NSF programs
show the greatest improvements in student achievement at the early
grades. The accumulated deficits of prior schooling, make it more
difficult to make significant gains at the secondary level. We believe
that the planned TIMSS testing of 8th grade students in 1999 will give
us better information on whether the gains made in the primary years
can be sustained through the middle schools.
Question. What programs are in place in NSF to address the need for
improvement as shown by the results of TIMSS.
Answer. For the most part, the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) confirms results of tests from the 1960's and
1980's--U.S. students are not among the top performers in mathematics
and science achievement. Tests that track student achievement over time
indicate, however, that U.S. student performance has improved. For
example, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), a test
constructed for the U.S. Department of Education (DoED), has shown
improvements in mathematics performance over the last two decades.
These changes, however, are not large enough to improve radically our
ranking vis a vis other countries.
An NSF-supported analysis of science and mathematics curricula,
which was designed to help explain TIMSS results, found that U.S.
textbooks cover many more topics and fail to have the coherence and
depth of coverage that characterize texts used by high performing
nations. U.S. performance also suffers, in part, from low expectations
for the vast majority of our students and from the general belief that
science and mathematics are only for the gifted. Relevant scientific,
mathematics, and related education communities developed the national
mathematics and science standards under the auspices of the National
Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), respectively. These standards should help in both
regards, providing guidelines to states and localities on what children
should know and be able to do at various grade levels.
Over the past eight years, NSF has placed significant emphasis on
developing inquiry-based, K-12 science and mathematics instructional
materials that are aligned with standards and that hold promise for
significantly improving classroom instruction. The published materials
are now available for widespread use at all grade levels. Student
achievement data from field test sites and from those NSF systemic
reform projects that are implementing these materials demonstrate the
potential of these materials for improving performance of all students.
This potential can only be realized, however, if the materials are
accompanied by strengthened content and pedagogical training of
teachers (both pre- and in-service). Moreover, because student
assessments signal what is a valued learning experience, high stakes
tests must be aligned with the standards embodied in such materials.
Education programs, grades K-12, promote development and implementation
of systemwide education reform and standards-based instructional
materials and related performance-based assessments, as well as
effective models of systemwide education reform, professional
development, and innovative applications of instructional technologies.
Question. Do you feel the need to restructure any of your existing
efforts, especially at the precollege level?
Answer. K-12 education poses an enormous challenge to the nation.
While primary responsibility rests with states and localities, the
entire Federal investment-representing roughly seven percent of total
K-12 funding-can have a significant effect on the enterprise. The
Foundation has viewed its role in K-12 science and mathematics
education as one of providing vision; leadership; resources (e.g.,
curricula, instructional materials); effective strategies for systemic
reform, teacher professional development, applications of learning
technologies; and research on teaching and learning. The joint
challenges posed to the Nation by the TIMSS results, and to Federal
agencies by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
fiscal realities, have indeed caused us to look at our comprehensive
set of program activities. We are currently in the process of assessing
program priorities in light of new challenges and emerging
opportunities.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Bond. I apologize, but because of the voting
schedule, we are going to have to recess the hearing. But our
thanks to all of you. We look forward to working with you. And
we wish you the best.
And thank you for your service, Dr. Zare. Thanks for what
you have done in your previous job. Best wishes.
And, to you, Dr. Lane, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Clutter, thank
you very much.
The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Thursday, May 7, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Prepared Statement of Bruce Delaney, Mayor, City of Gainesville, FL
the sweetwater branch/paynes prairie stormwater project
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations bill, in order to assist our efforts to
protect the Florida aquifer from stormwater runoff. In particular, we
are hopeful that the Subcommittee will provide the City with $2 million
as an EPA Special Assistance Grant.
In Gainesville, the Sweetwater Branch basin contains approximately
1,710 acres and is located in the southeast central portion of the
City. The outfall from this basin discharges into Paynes Prairie, a
state owned preserve and park system, which eventually flows into the
Alachua Sink, a natural sink hole that drains directly into the Florida
aquifer. This aquifer provides the majority of drinking water to
Florida's residents and has a direct impact on Florida Everglades.
The Sweetwater Branch drainage basin contains urban, commercial,
industrial, and residential area stormwater runoff. Because the branch
runs through some of the oldest portions of Gainesville, most
stormwater runoff is directly discharged into the Branch with very
little flooding or pollution removal treatment. The runoff has the
potential to affect threatened and endangered wildlife such as the Bald
Eagle, the Woodstork, the Florida Sandhill Crane, and the Southeastern
American Kestrel. In addition, many domestic water wells are used to
obtain water from surficial and intermediate aquifers in the area. In
summary, the situation has created a concern among environmentalists,
business leaders, and concerned citizens throughout the region that
Paynes Prairie and the Florida aquifer are being compromised.
With this in mind, the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, St.
Johns River Water Management District, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and local citizens are all seeking a
comprehensive ecosystem management solution to the problem of
stormwater runoff from downtown entering Sweetwater Branch, Paynes
Prairie, and the Alachua Sink. The project devised by these groups
would reduce or eliminate the sediment, debris, nutrients and general
pollutants currently being discharged. Current projections are that the
project would consist of the following three components: the purchase
of undeveloped property in the vicinity of State Road 331 and
Sweetwater Branch; the construction of maintainable sediment and debris
removal systems; and the construction of maintainable nutrient removal
systems.
An in-depth engineering analysis of the creek system, property
topography, associated wetlands, and other pertinent factors is needed
to determine the optimum and appropriate scope of property purchase and
facilities construction. The City is prepared to pay some of the cost
for this analysis, but we are simply unable to bear the entire burden.
As a result, we request that the Subcommittee appropriate $2 million as
an EPA Special Assistance Grant to assist our efforts. Once the project
construction is complete, Gainesville Stormwater Management Utility, a
public utility, would provide the required annual maintenance for the
facility and no federal maintenance funds would be needed.
This is a critical and much needed project for the City of
Gainesville, as well as the entire State of Florida, and we
respectfully ask the Subcommittee for its consideration of the
Sweetwater Branch/Paynes Prairie Stormwater Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The City of Miami
Beach would first like to thank the subcommittee for all its diligent
efforts throughout the past to assist local governments in need. Now,
as you begin the long and tedious process of crafting the fiscal year
1998 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill, the City of
Miami Beach would like to request the subcommittee's assistance with
regards to an important initiative: The Miami Beach Waterway
Revitalization Project.
The City of Miami Beach exists as a cluster of barrier islands,
with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Biscayne Bay Marine Estuary
on the other. This six mile long chain of islands is subdivided by 39
miles of canals and waterways. Just after the turn of the century,
these natural waterways were ``improved'' by dredging and the
construction of seawalls to improve navigation and to stabilize the
shorelines.
Over the years, these once pristine waterways have fallen into
decline. The waterway improvements so altered the shoreline ecosystem
that the mangroves and other native plants have died-out or been
overgrown by nuisance species. The steel and concrete seawalls have
crumbled and collapsed.
The loss of native plant communities and the failure of the
seawalls has resulted in substantial erosion of the shorelines. The
shoreline erosion has undercut roadways and public and private
structures. The erosion also transported tens of thousands of tons of
sand and topsoil into the waterways.
Silt and sediment from the eroding shorelines have smothered
benthic communities and clouded the water. In addition, the eroded
shorelines allow rain water run-off to wash nutrients, agricultural
chemicals and other pollutants into the waterways.
These water quality and ecosystem impacts have driven away or
killed-off the manatees, porpoises, bait fish and gamefish populations
which used to be in abundance. The loss of the native wetland plant
communities from along the shorelines has also substantially reduced
the available habitat for many key bird, reptile and animal species,
including many migratory birds which utilize our area as winter nesting
grounds.
Through the Miami Beach Waterway Revitalization Project, the City
of Miami Beach proposes to address the shoreline erosion problem in a
truly innovative and environmentally beneficial manner. The City plans
to replace the crumbling concrete and steel seawalls with an innovative
``living seawall''. This would entail the demolition of the damaged
seawalls and the construction of a new wall comprised of carefully
intermeshed boulders of different sizes. The slope and elevation of the
new boulder walls will be designed to closely mimic the natural tidal
creek shorelines which pre-existed the seawalls. The eroded shoreline
areas behind the new boulder walls will be refilled with rich topsoil
and the entire shoreline will be replanted with native plant species.
Over time, the native plantings will anchor the shoreline and
prevent erosion. These shoreline areas will also become a buffer zone
protecting the waterways from rainwater run-off and wind blown litter
and sediment. The enhanced shorelines will also provide significant new
wetland habitat for local and migratory wildlife. As the flow of silt,
sediment and polluted run-off are curtailed, and as the shoreline
communities recover, water quality within the waterways will be
restored and affected marine life will recover.
Finally, the City of Miami Beach will complete the project with the
development of an Urban Preserve Program to educate residents and
visitors about the importance of marine wetlands, the need for
continued enhancement, restoration and protection of these areas and to
promote the sustainable beneficial use of our marine resources.
The City of Miami Beach requests $2.5 million from the subcommittee
to begin this important initiative.
______
Prepared Statement of Terrence J. O'Brien, President, Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Great Chicago
I am Terrence J. O'Brien, President of the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, and on behalf of the Water
Reclamation District, I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priority for fiscal year 1999, and express
our appreciation for your support of our requests over the years. The
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) is the sponsor for the
federally approved combined sewer overflow (CSO) project, the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan (TARP), in Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, we are
asking that $10 million be included to continue construction of this
project in the Subcommittee's VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. The following outlines the
project and the need for the requested funding.
introduction
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District was established in 1889
and has the responsibility for sewage treatment, and is also the lead
agency in providing sponsorship for flood control and stormwater
management in Cook County, Illinois. In fact, the District was
established in response to an epidemic which killed 90,000 people in
1885. By 1900, the District had reversed the flows of the Chicago and
Calumet Rivers to carry combined sewage away from Lake Michigan, the
area's main water supply. The District has been involved with major
engineering feats since its inception.
In an effort to meet the water quality goals of the Clean Water
Act, to prevent backflows into Lake Michigan, and to provide an outlet
for flood waters, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago designed the innovative Tunnel and Reservoir Plan. The
TARP tunnels, which were judged by the EPA on two occasions as the most
cost-effective plan available to meet the enforceable provisions of the
Clean Water Act, are a combined sewer overflow elimination system. The
TARP reservoirs, also under construction, will provide flood control
relief to hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses in the
Chicagoland area.
tunnel and reservoir plan
TARP is an intricate system of drop shafts, tunnels and pumping
stations which will capture combined sewer overflows from a service
area of 375 square miles. Chicago will remove three times the amount of
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) pollution as Boston's projected removal--
for approximately the same cost. The remaining Calumet tunnel system
will provide 3.1 million pounds of biological oxygen demand (BOD)
removal versus Boston's one million pounds of BOD removal per year. In
fact, Chicago's CSO pollution problems are worse than the combination
of Boston, New York, and San Francisco's pollution problems. The
Chicago Metropolitan Area's annual BOD loading is 43 million pounds per
year. This contrasts with the combination of Boston, New York and San
Francisco's combined annual BOD loading of 35 million pounds.
A good portion of the remainder of the TARP system is to be built
in the southeast side of Chicago and the southern suburbs (Calumet
system), a low-income, highly neglected and highly polluted area. This
community suffers from tremendous land, air and water pollution--
literally a dumping ground for multi-media pollution ranging from
chemical waste to serious water pollution.
Due to the enormous risk to the community, the Water Reclamation
District, as the local sponsor, cannot afford to leave the citizens
vulnerable. Therefore, it is imperative that this work must continue.
Because the construction industry is already doing work in the area,
the climate is favorable for proceeding with this work at this time,
producing a significant cost savings. What we are seeking, then, is
funding to advance federal work.
We have a proven and cost-effective program. In fact, we have
estimated that TARP's cost is about a quarter of the cost of separating
the area's existing combined sewer systems into separate sewage and
stormwater systems. Upon reanalysis, the EPA has consistently found the
TARP program to be the most cost-effective solution that will reduce
the impacts by the greatest degree to meet the enforceable requirements
of the Act, with the least amount of dollars. The project, while
relating most specifically to the 52 tributary municipalities in
northeastern Illinois, is also beneficial to our downstream communities
such as Joliet and Peoria. These benefits occur because of the capture
of wastewater in the tunnels during storm periods and by treatment of
the discharge before being released into the waterways.
TARP was designed to give the Chicago metropolitan area the optimal
environmental protection that could possibly be provided. More
importantly, no other project was found to be as cost effective. In
addition, the beneficial use of the project is being enhanced by the
addition of the flood control reservoirs now being designed and
constructed by the Corps of Engineers, which will be connected to the
tunnels for additional capture and storage of combined sewage during
flood events. We believe TARP stands as a tribute to our nation's Clean
Water goals and one that is being accomplished within the most
economical constraints.
requested action
The $10 million we are seeking in fiscal year 1999 funding in the
Subcommittee's bill will help keep the local sponsor whole for the
advance construction it plans to accomplish on the Torrence Avenue Leg
for the Calumet System of the congressionally-authorized TARP project.
While the TARP project was originally authorized at 75 percent federal
funding, the District as local sponsor has been contributing at least
50 percent of the total project cost. We greatly appreciate the
Subcommittee's endorsement of our request over the years to advance the
construction of this work. This fiscal year 1999 work will go a long
way to address serious water quality, stormwater and safety problems.
It will have a tremendously beneficial impact on a community which
suffers from water pollution and significant flooding problems. The
facilities plan for the overall TARP project has been approved by the
EPA and design has been completed. The EPA has identified this
particular segment of work as the next critical section of the plan to
be constructed based on significant water quality benefits.
Once on-line, the Torrence Avenue Leg of the Calumet System will
capture 2.0 billion gallons of CSO's per year and will protect 15.6
square miles of the City of Chicago from raw sewage backup and
flooding.
We urgently request that this funding be included in the
Subcommittee's bill for the construction of the Calumet System of the
TARP project. We thank you in advance for your consideration of our
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the service
organization representing the interests of the more than 2,000
municipal and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the
United States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric
energy to one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 35 million
people) serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of
APPA's member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities
in every state except Hawaii. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
this statement concerning fiscal year 1999 appropriations for programs
under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
I. Climate Change Action Plan Voluntary Partnership Programs
APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request
of $231 million for Climate Change Action Plan programs operated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These partnerships emphasize
cost-effective measures to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions in order to return them to 1990 levels. Through voluntary
agreements, public power and other electric utilities have committed to
reducing emissions by over 43 million metric tons of carbon equivalent
in the year 2000. In addition to demonstrating that important
environmental objectives can be achieved through voluntary efforts,
these EPA programs contribute to a stronger U.S. position in
international climate change negotiations. Of particular interest to
APPA member systems are the Green Lights, Energy Star and Landfill
Methane Outreach programs operated by EPA.
green lights program
The Green Lights program encourages use of energy efficient
lighting to reduce energy costs, increase productivity, promote
customer retention and protect the environment. Program partners agree
to survey lighting in their facilities and to upgrade it, if cost
effective. Environmental benefits result from more efficient energy use
and from reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide, thus improving air quality. EPA provides program
participants public recognition and technical support. Both large and
small APPA member systems participate in this program including City
Utilities of Springfield, MO; Concord Municipal Light Plant, MA; City
of Georgetown, TX; Grant County Public Utility District, WA; Gray's
Harbor County PUD, WA; Greenville Utilities Commission, NC; Indiana
Municipal Power Authority, IN; Los Angeles Department of Water & Power,
CA; Mason County PUD, WA; New York Power Authority, NY; Norwood
Municipal Light Department, MA; Omaha Public Power District, NE;
Orlando Utilities Commission, FL; Port Angeles City Light Department,
WA; Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, PR; Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, CA; City of St. Charles Electric Utility, IL; Salt
River Project, AZ; Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority, VI;
Springfield Utility Board, OR, and Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant,
MA.
energy star programs
A number of EPA's Energy Star programs build on the successes of
Green Lights. These important EPA programs are examples of successful
public/nonpublic partnerships that promote the use of profitable,
energy-efficient technologies as a way to increase profits and
competitiveness while at the same time minimizing pollution. They
include Energy Star Buildings, the Energy Star Transformer Program,
Energy Star office equipment and the Residential Energy Star Program.
APPA member systems participate in and support EPA's Energy Star
efforts.
landfill methane outreach program
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program provides environmental
benefits by encouraging utilities to make use of landfill gas as an
energy source. Several APPA member systems participate in this program,
including Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, IL; Jacksonville Electric
Authority, FL; Emerald People's Utility District, OR; Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, CA, and Orlando Utilities Commission,
FL. Utilities voluntarily agree to take advantage of the best
opportunities to use landfill gas in generating power. EPA recognizes
and publicizes the utility's efforts and provides technical assistance.
One of the success stories cited by EPA occurred with APPA member
system Emerald People's Utility District in Eugene, OR. This public
power utility worked collaboratively with the State of Oregon, Lane
County officials and a private investment company to develop a 3.4 MW
plant at the Short Mountain Landfill. EPUD's general manager says
landfill energy recovery is like ``turning straw into gold,'' providing
additional revenue to EPUD as well as a fee to the county.
II. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request
of $3,020,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). As units
of local government APPA member utilities have a unique perspective on
environmental regulation. Public power utilities and others from
industry have experienced a general lack of consistency in federal
environmental regulation. While additional layers of government should
be avoided, a central overseer can perform a valuable function in
preventing duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent regulations. The
council is responsible for ensuring that federal agencies perform their
tasks in an efficient and coordinated manner. For these reasons, APPA
supports the existence and continued operation of CEQ.
III. Superfund
APPA member systems also support the Administration's request of
$1,442.7 million for Superfund cleanups. The Superfund Trust Fund as
well as Superfund research programs are critical as we consider
reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the law authorizing Superfund.
The increased emphasis on expedited settlements and administrative
relief, the Brownfields Initiative and more effective use of
alternative dispute resolution by EPA are worthy goals.
Again, APPA member systems appreciate your consideration of our
views on priority appropriations issues for fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe L. Mauderly, Senior Scientist and Director of
External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
It is requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
continue to support the National Environmental Respiratory Center for
the purpose of providing information, conducting research, providing
research resources, and facilitating communication concerning the
respiratory health risks of combined exposures to multiple air
pollutants and pollutant mixtures. Funds for the Center are requested
in the fiscal year 1999 EPA appropriation.
status of the national environmental respiratory center
The National Environmental Respiratory Center was established
through the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriation. The mission of the
Center is to catalyze, facilitate, and participate in a long-range
national initiative to understand respiratory health risks from
combinations of inhaled airborne environmental and occupational
pollutants. The Center's goal is to help place the respiratory health
risks from variable, mixed pollutant atmospheres in their appropriate
context as a basis for regulatory and technological decision making.
The Center is operated by the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is located in the government-owned, now
privatized, Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute facility, which is
leased by Lovelace.
The establishment of the Center is well underway at the midpoint of
its first year. The infrastructure of the Center has been developed,
and the information resources are under development. Agencies, health
advocacy organizations, industry stakeholders and their trade
associations are being briefed on the Center and their support is being
enlisted to fulfill the Center's intent as an interagency, government-
industry initiative. Selection of the initial series of specific
research projects is underway, and research will be initiated in this
fiscal year. The goals of the Center and its research resources are
being communicated to the scientific community, and collaborative
projects are under development. A budget and plan of work has been
prepared for the second year, the funding for which is being requested
in this testimony.
the center is needed to resolve critical uncertainties about the
relationship between air pollutants and health
The U.S. has a huge burden of respiratory disease
Respiratory diseases kill one out of four Americans. Among cancers,
the second leading cause of death, lung cancer is the single largest
killer. Nearly 195 thousand new cases of respiratory tract cancer will
be diagnosed this year, and 166 thousand Americans will die from these
cancers. Lung cancer kills more than twice as many women as breast
cancer, and more than twice as many men as prostate cancer. Pneumonia
and heart-lung failure are the terminal conditions for many of our
elderly. Excluding cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and pneumonia
are the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing over 188
thousand Americans in 1995. Asthma, growing unaccountably in recent
decades, now afflicts 15 million Americans, including 5 million
children. The incidence of asthma increased 61 percent between 1982 and
1994, and asthma deaths among children nearly doubled between 1980 and
1993. Viral respiratory infections are the most common cause of
hospitalization of infants and cause a tremendous loss of productivity
in the adult workforce. Occupational lung disease is the number one
work-related illness in the U.S. in terms of frequency, severity, and
degree of ``preventability''. Worldwide, three times more people die
from tuberculosis than from AIDS.
The contributions of air pollution and occupational air contaminants
are uncertain
Pollutants inhaled in the environment, workplace, and home are
known to aggravate asthma and contribute to respiratory illness, but
the extent of their role in causing respiratory disease is not clear.
It is known that it is possible for airborne irritants, toxins,
allergens, carcinogens, and infectious agents to cause cancer,
degenerative disease, and infections directly, or indirectly through
reduction of normal defenses, but the portion of such diseases caused
by, or strongly influenced by, pollution is uncertain.
EPA and other agencies are faced with estimating the health effects
of air contaminants on the basis of very limited information and in the
presence of large uncertainty. It is difficult to associate health
effects with specific pollutant sources. Most environmental air
contaminants have multiple sources which produce species of
overlapping, but slightly different physical-chemical types. There are
few biological markers of exposure which can be used to link health
effects to past exposures to pollutant classes, much less to specific
pollutants and sources. This makes it very difficult to associate
specific pollutant species with specific health effects, identify and
prioritize the sources whose management would most efficiently reduce
the effects, and compare potential health gains to the financial,
technological, and lifestyle commitments required to achieve them.
Estimating the effects of combined exposures to pollutant mixtures is
an especially critical problem
EPA faces the critical problem of having little scientific or
regulatory ability to deal with pollutant mixtures. Nobody ever
breathed only one pollutant at a time! Although all exposures to air
pollutants involve inhalation of complex mixtures of materials, but
there is very little research on the health effects of mixtures, or the
significance of interactions among combined or sequential exposures to
multiple pollutants. The present approach to implementing the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) addresses individual
contaminants, or contaminant classes, in isolation. There is little
framework for considering the effects of pollutant mixtures, and little
ongoing research that will provide a basis for such a framework. We
know that multiple pollutants can cause common effects, such as
inflammation. We know that some pollutants can amplify the effects of
others. We can presume that a mixture of pollutants, each within its
acceptable concentration, could present an unacceptable aggregate
health risk. We face the possibility, exemplified by current
uncertainties about particulate matter, that a pollutant occurring in a
mixture might wrongly be assigned sole responsibility for a health
effect that, in fact, results from the mixture or an unrecognized
copollutant that varies in concert with the accused species. This issue
will become increasingly important as pollutant levels are pushed ever
lower, and needs coordinated, interdisciplinary attention.
As air pollutant levels are reduced, the problems of correctly
linking health effects to the correct species and sources, and of
making difficult cost-benefit policy judgments, will increase. The
levels of many environmental air contaminants have decreased due to
technological developments and regulatory pressures. For example,
between 1985 and 1995, concentrations of airborne lead, sulfur dioxide,
and carbon monoxide in the U.S. decreased 32 percent, 18 percent, and
16 percent, respectively, and levels of airborne particulate matter
decreased 22 percent between 1988 and 1995. Levels of ozone and several
other pollutants have also decreased.
As background levels are approached, decisions regarding: (a) the
benefits of further reductions in man-made pollution; (b) the need to
consider pollutants as a mixture rather than as individual species; and
(c) the point at which small biological changes represent health
effects warranting control, will be more difficult and will require
additional focused, coordinated research.
There is no other Center or interagency activity focused on the problem
of combined exposures to air pollutants and providing the
resources provided by the Center
EPA and its advisory committees are increasingly recognizing the
importance of understanding the effects of pollutant mixtures. The
Agency is developing a ``One Atmosphere'' initiative to better
understand pollutant mixtures, but this activity is small and does not
yet focus on health effects. Indeed, EPA does not have the mandate or
resources to resolve all of these interrelated issues alone; the
resources of other agencies and non-federal sponsors are critical.
Current efforts relevant to the mixtures issue are funded by multiple
agencies, and by health advocacy organizations, industry, labor, and
private foundations. There is no effective coordination of these
activities, and no central mechanism for facilitating communication and
research planning. Progress will require a wide range of laboratory
researchers, atmospheric scientists, epidemiologists, and clinical
researchers. Focusing and resolving the issues will require
interactions among researchers, health care professionals, and policy
makers in an iterative manner that fosters rapid information transfer
and development of joint investigative strategies. An important
function of the National Environmental Respiratory Center is to serve
as a focal point for interdisciplinary communication, research needs
identification, and research resource coordination.
There is also no other national center for collecting and
disseminating information on the health impacts of airborne
environmental contaminants. Researchers, federal agencies, congress,
industry, and the public have no other centralized source of
information on ongoing research or recent findings.
There is no other national interagency user facility with the
specialized facilities, equipment, core support, and professional
collaboration required for many types of investigations to study the
complex airborne materials and health responses of concern. No activity
other than the Center serves to facilitate the work of investigators in
universities, federal laboratories, and industry by identifying and
providing shared resources or standardized samples.
No other national center is focused on serving cross-agency and
government-industry needs in this filed. EPA and other agencies have
intramural research centers or administrative structures that serve
internal programmatic coordination needs, but these efforts rarely
extend across agency lines. EPA and other agencies also fund extramural
centers to study, or facilitate the study, of specific issues related
to environmental respiratory health, but none are focused on the
overriding problem of the health effects of pollutant mixtures.
the national environmental respiratory center will address the combined
exposures problem through four key functions
The Center will perform the following functions
Conduct research.--The Center will conduct intramural and
collaborative research relevant to understanding the respiratory health
risks of combined exposures to airborne toxicants, and the exposure-
response, mechanisms, susceptibility, and interspecies extrapolation
issues important to advancing our understanding of respiratory disease
and the control of health risks. The advice of a scientific advisory
committee and other external scientific peer review will be used in
guiding the Center's research program. This effort will be expanded by
complementary research funded through collaborations with external
scientists making use of the Center's specialized facilities.
Provide information.--The Center will develop, maintain, and make
broadly available information related to combined exposures issues.
Researchers, agencies, congress, industry, students, and the public
will access listings of published research, ongoing research, relevant
scientific and regulatory issues, and research resources by phone, fax,
e-mail, and the Internet. The Center will develop and keep current
information specific to combined exposures issues that is not currently
maintained in organized form by other organizations. It will also
provide links to the many related data bases on air contaminants and
health that are maintained by other organizations.
Facilitate communication and planning.--The Center will coordinate
workshops and conferences on the health effects of pollutant mixtures
and combined exposures. Current knowledge will be benchmarked.
Particular emphasis will be given to establishing a continuing
communication loop between health scientists and atmospheric scientists
to focus the efforts of both research communities on the exposures and
effects thought to be the most important. Multiple government and non-
government research sponsors and researchers from numerous
organizations and disciplines will be brought together to identify
critical research gaps and optimize the use of resources. This effort
will complement other interagency and government-industry coordination
activities.
Provide research facilities.--The Center will develop and maintain
certain specialized facilities needed for research on mixtures,
reaction products, and combined exposures. It will make the facilities
operated by Lovelace available for use by researchers in other
organizations, collaborating and providing assistance as appropriate.
It will also assist researchers in identifying and accessing
specialized resources and collaborators in other organizations.
continued funding of the center is requested
The Center is intended as a long-term communication, facilitation,
and research effort. Funding for the first year was provided through
the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriation. It is anticipated that the
Agency will ultimately incorporate funding for the Center into its
budget request, as a component of its ``One Atmosphere'' initiative or
other programs dealing with pollutant mixture issues. Until that
occurs, funding through the Agency's appropriation will be necessary to
continue the project. Funding is requested in the fiscal year 1999 EPA
appropriation for the second year in the amount of $2 million
(identical to the first year level).
______
Prepared Statement of Kerry L. Sublette, Sarkeys Professor of
Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa, Director, Integrated
Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium
It is proposed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
continue to support a focused, university-based program, the Integrated
Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium (IPEC), with the goal
of increasing the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental
regulations. Continued Federal support of $4 million is specifically
requested as part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for the
Environmental Protection Agency through the Science and Technology
account or other source the Subcommittee may determine to be
appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Integrated Petroleum Environmental
Consortium (IPEC), I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for providing $1.5 million in funding for IPEC in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Under your leadership both houses of Congress and the final
appropriations bill included initial funding for this Consortium.
Specifically this funding was provided for the development of cost-
effective environmental technology, improved business practices, and
technology transfer for the domestic petroleum industry. With initial
funding under the Science and Technology account of EPA, IPEC will
implement a comprehensive mechanism (Center) to advance the
consortium's research expertise in environmental technology. IPEC's
operating practices and linkages to the independent sector will ensure
that real problems in the domestic petroleum industry are addressed
with real, workable solutions. The consortium includes the University
of Tulsa, the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and
the University of Arkansas.
We are pleased to report that, 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.
In fiscal year 1998, IPEC has secured a pledge of $375,000 in matching
funds from the Chancellor of Higher Education of the State of Oklahoma.
IPEC officers have met with the Director of the Environmental
Engineering Research Division of the EPA National Center for
Environmental Research and Quality Assurance. The Consortium is working
with EPA to ensure that we meet the agency's requirements for funding
as a research center and the successful funding of IPEC.
IPEC is proceeding in its solicitation and review process so that
we will be in a position to fund projects as soon as possible. The IPEC
Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) has been formed and met for the first
time on January 20, 1998. This twenty-member Board is composed of
environmental professionals from the domestic petroleum industry and is
dominated by representatives of independent producers. We are pleased
to report that IPEC's Industrial Advisory Board has approved five
programs for funding and more are expected in the coming months. These
five projects are:
(1) Intrinsic bioremediation of whole gasoline.--This project seeks
to develop a scientific basis for a risked-based approach to management
of sites contaminated with gasoline. The project will investigate the
mechanism and rate of the natural attenuation of gasoline via
biodegradation by microorganisms which occur naturally in soil (termed
intrinsic bioremediation). If all of the regulated components of
gasoline can be naturally biodegraded, then contaminated sites which
pose no immediate threat to human health or environmental receptors can
be given a low priority for active intervention freeing precious
resources to be allocated to sites where the threat is more acute.
(2) Microflora involved in phytoremediation of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons.--Phytoremediation is the term applied to the use of
plants and microorganisms that thrive in the plant's root zone to
biodegrade soil pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's).
PAH's are a major class of recalcitrant pollutants and are a
significant byproduct of petroleum processing and refining. PAH's are
concentrated in food chains, are toxic, and some are recognized
mutagens and carcinogens. This project will determine the feasibility
of using plants to degrade these PAH's in contaminated soil by creating
a ``living cap'' of plants and associated microorganisms over
contaminated sites. The costs of such waste treatment are far below
those required for conventional treatment such as excavation and
incineration of contaminated soil.
(3) Passive sampling devices (PSD's) for bioavailability screening
of soils containing petrochemicals.--The concept of a risk-based
corrective action applied to the management of contaminated soil or
groundwater requires that a regulator assess human risk. Soil
contaminants can be detected by chemical analysis, but this provides
little information on the actual hazard presented to ecological and
human receptors. In some cases, contaminant levels above current soil
quality guideline levels exists, but not toxicity. In other cases,
chemical levels are below soil quality guidelines, yet toxicity
persists. This project seeks to develop a rapid, cost-effective
screening tool or passive sampling device (PSD) to determine the actual
toxicity of contaminants in soil and their bioremediation potential.
Use of such a device to determine the actual risks to human health
presented by a site and its amenability to bioremediation would allow
regulators to better prioritize contaminated sites needing immediate
remedial action.
(4) Using plants to remediate petroleum-contaminated soil.--This
project also proposes to use plants and associated microorganisms in
the plants root zone to effect the remediation of soil contaminants.
This project specifically seeks to conduct field studies to develop
protocols suitable for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated
secondary containment berms. These earthen berms are designed to
contain fluids in the event of a major spill or leak in a tank. Many of
these berms become contaminated with oil through leaks, spills, and
normal transfer operations. This project envisions the continuous
cultivation of suitable plants on these berms to keep oil contamination
under control.
(5) Probabilistic risk assessment of petroleum contamination using
detailed physical models.--Like all human endeavors the exploration and
production (E&P) of oil and gas has associated with it some risk of
damage to human or environmental health. Response to this risk can be
reactive or proactive. The latter is of course preferred since
proactive management prevents environmental damage and injury and is
less costly. This project will develop a proactive risk management
program for E&P operations to minimize the potential for environmental
damage. This risk-based approach makes resource allocation more
effective based on the probability that a scenario will occur and the
potential severity of the associated damage. Proactive risk management
in the domestic petroleum industry has the potential for both
significant cost savings and enhanced environmental protection.
The use of the Industrial Advisory Board to measure the relevancy
of research within the Consortium is truly unique and ensures that the
Consortium is meeting the needs of the domestic petroleum industry.
IPEC has secured significant matching funds from industry for these
first five programs. The combined funding request for these five
projects is $492,000; however, the investigators have secured another
$502,000 in matching funds from industry for these projects from
individual companies and industry organizations such as the Gas
Research Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum
Environmental Research Forum. IPEC is well on its way to becoming a
true public/private partnership.
As we have previously testified, the ability of small and medium
sized producers to compete in a global market is complicated by two
factors: the cost of regulatory compliance and the declining cost of
crude oil. With your help IPEC is developing cost-effective solutions
for the environmental problems that represent the greatest challenge to
the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry. However, the
fiscal year 1998 appropriation is only a beginning. For example, the
IPEC Industrial Advisory Board has identified 26 critical research
needs. With the current funding we can begin to address only a fraction
of these needs. There is much work to be done and we are again
requesting the support of the Subcommittee in the form of a $4 million
appropriation for IPEC in fiscal year 1999.
the continuing crisis in the domestic petroleum industry
The crisis in the domestic petroleum industry that we described in
testimony in the last session of Congress has only gotten worse as the
price of crude oil continues to fall. The independent producers are
producing from mature fields left behind by the majors. Although there
is a significant resource base in the fields, this is the most
difficult and the most costly oil to produce. The independent producer
has only one source of revenue--the sale of oil and gas. There is no
vertical depth to his business. With the price of oil this low the
independent producer is extremely vulnerable to the costs of
environmental compliance. This latest drop in oil prices will no doubt
result in another wave of business closures, plugged and abandoned
wells, and reduced new well completions. The problem is so acute that
the Governor of Oklahoma recently formed an emergency task force to
determine what the state can do to help Oklahoma producers survive the
current decline in prices. A similar price crash in the 1980's
triggered a prolonged statewide recession. Clearly this trend is not in
the best interest of the U.S. in terms of energy self-sufficiency or
national security. We are turning over control of our cost of
production in terms of energy costs to foreign interests. If domestic
exploration and production and refining are to continue to play a
strategic role in meeting U.S. energy needs, the domestic petroleum
producer will continue to require access to cost-effective technology
for pollution prevention, waste treatment and remediation in
exploration and production (E&P) and refining.
ipec's response to critical research needs
IPEC will continue to work with the domestic petroleum industry to
provide solutions to those environmental problems that represent the
greatest challenge to the competitiveness of the industry. Specifically
in fiscal year 1999 IPEC will continue to work with our Industrial
Advisory Board to address the remaining critical research needs they
have identified as well as address new needs that develop. These
research needs include the following:
(1) Bioremediation and other remediation technologies.--Reducing
toxicity of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils; development of rapid, on-
site remediation technologies; control of salt migration in the
subsurface; developing methodologies for phytoremediation.
(2) Risk assessment.--Development of cost-effective ecological risk
assessment methods for petroleum impacted sites; development of cost-
effective and relevant terrestrial (animal/plant) bioassays for use in
ecological risk/impact assessment; development of field methods for
ecological risk assessment; development of methods to evaluate actual
and future environmental risk of petroleum impacted soils; determining
the correlation between ecological risk assessment and human health
risk assessment; determining the impact of intrinsic bioremediation on
risk-based closures; development of risk-based guidelines for handling,
disposal and storage of NORM-contaminated solids, pipe, and equipment.
(3) Measurement technology.--Development of cost-effective methods
(direct and indirect) for measuring the amount and extent of petroleum
hydrocarbon sources in unsaturated and saturated soils; development of
useful and easy to implement field and analytical methods and protocols
for demonstrating intrinsic bioremediation; validating current models
for predicting flash emissions of hydrocarbons in E&P operations.
(4) Process technologies.--Control or treatment of flash gas
emissions from stock tanks; use, treatment or disposal of oil tank
bottoms; development of cost-effective methods for capture, recycling/
destruction of volatile organic compound emissions from hydrocarbon
processing and storage tanks; development of improved water treatment
methods--particularly those methods; development of methods to for
treatment of hydrogen sulfide in the reservoir.
(5) Management and decision tools.--Development of methods to
predict plume migration of salt water from pits; development of methods
to calculate the full life cycle cost of material and waste handling in
the petroleum industry; development of proper pit closure methods using
a clay or compacted soil cap; development of improved methods for
disposal of drilling wastes; development of methods to distinguish
between historical oil field pollution and recent, current and/or
ongoing pollution.
In addition to working with our Industrial Advisory Board, IPEC
will continue in fiscal year 1999 to build linkages with organizations
which provide services to the domestic petroleum industry. As IPEC
begins to fund technology development projects the Directors will work
with the leadership of these organizations to develop a synergy between
their efforts and those of IPEC. These organizations form the IPEC
Affiliates Group and include the National Petroleum Technology Office
(NPTO) of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC), the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum
(PERF) the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB), the Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA), the Gas Research Institute
(GRI), the Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy, the Osage Agency
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Oil Producers of Arkansas
(OPA). Recently, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma named the IPEC
Director to the Environmental and Safety Committee of the IOGCC.
Since 1994 IPEC has organized and conducted the International
Petroleum Environmental Conference. Dr. Kerry Sublette, Director of
IPEC, has served as chair of these conferences. This conference is
quickly becoming the premier conference of its kind in the U.S. and
represents the flagship of technology transfer for IPEC. The last
conference (4th) was held in San Antonio, TX and featured 8 plenary
lectures, 135 technical presentations, a special symposium on intrinsic
bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons, 30 exhibits and a poster
session. There were 401 attendees from academia, independent and major
oil and gas companies, companies that service the domestic petroleum
industry, state and federal regulators, and the legal community. The
NPTO of the U.S. Department of Energy was a major sponsor of the
conference. Other co-sponsors included the Oklahoma Energy Resources
Board, the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, the Gas Research
Institute, the Texas Railroad Commission, The Texas Independent
Producers & Royalty Owners Association, the Petroleum Technology
Transfer Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the
National Energy-Environment Law and Policy Institute, the Great Plains/
Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center and The Nature
Conservancy. This conference is IPEC's technology transfer flagship.
The next conference is planned for Oct. 1998 in Albuquerque, NM.
As a final note we would like to report that the Consortium is
changing its name from the Integrated Petroleum Environmental
Consortium to the Integrated Public/Private Energy & Environmental
Consortium (IPEC). The member institutions of IPEC believe that this
new name more correctly reflects the full scope of research
capabilities of the institutions and gives us the flexibility to
respond to future environmental research needs under the IPEC name.
However, our mission with respect to the domestic petroleum industry
has not changed and we remain devoted to increasing the competitiveness
of this critical industry through a reduction in the cost of compliance
with U.S. environmental regulations.
funding of ipec
IPEC is seeking appropriations of $4 million for fiscal year 1999
and the succeeding fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 through the
Environmental Protection Agency. The consortium will be responsible for
at least a 50 percent match of federal appropriations with private
sector and state support over a four year period. The Consortium will
be subject to annual review to ensure the effective production of data,
regulatory assessments, and technology development meeting the stated
goals of the Consortium.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisor, Kern
County and Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr.,
President, NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent
Oil Producers' Association; and Catherine H. Reheis, Managing
Coordinator, Western States Petroleum Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 1999 funding request of $1.25 million in the EPA budget for
the California San Joaquin Valley Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality
Study.
The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
by December 31, 2001. Attainment of these standards requires effective
and equitable distribution of pollution controls that cannot be
determined without a major study of this issue.
According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
for a soundly researched solution.
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, and dirt loosened and
carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural land. Soil erosion
through wind and other agents also leads to aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5
air pollution problems.
The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
need for more information on how the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
attainment plan and control measures.
Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to
solve this major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to
support research and efforts to deal effectively with what is
essentially an unfunded federal mandate.
Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come
to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
federal share of financial support for this important research effort.
In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to
the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control
measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique
cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government,
as well as private industry, has raised more than $19 million to date
to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air
quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our
hope is that private industry and federal, state and local governments
will be able to raise an additional $8 million over the next two years
to fund this important study.
To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
provided through EPA's, DOT'S, DOD's, USDA's, and Interior's budgets--a
total of $10.6 million in federal funding, including $6.35 million in
EPA appropriations. State and industry funding has matched this amount
virtually dollar for dollar.
With the planning phase of the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air
Quality Study nearly complete, a number of significant accomplishments
have been achieved. These interim products have not only provided
guidance for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial
information for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced
preliminary findings which are significant to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) interests.
The Study is significant to EPA interests for a number of reasons.
The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes
in the nation. The Valley is currently classified as one of five
serious PM-10 non-attainment areas, and is likely to exceed both the
new annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for PM-2.5. Exceedances of the PM-10 and PM-2.5 standards span many
seasons and are influenced by a broad cross-section of sources. The
information being collected by the PM study is essential for
development of sound and cost-effective control plans. A number of the
Study work products however will also have applicability to other areas
of the nation. Products such as evaluation of monitoring methods and
improved air quality and meteorological modeling techniques will assist
the EPA in addressing PM non-attainment problems in areas outside of
California as well.
To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to
provide an improved understanding of the nature and causes of PM
exceedances within the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions. One
of the major recent efforts was a preliminary field monitoring program
that was conducted during the fall and winter of 1995-96. Extensive air
quality, meteorological, and fog measurements were collected. This
database is being analyzed to address a number of questions including:
(1) the sources contributing to elevated PM-10 and PM-2.5
concentrations, (2) the zone of influence of specific sources, (3) the
spatial representativeness of a monitoring site, (4) the adequacy of
current monitoring methods, and (5) wind flow patterns and transport
routes between the Valley and surrounding areas. The database produced
as a part of this study is unparalleled in the nation, and results from
the study are already providing a substantive base of understanding
about PM-2.5. Preliminary results indicate that PM-2.5 constitutes 70
percent to 80 percent of the PM-10 mass during the wintertime.
Secondary ammonium nitrate is often the largest fraction of PM-2.5
mass, and concentrations of ammonium nitrate tend to be very uniform
throughout the study region. Site to site variability in PM-2.5 mass is
primarily due to local variations in carbon, superimposed on the
regional background of ammonium nitrate.
The results of these analyses are being used to design large scale
field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field
programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 and PM-2.5
standard. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology,
fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million.
Final plans for these field studies are being developed, which will be
carried out by numerous contractors over a broad area encompassing
Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert.
Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved
emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be
completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings
available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide
information for federal planning requirements as a part of the new PM-
10/PM-2.5 NAAQS.
The Environmental Protection Agency's prior funding and strong
support for the Study have enabled projects to occur. Continued support
by EPA is essential to implement the major field programs and
subsequent modeling and data analysis and ensure that effective control
can be developed to meet the PM-10 and PM-2.5 NAAQS.
For fiscal year 1999 our Coalition is seeking $1.25 million in
federal funding through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
support continuation of this vital study in California. We respectfully
request that the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies provided this additional amount in the EPA appropriation for
fiscal year 1999 and that report language be included directing the
full amount for California.
The San Joaquin Valley PM-10/PM-2.5 study will not only provide
this vital information for a region identified as having particularly
acute PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model for other
regions of the country that are experiencing similar problems. The
results of this study will provide improved methods and tools for air
quality monitoring, emission estimations, and effective control
strategies nationwide. Consequently, the beneficial results of this
study will contribute to national policy concerns as well.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
request for a fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $1.25 million for EPA
to support the San Joaquin Valley Region PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality
Study.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Peacock, Chairman, Fond du Lac Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa
Mr. Chairman, Members, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony on fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies. We seek the Committee's support for our
Environmental Program and our cooperative environmental research
initiative, which are essential to protect the environmental quality
and the natural resources on which our people depend, and are also
vitally important to the other citizens in our region.
The Fond du Lac Reservation is one of six Chippewa Bands in the
State of Minnesota. The Reservation was established by the Treaty of
1854 with the United States Government. Currently, there are about
3,350 Fond du Lac Band Members. The Fond du Lac Reservation encompasses
approximately 100,000 acres, and is located 20 miles west of Duluth,
Minnesota and the western end of Lake Superior.
fiscal year 1999 funding for indian housing program
The continuation of support for the Indian Housing Program is very
important to the Fond du Lac Band. These funds from HUD are essential
to build affordable housing for our Band Members. We urgently request
that the Indian Housing Program budget be increased to address the need
for additional housing or at a minimum to maintain the current funding
levels.
fiscal year 1999 u.s. environmental protection agency
We are requesting a total of $275,000 in fiscal year 1999 to
continue the funding of the Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and
Prevention for Mercury project through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
This project is a cooperative study between the University of
Minnesota/Duluth, the University of Wisconsin/Superior, and the Fond du
Lac Natural Resources Program, to test various methods of preventing
mercury contamination in aquatic sediments from getting into the food
chain. Mitigation treatments have been successfully tested on a small
scale on contaminated sediments in a reservoir. The mitigation
technology we have been testing can be developed into an effective and
efficient means of remediating mercury problems. Cost effective
mitigation technologies must be tested on a larger scale to develop
practical methods to be used full scale on lakes, rivers, reservoirs,
and watersheds. The most effective and economical method will be tried
on a large scale. The mitigation techniques developed will be
transferable to other locations in the Great Lakes Region as well as
other locations with the same problem. Congress provided $100,000 for
the first phase of this study in 1996. We would like to thank the
Committee for its support of this important project. We are requesting
$275,000 to continue this study in 1999. These additional funds are
critical to complete the testing and development of this mitigation
technology.
The mercury contamination in our region's fish continues to be a
serious public health problem. Mercury can cause neurological and
developmental disorders, especially for children and developing
fetuses. Many Native American families in this region commonly consume
more fish than the average fish consumption of the general population.
Most of the lakes and rivers in our region have fish consumption
advisories based on mercury contamination in the fish. A recent study
concluded that Native Americans ``tend to be higher consumers of fish,
have elevated levels of mercury and PCB's, and may be at higher risk
for health effects.'' The Fond du Lac Band is very concerned about this
threat to their health and well being. Our Reservation has cooperated
in several mercury studies of fish and the aquatic ecosystem. A study
of mercury levels in fishermen and their families from our community
has also been conducted in recent years. This study confirmed that
those individuals consuming a greater amount of fish had an increased
level of mercury in their blood. The mitigation technology being
developed by our cooperative research project can provide a practical
means to decrease mercury levels in fish and thereby to reduce this
potential health threat.
The biotic uptake of mercury resulting in fish contamination in our
lakes and rivers, and in Lake Superior, has the potential to devastate
the sport fishing industry and subsistence use of the fishery. All of
the states bordering the Great Lakes have fish consumption advisories
on many water bodies, based primarily on mercury contamination of
gamefish. The disruption of the sport fishing and related recreational
business could potentially cost them millions. An effective,
environmentally benign, and efficient method to use ``environmental
engineering'' to prevent mercury from contaminating the aquatic food
chain must be found. The federal funding of this research will prevent
the decline of this important recreational and subsistence fishery and
will derive benefits worth many times the initial investment.
Many of the contaminated sediment sites around the Great Lakes,
including 34 of the 42 Areas of Concern (identified by the
International Joint Commission) could benefit from development and
application of an efficient mitigation methodology. This technology
could provide a cost effective mitigation option to sites which cannot
otherwise be remediated without very costly or environmentally
disruptive dredging and landfilling.
Mercury contamination will continue to be a major environmental,
health, and economic problem in the Great Lakes Region for many years.
The levels of mercury in the region's waters and sediments is several
times the pre-industrial level because of the airborne deposition onto
watersheds. This contamination will continue to be a problem for many
years, even if airborne deposition levels decline significantly. The
accumulation of mercury in the sediments results in high concentrations
in fish because of the ``magnification'' through each trophic level in
the aquatic food chain. Mercury is a heavy metal which does not
decompose, and it remains biologically active for many years within the
top 6 to 12 inches of lake and river sediments. Even if the reductions
of mercury in products and waste streams results in significant
reductions in airborne levels of mercury, it will be many decades
before the toxic affect of mercury contamination will allow mercury
levels in fish to be at safer levels. The efforts to decrease airborne
mercury levels is definitely necessary, however, practical means to
decrease mercury levels in fish must be developed to address this
problem in the interim. This mitigation technology would be effective
for remediating water bodies with high mercury levels in sediments and
also lakes with valuable game fisheries.
The focus on mercury contamination by the USEPA in its ``Mercury
Report to Congress'' provides ample evidence of this serious
environmental and public health problem. The recent initiative proposed
by the President to clean our Nation's polluted waters will hopefully
provide more resources to solve some of these problems. Although the
USEPA has established the mercury problem as a high priority
environmental and public health problem, we do not see sufficient
research funds being available for mercury remediation research.
Efforts to decrease the mercury from entering our air and water is
obviously an important focus, however, the high levels of mercury on
the watersheds and in sediments may require remediation to decrease
mercury levels in our region's fish. The funds available to address the
many serious environmental contamination problems in the Great Lakes
region through the EPA Region V Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) are inadequate. The funds should be increased substantially to
provide the resources to conduct essential research, and to ensure
Tribal involvement and participation. It is difficult for Tribes to
compete with the priority of this agency to fund study proposals from
the Great Lakes states. We believe that the current research being
funded by GLNPO commonly focuses on seemingly never ending assessment
studies, rather then innovative solutions to efficiently cleaning up
contaminated sites and polluted waters. The EPA's Office of Research
and Development unfortunately does not have a high priority on basic
mercury research, even though the EPA recognizes this as a very serious
long term environmental problem.
fiscal year 1999 indian environmental general assistance program
We strongly support the Administration's request for $42.6 million
in funds within the EPA's budget for the Indian Environmental General
Assistance Program. This program funds a wide range of multi-media
programs throughout Indian country.
In USEPA Region 5, the 32 Tribes have worked on a government-to-
government basis with the Region 5 Administrator, to achieve Tribal
environmental protection presence on each and every Reservation. The
General Assistance Program has provided these Tribes the necessary
resources to develop cooperative relationships with the Environmental
Protection Agency, other federal agencies, as well as state and local
agencies.
This written testimony is respectfully presented to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Appropriations for VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies by
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is requesting a
total appropriation of $275,000 for fiscal year 1998 for both of the
Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and Prevention for Mercury.
introduction
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is one of six Bands
in the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The Fond du Lac Reservation was
established by a Treaty with the United States Government on September
30, 1854 (Stat. 1109). The Fond du Lac Reservation encompasses
approximately 100,000 acres, and is located 20 miles west of Duluth,
Minnesota and the western end of Lake Superior.
The continuation of support for the Indian Housing Program is very
important to the Fond du Lac Band. These funds from HUD are essential
to build affordable housing for our Band Members. We urgently request
that the Indian Housing Program be increased to address the need for
additional housing or at a minimum to maintain the current funding
levels. At the very least our funding level should stay the same, so
that we can provide some of the needed housing to our Band Members.
This would be of great benefit to our people.
The research project, Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and
Prevention for Mercury will determine the best means to break the link
in the aquatic ecosystem, by binding, covering, or removing the mercury
and sediments from the sediments. Our cooperative research project
between the Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program and the Univ. of
Minn./Duluth research laboratory have the expertise in conducting the
field work and laboratory analysis to carry out this research project.
This project would require $275,000 for fiscal year 1999. It is
imperative to discover a means to break the link in the aquatic food
chain to prevent mercury from contaminating important game fish
populations. The mitigation technology would be useful reduce the
affect of these contaminants in highly contaminated sites, which are
common throughout the Great Lakes, and on less contaminated sites with
mercury from aerial deposition.
We strongly support the Administration's request for $42.6 million
within the EPA's budget for the Indian Environmental General Assistance
Program. This program funds a wide range of multi-media programs
throughout Indian country. In USEPA Region V, the 32 Tribes have worked
on a government-to-government basis with the Region 5 Administrator, to
achieve Tribal environmental protection presence on each and every
Reservation. The General Assistance Program has provided these Tribes
the necessary resources to develop cooperative relationships with the
Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies, as well as
state and local agencies.
This written testimony is respectfully presented to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Appropriations for VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies by Robert B. Peacock, Chairman of the Fond du
Lac Band Lake Superior Chippewa.
sediment contaminant mitigation and prevention for mercury
statement of the problem
The continuing uptake of mercury into the aquatic food chain has
contaminated the fish in our rivers and lakes. Fish Consumption
Advisories issued by the Minnesota Health Department (MDH, 1997)
establish meal limits based on this contaminant. Our assessment studies
have quantified the extent of mercury contamination throughout the St.
Louis River Watershed and have identified contaminated hot-spots in the
six lower reservoirs. Significant mercury residues are observed in fish
food chain organisms, especially in the Thomson Reservoir, (see Figures
1-6, Glass et al., 1997). Recently, it has been discovered that mercury
levels in walleye from lakes on the Fond du Lac Reservation are also
high in mercury. The transfer of contaminants from sediments into the
aquatic food chain is significant and can occur through a variety of
mechanisms. The ways and means to decrease and eliminate sediment borne
contaminants from entering the aquatic food chain must be found, or the
fish will continue to be too toxic to consume. These circumstances have
serious long term consequences for the recreational and subsistence
fishery in this region and in the Western Arm of Lake Superior. The
ability to reduce these levels would decrease the health risk of
neurological and developmental health problems for consumers of these
fish.
Mercury contamination in sediments has been shown to be the primary
source of mercury residue in fish from the lower St. Louis River, and
is identified as an important toxic contaminant in the St. Louis River
Area of Concern (Glass, et al. 1992., MPCA/WDNR, 1992). Mercury
concentrations measured as a function of depth in sediment cores taken
from the Thomson, Forbay, and Fond du Lac Reservoirs, in deep water
depositional zones show large peak mercury concentrations where the
maximum core depths represent a sediment accumulation since the early
1900's.
The highest sediment mercury concentrations generally occur in the
deeper strata. However, two areas of the Thomson and Scanlon Reservoirs
show high levels near the sediment surface, where the mercury can
readily contaminate the lower trophic levels of the aquatic food chain.
The concentration of mercury multiplies as it transfers up through the
food chain. These two areas may contribute significant mercury amounts
to fish and thereby human consumers. These findings prompted our
research group to conduct a research program of mercury in sediments in
the lower St. Louis River reservoirs with the purpose of identifying
mercury source and toxicity mechanisms and mitigation mechanisms and
options.
Mitigation options
Recent research on iron as a remediation material shows promise for
mitigating mercury and PCB contaminated sediments (Agrawal and
Tratnyek, 1996; Orth and Gillham, 1996). Various concentrations of iron
will be applied using appropriate methods to the upper sediment layer.
project goals and objectives
The goal is to reduce the levels of mercury in game fish in an
effort to decrease the toxicological risks to human health.
The objective of this project is to continue testing mercury
mitigation technology in the reservoirs of the lower St. Louis River
and to then apply the best mitigation approach to a small portion of a
reservoir area for a pilot mitigation demonstration study. Mercury
mitigation technology will also be tested in enclosures on a lake which
has high levels of mercury in game fish. Tests will focus on reducing
the amount of mercury entering the aquatic food chain thus resulting in
lower mercury levels in game fish.
project description
Source Mechanisms and Toxicity
a. Baseline data on mercury levels will be collected in water,
sediment, benthos, and fish to assess and identify the degree of
mercury in various components of the aquatic ecosystem.
b. The data from the monitoring of mercury levels in local
precipitation, by the Fond du Lac Environmental Program, will be
assessed to determine the influence of wet deposition on the local
mercury cycle.
c. Modeling of mercury flux and the formation and sources of
organic mercury compounds [ie. methyl mercury] in a reservoir and on a
natural lake will be conducted to access the importance of these
sources of contamination and to focus remediation efforts.
d. The model results together with data on the magnitude of various
mercury compounds in contaminated sediment will be used to determine
the most effective mitigation options.
Mitigation Mechanisms and Options
a. Laboratory tests and pilot field tests will be conducted on
various methods of immobilizing sediments on identified contaminant hot
spots on St. Louis River reservoirs. Fish, benthic organisms, water,
and sediment from test areas will be analyzed to determine reductions
in contaminant levels.
The mitigation strategies selected for demonstration testing must
be cost effective and practicable to implement. The mitigation strategy
to be demonstrated is the addition of contaminant binding substrates,
such as iron. Recent research shows promise in utilizing iron treatment
to alter the micro-environment of the mercuric compounds and transform
them into less bio-accumulative or toxic forms.
b. Mitigation tests will also be conducted in enclosures on a
moderately contaminated water body that has high levels of mercury in
game fish. The results of field testing on this site will be compared
to the effectiveness of tests on the highly contaminated sediments in
the reservoir.
c. Methods which show significant reductions in toxic residues in
fish will be further tested on sites with high test levels of
contaminants to determine the effectiveness of this approach and
applicability to whole water-body treatment.
project benefits
A successful means to reduce this toxic contaminant in fish would
protect human health. The results would be transferable to aquatic
systems in other regions.
project cost
Fiscal year 1994--Fond du Lac received $70,000 for a St. Louis
River Assessment Study.
Fiscal year 1995--Fond du Lac requested $275,000--received $100,000
from Congressional appropriation and $100,000 from Great Lakes National
Program Office for phase 1 of mitigation study.
Fiscal year 1996--Fond du Lac requested $250,000--no additional
funds were appropriated.
Fiscal year 1997 and 1998--$275,000 requested by Fond du Lac to
continue research.
Fiscal year 1999--Requesting $275,000 to continue research in
mercury mitigation technology.
references
Agrawal, A. and Tratnyek, P.G. 1996. Reduction in Nitro Aromatic
Compounds by Zero-Valent Iron Metal. ``Environmental Science and
Technology.'' 30: 154-160.
Orth, W.S. and Gillham, R.W. 1996. Dechlorination of Trichlorethene
in Aqueous Solution Using Feo. ``Environmental Science & Technology.''
30:66-71.
MDH 1996. Minnesota Dept. of Health. Minneapolis MN 84 pp.
Glass, G.E., J.A. Sorensen, K.W. Schmidt and G.R. Rapp. Jr. 1990.
New source, identification of mercury contamination in the Great Lakes,
``Environ. Sci. Technol.'' 24: 1059-1069.
Glass, G.E., Sorensen, J.A., Schmidt, K.W., Rapp, G.R. Jr., Huber,
J.K. 1992. Mercury in the St. Louis River, Mississippi River, Crane
Lake, and Sand Point Lake: Cycling, Distribution, and Sources. ``Report
to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.'' Minn. Pollut.
Ctrl. Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN. 55155.
Glass, G.E., Sorensen, J.A., Rapp, Jr. G.R., Balcer, M.,
Schwarzkopf, L. 1997. Mercury Sub-Surface Maxima in Sediments: a
Diagnostic for Anthropogenic Origins. In review, Springer Environmental
Science Book Series.
MPCA/WDNR 1992. St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan Stage
One. Minn. Pollut. Cntrl Agcy., St. Paul, MN, and Wisc. Dept. of Nat.
Res., Madison, WI.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.003
resolution # 105/98
The Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee, on behalf of the
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, hereby enacts the following
Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Fond du Lac Reservation is a sovereignty, created by
the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109, as the perpetual home
of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, which possesses the
inherent jurisdiction and authority to exercise regulatory control
within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac Reservation; and
WHEREAS, it is the sovereign obligation of the Fond du Lac
Reservation Business Committee, as the Governing Body of the Fond du
Lac Band, under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. section 461 et
seq., and in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination Act, 25
U.S.C. section 450 et seq., to assume responsibilities of self-
government; and
WHEREAS the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee supports
continued funding for the Indian Housing Program and is committed to
providing affordable housing for Band Members, and
WHEREAS the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee is greatly
concerned about protecting the aquatic resources and environment of the
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and is very concerned about
the impact on the health of Fond du Lac Band Members from mercury
contamination of the fish in this region, and
WHEREAS the Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program is cooperating on
the study, Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and Prevention for Mercury,
to find a practical means to prevent mercury from entering the aquatic
food chain.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Fond du Lac Reservation
Business Committee does fully support the Testimony to the Subcommittee
on Appropriations for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for fiscal year
1999.
We do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
presented and enacted upon by a vote of 3 for, 0 against, a quorum of 4
being present at a Special Meeting of the Fond du Lac Reservation
Business Committee held on March 3, 1998, on the Fond du Lac
Reservation.
____________________
Daryold Blacketter
Vice-Chairman
____________________
Peter J. Defoe
Secretary/Treasurer
______
Memorandum From Hon. Willard M. Munger, Minnesota State Representative
continued funding for project: sediment contaminant mitigation
prevention for mercury
Larry Schwarzkopf, Manager of the Fond du Lac Natural Resources
Program, along with colleagues from the University of Minnesota-Duluth
and University of Wisconsin-Superior, have been cooperatively studying,
various methods of preventing mercury contamination in aquatic
sediments from getting into the food chain. Congress appropriated
$100,000 for the first please of this study in 1996.
Their current research was successful in initial tests to utilize
iron as a means to sequester mercury in contaminated or natural lake
and river sediments so that the uptake of mercury into the food chain
was reduced. Now they must test cost effective mitigation technologies
on a larger scale in order to develop practical methods to be used full
scale on lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and watersheds. The most cost
effective and economical method will be tried on a large scale.
Mr. Schwarzkopf testifies before you today, Earth Day, to request
additional funds for this expanded research. His proposal asks for
$275,000 in fiscal year 1999 to continue the funding of the Sediment
Contaminant Mitigation and Prevention for Mercury project either
directly or through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I encourage you to support the project and Larry's funding proposal
so that work can continue on this vital research. As I am sure you are
aware, the conversion of mercury into methyl mercury in our northern
lakes threatens not only the fish we eat but the fish-eating wildlife
of our northern waters. We must continue to both reduce mercury in our
environment and prevent it from entering the food chain.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes for a
successful session.
______
Letter From George R. Rapp, Jr.
University of Minnesota-Duluth,
Duluth, MN, March 16, 1998.
Robert B. Peacock,
Chairman, Fond du Lac Reservation,
Cloquet, MN.
Dear Chairman Peacock: The problem of mercury contamination in our
environment continues to be extremely serious. It has recently been
shown to affect not only sensitive fish eating birds and animals at
levels once thought to be safe, but humans as well. See the enclosed
copy of a journal article entitled ``Cognitive Deficit in 7-Year-Old
Children with Prenatal Exposure to Methylmercury'' published in
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 19, pp. 417-428, 1997.
We are working to reduce the exposure of individuals catching and
eating fish from Minnesota lakes by studying the factors that affect
the rates of mercury bioaccumulation in fish. We find that airborne
mercury is the primary source of mercury to Minnesota lakes and that
mercury concentrations have been increasing in recent years.
In addition to atmospheric sources, mercury sources from
contaminated sediments in the St. Louis River from past industrial uses
are important sources of contamination to the fish-food chain and the
fishery of the river. Ways and means must be found to reduce or
eliminate these contributions from the sediment sources in order to
affect a significant improvement in the river fish mercury residue
levels.
We strongly support your initiatives to explore new ways to
research solutions to this problem and will work with you, where
possible, to reach a significant reduction in the levels of mercury
presently contaminating the river and the fishery.
Sincerely,
George R. Rapp, Jr.,
Regent's Professor,
Director, Archaeometry Laboratory.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.004
______
Prepared Statement of John R. Wodraska, General Manager, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California
fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the u.s. environmental protection
agency
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
pleased to submit comments for the record, regarding programs contained
in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fiscal year 1999
budget for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
MWD is responsible for meeting the supplemental water requirements
of 16 million people living in the Southern California coastal plain
and the economy which supports them. Our sources of water supply are
the Colorado River and surface waters from Northern California. Of
particular interest to MWD and our 27 member agencies are those federal
programs that provide assistance and facilitate partnerships for
addressing critical water resources issues.
MWD urges that you provide the full amount authorized by Congress
for the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund for fiscal year
1999 and that you fully support the President's proposed fiscal year
1999 budget for other EPA programs benefiting drinking water quality.
While significant progress has been made in improving the quality of
our nation's water, many surface and ground waters do not meet water
quality standards. Further, as our understanding of the relationship
between the contaminants found in our water supply and their effect on
human health increases and detection methods are improved, new risks
have been uncovered. Adequate protection of drinking water quality
requires research to identify contaminant sources and effective control
methods, financial assistance for implementation of end-of-the-pipe
treatment and source water protection measures, and compliance
monitoring to ensure existing laws and regulations are upheld.
drinking water and source water protection activities
Source water protection is key to ensuring a safe and healthy
drinking water supply and provides an important contaminant
``barrier''. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
recognized the importance of protection activities and created a new
voluntary source water protection program. Protection, however, begins
with assessment of potential sources of contamination and the
vulnerability of drinking water supplies to those contaminants. Such
assessments are important to both the goals of the SDWA and Clean Water
Act and help ensure that resources are targeted where they are likely
to have the greatest effect. MWD asks you to supports the President's
request for $13.7 million for source water assessment activities.
EPA's budget also includes funding for increased assistance to
states to help develop and implement watershed management plans and for
other activities related to watershed management. The watershed
approach addresses water quality problems in an integrated fashion and
facilitates protection efforts. California is finalizing its own
Watershed Management Initiative which has already been implemented in
some parts of the State. We ask that you support EPA's budget request
for watershed management activities.
Further, we urge your support of EPA's request for $46.4 million
for pollution prevention technologies. Utilization of technologies
which are less or non-polluting is a core element of source water
protection, and these technologies can significantly reduce the costs
which would otherwise be incurred to remove contaminants released into
the environment by less-efficient processes. EPA's pollution prevention
program will facilitate development and adoption of more-efficient
technologies.
state revolving funds
The 1996 amendments to SDWA made available, for the first time,
low-cost financing for drinking water infrastructure and source water
protection projects through a drinking water State Revolving Fund
(SDWA-SRF). The SDWA-SRF also provides funding for source water
assessment, water supply operator training, implementation of
``capacity development'' programs, and health effects research.
Adequate funding for all of these activities is essential, and MWD
strongly urges that you provide $1 billion for the SDWA-SRF, the amount
authorized by Congress for fiscal year 1999. This amount, while greater
than the amount requested in the President's budget, is still only a
small fraction of the funding needed by drinking water suppliers to
meet existing Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
In California alone, water suppliers have identified projects
totaling in excess of $7 billion that could benefit from the SDWA-SRF.
Nationwide, community water systems estimate they must invest over $138
billion over the next 20 years to ensure delivery of safe drinking
water. Of this amount, approximately $12 billion is needed to meet
current SDWA requirements. Low-cost financing for projects which ensure
safe drinking water supplies is critical for protecting the health of
the more than 240 million Americans served by public water systems.
Significant investments are also needed to repair and replace aging
municipal wastewater infrastructure as well as to meet the needs of
future population growth. Low-cost financing is necessary to support
the estimated $137 billion of municipal water quality infrastructure
needs over the next 20 years as well as capital investments to protect
against nonpoint pollution sources. The President has requested $1.075
billion for fiscal year 1999 for the Clean Water Act State Revolving
Fund (CWA-SRF) to support such activities which are also vital for
ensuring protection of drinking water sources. MWD asks that you
support the President's budget request.
nonpoint source grants
Another critical source of funding for source water protection
projects is grants under the Clean Water Act's Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Program (NPS). NPS grants are particularly important for smaller
projects and projects where debt financing is unsuitable. Further, the
NPS grant program is necessary to support the many watershed management
activities fostered by the states. Consistent with the actions
described in the Clean Water Initiative, the President has requested
$200 million for NPS grants for fiscal year 1999, and MWD requests your
support at the level in the President's budget.
Other EPA grant programs which help maintain or improve water
quality and need your support are the CWA Section 106 Control Agency
Resource Supplemental Grants ($115.5 million), Wetlands Program
Development Grants ($15 million), and the Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements (WQCA; $19 million). Among other activities, section 106
grants provide funding for monitoring, water quality planning, and
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for impaired water bodies. The
wetlands grants program will enable EPA to meet its goal of a net gain
of 100,000 acres of wetlands by the year 2005. Wetlands provide an
important cleansing mechanism which can protect drinking water sources.
WQCA provides funding to address water quality problems created by
storm water, combined sewer overflows, and confined animal operations,
all of which potentially threaten drinking water sources. Your support
for the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the above
programs will enable EPA to carry out its mission.
We also ask that you restore funding of $20 million for the CWA
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program. Activities for this program are now
funded from the Section 319 NPS Grant Program. While lakes have
benefited from 319 funding, they have rarely been the focus of the
grant projects. Lakes present unique water quality problems since they
serve as settling basins and allow nutrients to accumulate. Some lakes
serve as drinking water reservoirs and management of these reservoirs
presents unique challenges for both protecting drinking water
beneficial uses and aquatic resources. Restoring funding for the Clean
Lakes Program will provide dedicated funding for this water resource.
drinking water research
Scientifically sound research provides the underpinnings for
effective drinking water quality programs and MWD asks you to fully
support various EPA water quality-related research programs. EPA's
fiscal year 1999 budget, under its strategic goal of clean and safe
water, includes $35.6 million for drinking water research. This
research agenda includes development of dose-response relationships for
disinfectant by-products (DBP), waterborne pathogens, and arsenic. EPA
is required to re-evaluate the standard for arsenic, and is in the
process of promulgating revised regulations for DBP's and pathogens.
Dose-response data is critical for the development of drinking water
standards which protect public health in a cost-effective manner. Other
important activities which are part of EPA's clean and safe water goal
include research on sensitive sub-populations, treatment and
maintenance of the distribution system to protect against microbial
intrusion, and assessment of non-DBP drinking water contaminants.
MWD also requests your support for EPA's budget request of $47.6
million for its Human Health Risk Assessment program. Under this
program, EPA will develop approaches for more biologically defensible
health assessments instead of relying on default assumptions which may
be at variance with known mechanistic data. The program will also carry
out research on sensitive sub-populations, particularly children and
infants, and will develop improved methods for measuring total exposure
from multimedia sources and multi-pathways. This research will help
bring better science to the risk assessment process used in the
development of drinking water standards.
EPA's 1999 budget includes $55.4 million for research into Emerging
Risk Issues such as endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors can
cause adverse reproductive outcomes affecting both human and ecologic
health. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), a stakeholder group formed by EPA to develop
screening and testing recommendations, has identified DBP's as one of
the chemical classes which should be subject to early testing. DBP's
are formed as part of the disinfection process for drinking water.
Disinfection is necessary to protect against microbial disease and has
been responsible for the virtual elimination of widespread outbreaks of
waterborne disease in the U.S.
american water works research association foundation (awwarf)
AWWARF has separately requested that $5 million in drinking water
research funds be specifically designated for drinking water research
by AWWARF, including $1 million for arsenic research. AWWARF and public
water suppliers will provide 100 percent matching funds, and thus offer
an opportunity to leverage EPA's research program. We strongly urge
that you make this designation.
perchlorate treatment research
The American Water Works Research Foundation (AWWARF) and others
have requested $2,650,000 for research to be conducted through East
Valley Water District in San Bernardino, California, on treatment
technologies to remove perchlorate from drinking water supplies.
Perchlorate, which is used in the manufacture of munitions and rocket
fuel, can interfere with thyroid activity and is associated with
adverse reproductive outcomes. Perchlorate has been found in drinking
water wells throughout California, resulting in well closures, and may
be of concern in other parts of the country. We urge you to support
this funding request for this critically needed research.
other research programs
We ask that you support EPA's request for $85.5 million for the
Ecosystem Protection Research program. This research will help increase
our understanding of current environmental conditions, the stressors
that affect current conditions, and options for ecosystem management.
This research should also help our understanding of fragile aquatic
ecosystems such as the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay-Delta which is the
source of part of MWD's imported water supplies.
drinking water--public water systems supervision program grants
EPA's 1999 budget allocates$93.8 million for Public Water Systems
Supervision Program grants. This funding is necessary for states with
primary enforcement responsibilities to carry out their duties,
including implementation of the 1996 SDWA regulations. Additional
resources will be necessary to implement the changes resulting from the
1996 SDWA amendments, and we ask that you support the requested funding
level..
compliance
While MWD favors encouraging voluntary actions to reduce pollution,
we recognize that strong enforcement of water quality regulations is
critical for reducing non-compliance. MWD fully supports EPA's approach
which couples compliance incentives and assistance programs with
vigorous enforcement, where necessary. We ask that you support the
President's request of $331.0 million for compliance-related
activities.
I thank you for this opportunity to offer our comments on the
fiscal 1999 appropriations for the EPA. If we can answer any questions
or provide additional information, please contact Brad Hiltscher, MWD's
Legislative Representative in Washington, D.C. at (202) 296-3551.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
enhanced interagency multi-disciplinary strategy
A critical element of the Museum's ongoing scientific research and
educational programming is an interagency and multi-disciplinary
approach, consistent with the federal government's own stated
commitment to an interagency and multi-disciplinary direction in these
areas. The Museum has several vehicles to achieve these goals: the
National Center for Science Literacy, Education and Technology (``The
National Center'') and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation
among them. The partnership and collaboration between the scientific
and educational resources of NASA and the National Center and its
partners has been exceptional. It is now time to further develop the
involvement and participation of other appropriate and relevant federal
agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Department of Energy (DOE).
the environmental protection agency role
The EPA has been playing a leadership role in environmental science
and technology, biodiversity, education, and training, making the EPA
an invaluable partner and participant with the American Museum of
Natural History and its National Center for Science Literacy,
Education, and Technology.
The Museum and its Center for Biodiversity and Conservation are
extensively involved in global environmental research, education and
training and in a broad range of biodiversity initiatives. The National
Center has developed the much-heralded ``Biodiversity Counts: Student
Inventory Project.'' Working in close cooperation with both the Center
for Biodiversity and the National Center, we are developing an entirely
new world class exhibition facility--The Hall of Biodiversity (opening
in May, 1998)--where cutting edge technology will be utilized to
translate science to the public and advance the National Center's
educational outreach initiatives.
I. Programmatic Activities: Research, Exhibition And Education
Overall, the objectives of this component of the EPA partnership
can be characterized as the further development of a sound scientific
underpinning for environmental risk research; expanded educational
outreach and the translation of science for the general citizenry,
especially schoolchildren; and the development of innovative approaches
for addressing critical environmental and scientific challenges.
The Center for Biodiversity.--The Museum sponsors a collaborative
effort among various departments for the study of biodiversity and
conservation methods and disseminates its data to local, national, and
international governments, research and educational institutions, and
community groups. The Center's activities include the study of
biological data relevant to the conservation of threatened species, the
development of the infrastructure needed to maintain conservation
programs, and the integration of scientific data into the field of
conservation. The Center also sponsors a Graduate Training Program
which offers fieldwork training programs for students from all over the
world. Additionally, the Center makes grants available to Museum
curators for a variety of conservation projects that demonstrate the
role of science in conservation. This Center also focuses on the
relationship between the loss of biodiversity and its affects on human
health. For instance, the Museum's recently published book,
``Biodiversity and Human Health,'' examines the ways in which the
destruction of threatened plant and animal species increase human
exposure to disease and infection.
Environmental Science and Educational Activities.--Further
development and expansion of programs such as ``Biodiversity Counts,''
a project which is now being pilot tested in almost two dozen schools
across the nation is ongoing, to allow middle-school students to
conduct their own biodiversity inventory of local environments. By the
fall of 1998, the number of participating schools throughout the
country will reach close to 100. Students observe species behavior and
collect data, and examine plants and insects that live in their
immediate surroundings. They take measurements and make identifications
and analyses, and then share their findings on a national student
database on the World Wide Web. They share observations and interests
in an on-line field journal and in on-line discussion groups. The main
purpose of this program is to enable children to participate actively
and directly in the process of scientific investigation.
Environmental Science Education and Curriculum Development.--The
Museum has an unusual opportunity and responsibility to encourage
audiences of all ages and interests to explore the wonders of the
natural world and to experience the excitement and adventure of
science. With schools, our focus is on aligning the Museum's
educational efforts with initiatives that can support and improve
science education: linking the Museum's content resources (its vast
collections, library, exhibitions, science research and educations
staff--see Exhibit A) to the latest curriculum standards and
frameworks, designing professional development programs for teachers,
providing carefully crafted training sessions for science teachers, and
exploring ways to use technology to sustain relationships with
students, teachers and families.
Endangered Species and Environmental Habitats.--In concert with the
goals of the EPA, the Museum is committed to research and exhibition in
the area of endangerment and extinction. In this regard, the Museum is
proud to include among its resources two research stations:
--The Southwestern Research Station, where Museum scientists and
others participate in detailed studies of the ecology and
biological diversity of the Chiracahua Mountains in
Southeastern Arizona.
--The Great Gull Island Project, where the Museum has been
undertaking a focused study of threatened species (the largest
nesting population of Common and Roseate Terns) and the effects
of pollution on threatened species.
Ecological Contagions and Infectious Disease.--The Museum plans a
major exhibition on infectious diseases for early 1999 which will take
the visitor, teacher, school group, and family through a story from
exposure to infection, outbreak, epidemic and pandemic. At each stage,
the Museum will discuss the interactions between the ecological,
evolutionary and cultural perspectives. Understanding how infectious
disease is related to ecology and ecosystems is one of the main themes.
To illuminate this theme we will explore the world of microbes and how
natural events such as El Nino change ecosystems and therefore change
the human/microbe interaction. The American Museum of Natural History
has long been involved in public health education and this exhibit will
go a long way to informing the public about infectious diseases.
II. Laboratory and Instrumentation Collaboration
With the goal of maintaining its international leadership in
scientific research and education, the American Museum of Natural
History continues to make the investments necessary to provide state of
the art, technologically-based, research and public facilities. A new,
centrally located Natural Sciences Building being financed by the
Museum, the City of New York, and the private sector is currently under
construction to provide critically needed space to house additional
public education infrastructure, laboratories, and collection storage
areas critical to advancing the Museum's increasingly interdisciplinary
research efforts.
Digital Imaging and Visualization Analysis Laboratory.--The Museum
would utilize funding to further establish and develop a Digital
Visualization Analysis Laboratory in the new Natural Sciences Building.
Recent developments in digital technologies make imaging and analytical
methods critical multi-disciplinary research tools. These imaging
technologies are being utilized in virtually every scientific
discipline within the Museum. These technologies have brought exciting
applications in the development and design of our exhibitions and
educational programs, as well as in our core scientific research and
collections mission. A state of the art digital analytical facility
does not now exist in any natural history museum in the world.
The Museum has already won a national competition for a new
Scanning Electron Microscope, where the National Science Foundation
recognized the value and the potential of equipping a comprehensive
research museum like the Museum with such state of the art
instrumentation. The Museum now seeks to expand its capacity and
enhance its capabilities in virtual reality visualization, scanning,
tunneling, microscropy, atomic force microscopy, and to develop the
capability to absorb and integrate new visualization technologies.
These technologies represent exciting means for studying specimens and
collecting much needed analytical data. The implications for the
dissemination of research, for improving the quality and variety of
information collected, and for expanded access, and for distance
learning techniques are enormous.
The Molecular Systematics Laboratory.--The Museum currently has two
Molecular Systematics Laboratories, where more than twenty
investigators study a broad range of topics, from the systematics of
population genetics of whales to those of African plants. There is
scarcely a collection-based scientist today whose work does not have a
molecular component.
We plan to expand the laboratory to include frozen samples, with
the aim of building comprehensive frozen tissue collection. A
collection of this scale does not exist anywhere today, but would
quickly become a national and international resource for comparative
study of biomolecules and their potential uses, as well as DNA. It is
critical that these elements of biodiversity be preserved for future
genetic and phylogenetic analysis. Collections that are representative
of as much of an area's biodiversity as possible or which encompass
significant taxonomic breadth will be essential for the future growth
of our knowledge about organisms and their environments (see UNCED
accords, Systematics Agenda 2000 and the Sustainable Biodiversity
Initiative). Collections such as the one we propose will contribute to
the study of biology and biodiversity by preserving the genetic
resources that will be available to investigators far into the future.
We also suggest establishing a geographically based, publicly
accessible Web site that enables users anywhere to access the available
information.
the department of energy role
One of the four primary strategic goals of the DOE is to utilize
its assets to advance the nation's science literacy. In addition to our
mutual commitment to science literacy, the American Museum of Natural
History and DOE share several other joint goals, including: making
science/scientific enterprise more accessible to a large and diverse
audience; harnessing the power of technology to support science,
exhibition and education; and enhancing the diversity of the science
workforce working with schools, parents and the community. The DOE has
enormous resources that can support the activities of the American
Museum's science, exhibition and education programs. In partnership
with DOE, the Museum would significantly advance the public's access to
the expertise, data and technology that has been developed by DOE.
The DOE has traditionally been one of the major sources of support
for research and laboratory instrumentation equipment. The types of
laboratories and instrumentation that we have outlined are indeed
consistent with the DOE's mission. The Molecular Systematics Laboratory
and the Digital Imaging and Visualization Analysis Laboratory are both
critical tools to basic energy research, the human genome project, and
the DOE's biomedical and environmental research function (the BER
account).
I. Programmatic activities: Research, exhibition and education
The Hall of Planet Earth.--This first of a kind exhibition will
explore key questions such as: How has the Earth changed through time;
why do ocean basins continents, and mountains exist; what causes
climate change; and why is the Earth habitable. As part of the
exhibition the question of natural resources will be explored: what are
they; what resources are necessary to generate energy (oil, coal,
geothermal); where are they located; and how are they formed.
Partnership with Los Alamos.--The Museum has established a
partnership with the DOE Los Alamos National Lab to create exhibit
elements for the Hall of Planet Earth. Los Alamos scientists will
create five videos based on five models created at Los Alamos: Core
convection and the generation of the Earth's magnetic field; Mantel
Convection; Global Ocean Circulation; Flow-through Porous Media (earth
crust process); Atmospheric Circulation. The Museum seeks to expand and
deepen its partnerships with DOE labs to interpret, explain, and
disseminate their important work to the public through the Museum's
exhibition halls and the National Center's outreach.
Human Biology and DNA Research.--The Museum currently has a
significant concentration of biologists on staff, and supports two
state-of-the-art molecular laboratories that conduct DNA research.
In addition, the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution at the Museum
is a major resource for the public, especially students. The Human
Genome Project of the DOE is an important endeavor. We propose to
assist the DOE to translate and disseminate its findings to the public
through a ``Genetics-Bulletin.'' This Bulletin will collect, interpret,
and transform data and images into comprehensive digital ``snap-shots''
of events, research, and phenomena in the field of genetics.
Training.--Data from the National Science Foundation lends support
to the urgency of our goal of training the next generation of
scientists. Currently, the Museum, in collaboration with Yale, Cornell,
Columbia, New York University, and the City University of New York,
sponsors one of the oldest and largest Museum-based graduate and post-
graduate training programs of any science museum in the country.
Science Education and Curriculum Development.--The Museum has an
unusual opportunity and responsibility to encourage audiences of all
ages and interests to explore the wonders of the natural world and to
experience the excitement and adventure of science. With schools, our
focus is on aligning the Museum's educational efforts with initiatives
that can support and improve science education: linking the Museum's
content resources (its vast collections, library, exhibitions, science
research and educations staff--see Exhibit A) to the latest curriculum
standards and frameworks, designing professional development programs
for teachers, providing carefully crafted training sessions for science
teachers, and exploring ways to use technology to sustain relationships
with students, teachers and families.
The Museum will develop curriculum on geology, earth sciences, and
modeling. The Museum now has three million visitors each year,
including more than 500,000 children visiting in school groups. We also
sponsor pre-service and in-service training for teachers. The subjects
of study by the DOE are of great relevance to the curriculum. A
partnership with DOE in this area will bring the data and images
developed by DOE to the public.
II. Laboratory and Instrumentation Collaboration
Human Genome Project.--One of the goals of the DOE sponsored Human
Genome Project is to learn about nonhuman organisms' DNA sequences.
This, can lead to an understanding of their natural capabilities that
can be applied toward solving challenges in health care, energy
sources, and environmental cleanup.
The Museum currently has two Molecular Systematics Laboratories.
There are currently more than twenty investigators studying a broad
range of topics, from the systematics of the population genetics of
African plants to those of whales. There is scarcely a collection-based
scientist today whose work does not have a molecular component. We
propose to expand the laboratory to include frozen tissue samples, with
the aim of building a comprehensive frozen tissue collection. A
collection of this scale does not exist anywhere today, but would
quickly become a national and international resource for the
comparative study of biomolecules and their potential uses, as well as
DNA. We also suggest establishing a geographically based, publicly
accessible Web site that enables users anywhere to access the available
information.
Digital Imaging and Visualization Analysis Laboratory.--The Museum
would utilize funding to further establish and develop a Digital
Imaging and Visualization Analysis Laboratory in the new Natural
Sciences Building. Recent developments in digital technologies make
imaging and analytical methods critical multi-disciplinary research
tools. These imaging technologies are being utilized in virtually every
scientific discipline within the Museum. These technologies have
brought exciting applications in the development and design of our
exhibitions and educational programs, as well as in our core scientific
research and collections mission. A state of the art digital analytical
facility does not now exist in any natural history museum in the world.
The Museum has already won a national competition for a new
Scanning Electron Microscope, where the National Science Foundation
recognized the value and the potential of equipping a comprehensive
research museum like the Museum with such state of the art
instrumentation. The Museum now seeks to expand its capacity and
enhance its capabilities in virtual reality visualization, scanning,
tunneling, microscropy, atomic force microscopy, and to develop the
capability to absorb and integrate new visualization technologies.
These technologies represent exciting means for studying specimens and
collecting much needed analytical data. The implications for the
dissemination of research, for improving the quality and variety of
information collected, and for expanded access, and for distance
learning techniques are enormous.
______
Exhibit A
the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History, founded in 1869, is well
positioned as a partner for the federal government. The resources at
the Museum's disposal include:
--an extraordinary collection of more than 32 million artifacts and
specimens, the cumulative product of acquisitions and more than
1,000 major national and international field expeditions
sponsored by the Museum throughout its history;
--more than 200 active research scientists who possess top-ranked
international expertise in many fields;
--an internationally renowned research arm: The Center for
Biodiversity and Conservation;
--a newly created educational vehicle: National Center for Science
Literacy, Education, and Technology;
--a new Hall of Biodiversity (opening May, 1998) dedicated to
educating the public about biodiversity and its critical role
in maintaining life on Earth;
--the long-respected Hayden Planetarium, soon to be completely
updated as part of the Rose Center for Earth and Space, which
also includes a new Hall of the Universe and a new Hall of
Planet Earth, and which is adjacent to the new Hall of
Biodiversity;
--3 million visitors annually, of whom 1.5 million are children,
including 500,000 schoolchildren visiting in school groups;
--the largest natural history library in the western hemisphere,
including a special collection devoted to astrophysics;
--a tradition of creating some of the greatest scientific and
anthropological exhibitions in the world in its 1.2 million
square feet of exhibition space;
--a staff of educators who seek to inspire curiosity and a desire to
learn in both children and adults; and
--an institutional reputation for the highest standards of quality,
accuracy, integrity, and reliability.
With the establishment of the National Center for Science Literacy,
Education, and Technology, the Museum recognizes an opportunity to
match its incomparable resources to the pressing nationwide need to
increase science literacy and foster scientific achievement. The
National Center creates materials and programs that reach beyond the
Museum's walls into homes, schools, museums, and community
organizations around the nation, developing ways to use distance
technologies to link citizens of all ages with the scientific and
educational resources the Museum can provide.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society calls on Congress to provide the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development
(EPA's ORD) with a budget of not less than $614 million in fiscal year
1999 in order to provide the Agency with the scientific support needed
to carry out its mission. This recommendation of a $40 million, or 7
percent, increase above the fiscal year 1998 operating level for EPA's
ORD is supported by an effort of the leaders of 110 scientific,
engineering, and higher education organizations to double the federal
research budget in the next ten years.
For the American Chemical Society, ORD is the highest priority in
the EPA budget because of its important role in supporting research
that will increase the scientific knowledge needed to solve the
nation's environmental problems. The ORD budget, therefore, should be
increased even at the expense of other EPA programs. The additional
monies could be well spent if used for pollution prevention research as
well as for identifying and avoiding future environmental problems.
While the American Chemical Society believes that the ORD \1\
funding level of $527 million proposed by the Administration will not
provide for adequate resources, the Society does support initiatives in
this budget proposal that strengthen both in-house and extramural
research, and that address problems of greatest risk or with the
greatest potential to reduce risk. The Administration's fiscal year
1999 budget request is expected to support the following programs and
activities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ORD's budget is comprised of transfers from Appropriation
Accounts, primarily Science and Technology ($485 million in fiscal year
1999) and Superfund ($40 million, up $5 million from fiscal year 1998
enacted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The Science to Achieve Results program will fund extramural grants
and fellowships, which are awarded in peer-reviewed
competitions to conduct important research related to EPA
needs.
--In-house research will be strengthened through a new postdoctoral
fellowship program that brings in highly trained scientists and
engineers with state-of-the art knowledge and techniques.
--Work will continue to reduce uncertainties in priority areas such
as risks to children, endocrine disruptors, pfiesteria,
drinking water disinfectant byproducts and microbes,
particulate matter, and urban toxics, as well as to provide
sound science for decisionmaking in implementing the 1996 food
safety and safe drinking water laws.
--Research will lead to a better understanding of climate change
stresses on the ecosystem and human health.
--New monitoring and measurement technologies for pollution
prevention will be developed and introduced.
The Superfund Account also transfers funds for research purposes to
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. These transfers
should be supported at least at the fiscal year 1998 level of funding--
$35 million and $74 million, respectively.
Support for increases above the Administration's request for the
Science and Technology Account and for transfers for research from the
Superfund Account will help to secure the quality science and research
needed for sound decisionmaking and cost-effective regulations. The
American Chemical Society urges the Congress to provide a strong
science budget for EPA.
______
Prepared Statement of Raymond J. Campion, Ph.D. President, Mickey
Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center
summary
Legislative authorization.--Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Title
III, Sec. 301).
Mission.--Study the health effects of the 189 air toxics designated
in the Clean Air Act, via sound, peer-reviewed health and environmental
research designed to address regulatory needs. Current emphasis is on
the assessment of actual human exposures to air toxics.
Current request.--$2.6M via EPA in fiscal year 1999.
Anticipated funding.--$2.0M via EPA fiscal year 1998 Assistance
Grant, received April 1998.
Past record of Federalgrants received.--$1.15M via fiscal year 1997
Assistance Grant from EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD),
National Center for Extramural Research and Quality Assurance (NCERQA),
received October 1997.
$480,000 via fiscal year 1996 Assistance Grant from EPA ORD/NCERQA
(as above), received January, 1997.
Research projects.--
1. Human exposures to gaseous air toxics in the outdoor, indoor and
personal environments in a major NUATRC field study.
2. Participation in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES) via personal exposure assessments on NHANES subjects.
3. Feasibility studies on human exposure research involving air
toxic metals.
4. Initiation of acute human health effects research, with the
emphasis on effects on the human respiratory and immune systems.
the mickey leland national urban air toxics research center
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide this written testimony on behalf of The Mickey
Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC). My name is
Dr. Raymond J. Campion, and I am the President of the Leland Center,
``the Center.''
The Center was established under Title III, Section 301 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as a non-profit, public/private
research entity, with the mission of developing new multidisciplinary
scientific approaches to assessing the potential public health risks
from exposure to air toxics. Our effort is designed to provide
independent, sound scientific data for prioritizing toxic risks.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to determine, over a
8-9 year time frame, the residual health risks present to the American
public from toxic materials.
The NUATRC has been operational for about five years, and receives
EPA assistance awards based on Congressional appropriations. Private
sector funding along with joint work with state and local agencies is
used to leverage these federal monies, with national industrial firms
being the major contributors. The Center has used these monies to
develop a small staff, utilizing an administrative service agreement
with The University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center. This
arrangement allows the Center to take advantage of the scientific
synergies created by this relationship with The University of Texas and
the Texas Medical Center, as directed in the Clean Air Act
authorization language.
In this testimony, we will provide an update of our strategic
research directions, in order to meet our Congressional charge in a
cost-effective and scientifically-sound manner. We continue to focus
our research in several areas, in which we believe we can have the
greatest impact. As a small and relatively new entity, we believe it is
important to focus our efforts to provide the greatest potential payout
in terms of environmental and public health advances. These focused
research areas are:
--human exposure assessment in the indoor and outdoor environment,
with an emphasis on volatile organic compounds (VOC), aldehydes
and toxic metals on particles,
--characterization of acute health effects from air toxics exposures,
primarily associated with the respiratory and immune systems.
strategic research directions
The NUATRC has made continuous progress over the past four years in
addressing the Congressional charge to carry out a well-designed and
focused research program on air toxics health effects. The NUATRC has
profited significantly from the advice and counsel of our Board of
Directors, appointed by Congress and the President, and from the
research direction of the NUATRC Scientific Advisory Panel. The Panel,
drawn from nationally-prominent academic and private sector scientists
as well as EPA scientists, has defined a prioritized research program
that recognizes the major needs in air toxics research as well as the
range of expertise of organizations like NUATRC to address those needs.
A major component of our activity is to reach out and involve other
national scientific resources in leveraged efforts to most efficiently
and collegially carry out these investigations. Through national
workshops and symposia, with publication in the peer-reviewed
literature of the findings of these studies, we have established a
national scientific presence. We have interacted with the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) via their National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS), the National Institute for Environmental Health Science
(NIEHS), the Health Effects Institute (HEI) and the EPA to assure that
our research directions are complementary to these larger
organizations. Both HEI and EPA have recently begun to work with
academic scientists under NUATRC grants to further leverage and broaden
the scope of the Center's research.
human exposure assessment
We reported to you last year a significant research result from our
two-year feasibility study on personal exposure assessment technology
development which demonstrated:
(1) That simple, inexpensive `passive' dosimeters can be used in
urban population field studies to assess actual human exposures to
specific air toxics such as benzene and toluene.
(2) That the relative importance of indoor, outdoor and personal
exposures can be assessed under a variety of conditions, to allow the
data obtained to be well understood in terms of experimental variables
such as temperature and humidity.
The Center now has two major research programs extending the
developmental work now being conducted by Columbia and Environmental &
Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) in New Jersey. Both of
these programs are underway in urban areas of Houston, Los Angeles and
New York City. The research carried out will characterize the personal
exposures to VOC's and metals on airborne particles to which
individuals living in these areas are exposed. The work will address
how these exposures are influenced by indoor and outdoor sources, as
well as determining the relative importance of mobile, point and area
emissions. These data will then be factored into risk assessments to
establish the most cost-effective means of reducing public health
risks.
The NUATRC is also about to sign a contract with the NCHS to
participate in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES). We view this as an excellent opportunity to gather personal
environmental data at the same time as public health data are being
obtained on a statistically significant portion of the U.S. population.
We are committing $150,000 annually to this effort, which again will be
focused on determining the actual public health risks associated with
air toxics.
nuatrc research on toxic metals on particles
In addition to the Center's ongoing research at Columbia and EOHSI
on individual personal exposures to gaseous VOC's and aldehydes, the
Center has restructured its research plans for 1998-2000 to emphasize
peer-reviewed work on personal exposures to particles, and specifically
the toxic metal component of that particulate matter. The Center has
received approval from its Board of Directors to sponsor two new
exposure research programs in 1998, that address the toxic metal-
particle issue. Data from these studies and the two comprehensive
personal exposure studies now underway at Columbia and EOHSI will be
available for incorporation in the next National Research Council
(NRC)/EPA review of the particulate standard.
The NRC, has just published its Congressionally-mandated report,
``Research Priorities For Airborne Particulate Matter: Immediate
Priorities and a Long-Range Research Portfolio.'' In that document, the
NRC describes as ``crucially inadequate'' EPA's resource deployment of
3-4 percent to `` * * * investigating the relationships between fixed-
site outdoor monitoring data and actual human exposures to ambient
particulate matter, and to identifying the most biologically important
constituents and characteristics of particulate matter * * *.'' This is
the research area on which the Center has chosen to focus.
In addition, the NRC identified 10 research topics as ``highest
priority'' including the following:
--``Investigate quantitative relationships between (outdoor)
particulate-matter concentrations--and the actual breathing
zone exposures of individuals to particulate matter and gaseous
copollutants, taking ambient outdoor and indoor pollutant
sources and human time-activity patterns into account, * * * ''
and,
--``Investigate exposures to the most biologically important
constituents and characteristics of particulate matter that
might adversely affect health, * * *.''
Both of these research topics are being addressed in depth in the
Center research program.
air toxics health effects
As indicated earlier, the second priority research area for the
NUATRC is that related to the health effects associated with air
toxics, but particularly those effects of an acute nature dealing with
the human respiratory and/or immune systems. The Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) elected to focus the NUATRC attention in that area, as
considerable work is already underway on cancer effects and the nation
seems to be experiencing increasing incidences of respiratory problems
such as asthma among inner city children. A Request for Applications
will soon be released by the NUATRC that will initiate our research
efforts in this area. Here again, the focus will be on the potential
health risks of toxic metals from airborne particles.
small grants program
Based on the need to involve the community in air toxics health
risk issues, the NUATRC is beginning a small research grants program,
wherein young and minority investigators could compete for limited
funding that could allow more focused research approaches. This program
should result in a greater degree of involvement by the local community
and thus a greater sense of empowerment in these studies. We could also
anticipate the development of better scientific resources in smaller,
community-oriented institutions. These studies would be subject to the
same rigorous peer-review and quality control requirements as the
broader-scope national programs receive. This area of small grants or
pilot studies offers us the opportunity to tap a reservoir of
scientific talent that may be underutilized and which may also provide
a improved sense of participation on the part of local community
leaders. The NUATRC Board is expected to approve release of this RFA in
April, 1998, with selection of awardees before year-end.
appropriations request
The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center
respectfully requests a fiscal year 1999 Appropriation of $2.6 million.
The studies described above, some of which are continuing efforts from
the fiscal year 1997 and 1998 research programs, can be estimated as
follows:
Human Personal Exposure................................. $860,000
Participation in NHANES................................. 140,000
Toxic Metals Exposure Studies........................... 300,000
Metals Methodology Development.......................... 250,000
Small Grants Program.................................... 200,000
Risk Assessment Symposium............................... 50,000
Metal/Particle Exposure Assessment...................... 300,000
Administrative.......................................... 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 2,600,000
nuatrc management
As mentioned at the outset, the NUATRC is led by a nine-member
Board of Directors, composed of leading academics, regulatory and
private sector executives, all of whom are conversant with the air
toxics environmental health research issues. The Board has been active
in overseeing and directing the activities of the SAP, which has
evolved into a cohesive, effective and independent research advisory
group. The SAP numbers scientists and physicians from Harvard, the
Universities of Minnesota, Pittsburgh and Washington, Brigham Young
University, the National Jewish Hospital (Denver), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and private companies, including
DuPont, Exxon, ICF Kaiser and Dow Chemical. These thirteen scientists
bring different areas of scientific expertise to the table, allowing a
broad range of input to our research program.
funding
NUATRC has relied on Congressional appropriations and support from
the private sector. NUATRC continues to expand its support base with
the addition of private sector partners, which now include DuPont,
Exxon, FMC Corporation, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Houston
Industries, Mobil Oil, Phillips Petroleum, Rohm and Haas Company,
Shell, Sun Company, Texaco, and Union Carbide. Corporate contributions
have been consistent through the years and we are continually seeking
new partners to participate in this environmental health research
initiative. An intensive development effort is planned in 1998 to
address alternative private sector sources such as trade organizations,
foundations and other possible source. This is vitally important in
light of increased federal support.
conclusion
We are most appreciative of the support we have received from the
U.S. Congress. We believe that NUATRC is progressing in the manner
anticipated by Congress, and is poised to make a significant
contribution to the science underlying air toxics health effects.
Although we are hopeful that EPA will provide funding in the
future, we are gratified by the recent good support we have enjoyed
from EPA scientists in our Panel deliberations, and we hope that these
relationships will build and bear additional benefits to NUATRC and to
the nation. Thank you for your attention to this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Committee, I am Billy
Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(NWIFC) and on behalf of the tribes in Washington State I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to offer written testimony concerning the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fiscal year 1999
appropriations.
We are specifically requesting that programmatic funding levels to
the Northwest tribes be included in EPA's budget under Section
104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of our request is to
continue implementation of the model Coordinated Tribal Water Quality
Program for twenty-six participating tribes and tribal organizations in
Washington State for fiscal year 1999. Strong congressional support for
implementation of this tribal initiative began in 1990 and is present
today.
However, we are losing ground in the implementation of these
efforts. Erosion of base level funding is jeopardizing the federal
government's long-term investment of this efficient and effective
tribal water quality protection program. Support for this model tribal
initiative is timely now as it implements the goals and objectives of
the President's Clean Water Action Plan as it is an existing program
that centers around watershed-based water quality protection by
building partnerships and fostering inter-jurisdictional cooperation.
We respectfully request Congress to either:
(1) Appropriate $3.10 million into the EPA's funding base.--Under
Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act, or within EPA's Assessment and Watershed Program,
appropriate $3.10 million into EPA's funding base for 26 participating
tribes and tribal organizations in Washington State to fully implement
the model cooperative tribal water resource program for environmental
protection; or
(2) Direct the Agency to utilize existing $3.10 million in agency
funding.--From existing Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act,
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, or EPA's Assessment and Watershed
Program funds, provide $3.10 million for 26 tribes and tribal
organizations in Washington State to continue implementation of the
model cooperative tribal water resource program for environmental
protection.
Justification for this funding request is based on:
--legal rights and obligations for the federal government to protect
the treaty-reserved rights of the tribes,
--the United State's trust responsibility to protect the health and
environment of the tribes on a government-to-government basis,
--cost effectiveness by utilizing a cooperative intergovernmental
strategy to accomplish national clean water goals, and
--minimize conflict between multiple jurisdictions who manage water
quality.
We ask that you put monies in the above mentioned mechanisms. By
placing these funds in the EPA General Assistance Program (GAP), which
are dedicated to planning, it limits the tribe's ability to proceed
with implementation activities.
To assist the Committee members, I would like to summarize
background relevant to our request.
background
The NWIFC request is on behalf of our 19 member treaty fishing
tribes and the Hoh, Chehalis and Shoalwater Bay Tribes in western
Washington, and the Yakama Indian Nation, Colville Confederated,
Spokane, and Kalispel Tribes in eastern Washington. The funding request
is to continue implementing the model Coordinated Tribal Water Quality
Program that began in 1990.
Washington State has been blessed with bountiful rivers and
streams. Five species of Pacific salmon and three species of anadromous
trout utilize Washington State's streams during the fresh water stages
of their life cycles. Historically, there were ample supplies of fish
for ceremonial, subsistence, commercial and recreation purposes. Old
growth conifer removal, riparian zone impacts, farming activities, and
channelization of the streams has reduced the productive capacity of
these streams to extremely low levels. Currently, there are concerns
that hundreds of salmon stocks are at significantly low levels, some
warranting listing under the Endangerd Species Act.
In 1979, the United States Supreme Court re-affirmed the treaty
tribes' right to harvest half of the harvestable number of anadromous
fish passing through tribal usual and accustomed areas. In 1980, the
federal district court held that the United States and the State of
Washington must not permit degradation of fish habitat which would
diminish the treaty harvest right, including point and non-point
pollution sources. The federal courts have recognized that protection
of water quality and other attributes of fish habitat are necessary to
secure the Constitutionally protected rights of the tribes to harvest
fish.
The sovereign authorities of the Tribes and the legal principles
enunciated in United States v. Washington and other federal court
decisions support the basis upon which the tribes are involved with on
and off-reservation environmental issues. As a result of federal court
decisions, the state of Washington has recognized the tribes as ``co-
managers'' of the fish resource and water quality in our state. As co-
managers in Washington, the tribes must have the resources to
adequately participate in environmental protection programs.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Indian policy (1984) of
working with federally recognized tribes on a government-to-government
basis concerns more than 375 Indian tribes in the lower 48 states
controlling over 52 million acres of land base. In our state, tribal
reservations make up approximately 6 percent of the State of
Washington. Our tribes also have retained treaty rights not ceded to
the United States. These usual and accustomed fishing grounds include
most of the State of Washington. The combined area of Indian
reservations nationally is larger than all of New England, yet EPA now
devotes only a tiny fraction of its personnel and funds to
environmental protection for the tribes.
This is clearly a discriminatory prioritization of federal funds.
On a national level, tribal reservations represent 3 percent of the
land base of this nation. Although the EPA has worked closely with the
states to implement adequate environmental programs, until recently
little has been done to accomplish the same for the tribal governments.
Indian tribes are over two decades behind the states both in resources
received from the EPA and in technical assistance provided by the EPA
in developing tribal water program offices. A ``front end'' investment
will promote cooperation and increased tribal involvement in
environmental protection as has been the case between the EPA and state
governments for the past 20 years. The Coordinated Tribal Water Quality
Program is already enabling cooperative interjurisdictional
partnerships and has been matched by an additional $3 million in
federal, state and tribal funds.
We recognize, support and appreciate the successful efforts that
have been made to improve EPA Indian Programs and tribal funding. And
further, we support the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request
increasing this years programs by $20 million. Particularly, the $4
million increase to the General Assistance Program, and the $2.6
million increase for tribal water quality management programs through
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. We see these activities as
important and positive steps, but believe that we have a long way yet
to go in meeting the existing environmental protection needs in Indian
Country.
Additionally, since the GAP funding is legislated for program
development, there must be complimentary sources of implementation
funding for these tribal programs. Tribes in Washington State are
further along in the development of their programs than EPA's Indian
funding policy development. While EPA is accomplishing important
strides in improving their Indian Programs, tribes with previously
established programs are experiencing a break in support while EPA
plays catch-up with tribes across the nation. Our request for Section
104(b)(3) funding is intended for stabilizing existing program
implementation activities. Another possibility may be within Section
319 of the Clean Water Act. However, because of legislated formula, the
$100 million available nationally translates into only $300,000 (1/3 of
1 percent restriction) for tribal programs. This means that 535 tribal
governments (including Alaska Native Villages) must compete for a very
small pool of tribal nonpoint source pollution management program
funds. Clearly, a means must be found to support the long term funding
of tribal programs that seek to protect tribal treaty rights such as
ours, or the efforts being made by EPA will not be successful.
tribal/state roles
Beginning in 1990, the State of Washington has supported tribal
involvement in environmental protection both off and on-reservation.
The state is committed to work with the tribes on a government-to-
government basis as ``co-managers'' of the water resource in the
implementation of this program. The federally recognized Indian tribes
in Washington have developed a process with state, local government
officials, and representatives of agriculture, industry, and
environmental communities to address water resource issues on a
government-to-government basis. The results of these discussions have
outlined a cooperative process between the tribes, state agencies and
programs, and local units of governments in areas of environmental
protection. This process was highlighted as a case study example to
countries around the world at the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Economic Development in South America.
The Coordinated Tribal water Quality Program, an EPA/Tribal
partnership, has generated successful models of state/tribal
interjurisdictional cooperation. Examples of these models are:
--the Tribal Water Quality Standards Template encouraging inter-
governmental uniformity and coordination of water quality
management and;
--the Cooperative Management of the Clean Water Act Sec. 303(d)
Program, enabling state/tribal government to government process
throughout the CWA Sec. 303(d) listing and implementation
processes.
The tribes must be part of the solutions to prevent and control
water pollution in Washington State. The tribes must participate in
these activities to protect their governmental interests and treaty
fishing rights. In this time of existing and pending listings of salmon
stocks under the Endangered Species Act, neither we, nor the resources,
can afford to lose programs integral to our inter-governmental
cooperative watershed program. The Coordinated Tribal Water Quality
Program is part of protecting our nation's environmental heritage.
conclusion
For seven years, Congress has recognized and supported the
Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program by appropriating funding to
maintain its operations. Last year, Congress recognized the program
without specifying monies. Our understanding of this change in
Congressional action was due to the increased General Assistance
Program/Indian Set aside and the expectation that the Coordinated
Tribal Water Quality Program would be maintained with a portion of
those monies. This has not occurred. General Assistance Program monies
are designated for capacity building--the Coordinated Tribal Water
Quality Program is an existing and successful tribal initiative
requiring stabilized implementation funding. This model program
demonstrates how tribes can participate in environmental programs
working with EPA to realize its long-range objective of including
tribal governments as partners in decision-making and program
management of tribal lands and resources.
We appreciate the difficulty Congress is facing in making decisions
for this next fiscal year. In the case of the EPA, Congress and the
Administration will probably direct their resources to address those
areas of highest risk to human health and the environment. Therefore,
we want to reiterate that tribal reservations and protection of their
treaty resources have not been adequately addressed for the past 20
years and represents the highest of risks to this nation. To do
otherwise would represent environmental genocide to Native Americans.
Sufficient and permanent funding is necessary to continue the
tribal cooperative program. Certainty of funding is necessary for the
tribes to hire permanent and professional staff to implement this
program. Without an ongoing investment by Congress much of the good
that has been accomplished to date will be lost.
Please consider our request for $3.10 million for the Washington
State Tribal Water Quality Program. Once again, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony. Thank you also for your assistance in
helping to develop a national model program of how tribal governments
can address environmental protection in a cooperative watershed
approach with state and local governments.
Thanks to this committee, we are making significant progress. This
initiative is being supported at all levels of our governments. We hope
you and the committee will continue to look favorably on our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Water Environment Research Foundation
The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF or Foundation)
appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement and request for
funding to the Subcommittee. WERF is a non-profit organization that
funds and manages water quality and wastewater technology research. It
is a unique public/private partnership between municipal utilities,
corporations, academia, industry, and the federal government, together
focusing resources on developing good science and technology for
rational environmental decision making. The results of WERF's research
allow regulators to better understand the costs and benefits of
different regulatory approaches and to select the least-cost
environmentally-beneficial approach.
WERF was created in response to the fact that federal funding for
practical wastewater treatment technology and process research has
declined from $15.6 million annually to virtually nothing today.
Likewise, funding for municipal water pollution engineering research at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Water Research
laboratory in Cincinnati has fallen from $7.4 million in 1982 to almost
zero today. Overall EPA water quality research funding has fallen from
$67 million in 1980 to $26 million in 1997. Most of the available money
is being used by EPA to support the development of regulations. This
has resulted in the stagnation of advances in wastewater control
technology and missed opportunities for better, more cost-efficient
wastewater management, and has prevented our nation from achieving full
benefit from the $65+ billion federal investment in wastewater
infrastructure.
The need for research has never been greater. New approaches to
environmental problems, such as watershed management, require a new set
of tools to ensure success. Addressing non-point source problems
through watershed-based trading demonstration projects allows
stakeholders to maximize cost to benefit ratios. Understanding all
elements of water quality criteria, creating methodologies to develop
credible site-specific criteria, and implementing reliable monitoring
procedures, however, are just a few of the scientific challenges before
us. Whether we are discussing ``pfiesteria,'' nutrients, TMDL's,
metals, ``cryptosporidium,'' or a myriad of other issues--tens of
millions of dollars are needed. WERF provides one of the most cost
effective and credible means of leveraging funds and involving
stakeholders to advance our scientific knowledge and create practical
solutions to our water quality problems.
WERF provides an objective forum for peer reviewed water pollution
control research to benefit the public and private sectors. Each year
WERF surveys its Subscribers, as well as a broad cross section of the
water quality profession, to develop consensus on the most pressing
scientific and technological research needs. Once the statistical
analysis of the survey is complete, WERF synthesizes the data into a
comprehensive 5-Year Research and Development Plan. To the extent
funding allows, research proposals are solicited on a priority basis.
An independent advisory Research Council, made up of experts from
municipal utilities, academics, engineering firms, regulatory agencies
and equipment manufacturers, helps WERF select researchers, oversees
studies, and provides periodic review and advice. WERF's customer
orientation facilitates creation of a consensus-based research agenda
addressing the needs of the people who govern and manage water quality
protection facilities. WERF's close association with the users of
research results, the Water Environment Federation, and EPA ensures the
practical application of findings.
WERF's funding is overwhelmingly contributed by municipal agencies
that represent more than half of the sewered population of the United
States. WERF members also include equipment manufacturers, consulting
firms and large industrial companies. These members are geographically
diverse and represent most of the country, including 39 states. WERF
has also received modest federal funding through the EPA budget (in
fiscal years 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996) and through
Congressional add-ons to EPA's budget (in fiscal years 1991, 1992,
1993, 1996, and 1997). The appropriations bill passed by the Congress
for fiscal year 1998 included $3 million for WERF.
Since its inception in 1989, WERF has leveraged federal funding at
a 6:1 ratio including in-kind contributions and co-funding from
municipal utilities and the private sector. Only 13 percent of the
Foundation's budget is used to pay for fund raising and administrative
costs. The rest is spent on research. Since its inception in 1989, WERF
has initiated over 100 research projects valued at some $30 million.
Completed research has resulted in 28 published reports, with 21
additional reports expected to be printed by the end of 1998. Reports
due in 1998 include studies on pollution prevention, whole effluent
toxicity testing, watershed management, biosolids, toxic compounds,
nutrient removal and disinfection.
WERF respectfully requests that this Subcommittee include a $5
million appropriation for the Foundation in the fiscal year 1999 EPA
budget so that the critical research agenda developed by the Foundation
and its public and private partners (including EPA) can be carried out
to the fullest extent possible. This amount would reflect federal
matching of state and local government commitments to WERF. We also
wish to note our support and high regard for the work being done by our
colleagues at the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF). AWWARF and WERF are currently engaged in several cooperative
research projects which impact both the water and wastewater priorities
of our nation. Simply stated, the technology of today is based upon the
research of the past. The promise of the future is based on the
research of today.
______
Prepared Statement of Father William L. George, S.J., and Father T.
Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to the President of Georgetown
University, and Father Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L.
George, S.J., and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to
the President of Georgetown University, the Father Leo J. O'Donovan,
S.J. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before your
Subcommittee.
Although there were few combat-related casualties associated with
the deployment to the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991, many veterans of
this conflict suffer from non-specific and unexplained illnesses. This
constellation of symptoms has been termed Gulf War Illness, but in fact
these same types of symptoms have been noted in veterans of other
conflicts in which the U.S. has been involved in the past. Furthermore,
these symptoms occur fairly frequently in the general population, with
the terms presently being used to describe the syndromes being
Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Somatoform Disorders.
Although pathogenesis of these symptoms is poorly understood, there is
a general agreement that these symptoms are due to some type of
dysregulation of the central nervous system. The illness can be
triggered or exacerbated by exposure to a variety of types of
biological stressors such as physical trauma, emotional distress,
drugs, toxins and immune stimulation. Regardless of the semantic terms
used to describe these symptom complexes, they have serious impact in
providing optimum health care in the context of readiness. We expect
that the frequency of such symptomatic occurrence will increase as the
military deploys a greater number of reserves and guards.
What we are dealing with does not fit traditional models of patient
care that tend to deal with a single illness at a time. A new
interdisciplinary program with strong academic rigor is urgently needed
to address this complex problem for our fighting men and women of today
and tomorrow. The Institute of Readiness and Environmental Health will
conduct research, patient care, and education in collaboration with
government agencies such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the
Department of Defense, and the National Institutes of Health. Such an
institute has been recommended by numerous committees and organizations
responsible for oversight of these efforts, including GAO and the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The Institute will focus
on the following key aspects of the illness:
--Understanding the pathogenesis and risk factors for the development
of the illnesses
--Develop risk factors and preventative measures
--Establish treatment methods for these patients
--Train the health care workers in the VA and DOD with new findings
The institute will be managed by Georgetown University under the
guidance of the consortium board consisting of representatives of
Georgetown University, the VA Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri,
the VA headquarters and other participating government agencies. Its
activities will be closely integrated with complimentary activities in
other government agencies. This institute would provide a unique
opportunity for a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous study of
all facets of these illnesses. It is hoped that the work of this
institute will improve the readiness and environmental health for our
fighting men and women.
We request $15 million for fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Margaret H. Nellor, Research Project Manager, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Dr. Peter Fox, Research Project
Manager, Arizona State University
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
to the Subcommittee in support of federal funding in fiscal year 1999
for an exciting research program focused on strengthening scientific
understanding of the efficiency and sustainability of Soil Aquifer
Treatment (SAT) for indirect potable reuse of highly treated recycled
water. This research, which is taking place in California and Arizona,
has national implications for enhancing sustainable development of
communities by augmenting and protecting valuable groundwater supplies
with recycled water. Over $5 million in cash and in-kind services have
already been committed to the investigation by various research
sponsors and participants. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 million
for the SAT project, which will be used for capital equipment needed to
expand the project's monitoring and analytical capabilities, to expand
and enhance groundwater modeling methods, and to create a public
education program. We are seeking an additional $1 million in fiscal
year 1999 to fully utilize the expanded monitoring and analytical
capabilities developed with fiscal year 1998 funding.
The Soil Aquifer Treatment Project is designed to provide the data
necessary to support the rational design and operation of SAT systems,
to predict water quality improvements provided by SAT, and to answer
important public health questions. The County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, who serve over five million people in 78 cities in
Los Angeles County, California, and Arizona State University are the
project managers for the research in cooperation with the University of
Arizona, the University of Colorado, Stanford University and the U.S.
Geological Survey. We are joined in support of this funding by the
Cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson,
Arizona; the Orange County Water District; the Water Reclamation
District of Southern California; the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power; the City of Riverside, California; the Bureau of
Reclamation; and the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation.
As the arid West continues to develop and as sources for additional
water supplies become more and more scarce, an increasingly important
source of water for agricultural and urban use is recycled water. This
water has the potential to alleviate water shortages and to provide
important augmentation to existing sources. Soil Aquifer Treatment,
which is currently in use in California and Arizona, is one technology
that has the potential to economically supplement traditional treatment
and storage systems for existing and future potable water supplies.
This study will be of value not only in the West but in a number of
other areas around the county where groundwater recharge is used to
supplement potable water supplies, to control sea water intrusion in
coastal groundwater aquifers, to control land subsidence caused by
declining groundwater levels, to raise groundwater levels to reduce the
cost of groundwater pumping, and to provide a means of treating
wastewater prior to discharge. Most notably, the states of Florida,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin, who already operate groundwater
recharge facilities, will benefit from this research. This research
will also benefit aquifer storage and recovery systems located in
eleven other states.
Further, our investigations of SAT will help address the public
health issues that all water suppliers in the nation face, such as
source water protection and disinfection practices. The questions that
will be answered by our study will be instrumental to the
identification, characterization, and treatment of compounds in our
nation's water supply so that we may better protect the health of our
citizens.
the need for the study
While groundwater recharge using recycled water has been used in
the United States for several decades and has been the subject of a
number of studies, the scientific and technical community's ability to
fully address a number of complex public health questions has been
limited by the nature of existing testing and study methodologies. The
capital improvements funded by Congress in fiscal year 1998 will enable
a higher standard of research on SAT by expanding the project's
monitoring and analytical capabilities, and will thus help enhance
scientific understanding of the various biological, physical, and
chemical processes in SAT that modify and improve the characteristics
of recycled water.
With additional funding for fiscal year 1999, we will be able to
utilize the expanded capabilities that we developed with fiscal year
1998 funding. Funds will be used in part to follow up on research
recommendations from the National Research Council's (NRC) Water
Science and Technology Board study on the viability of augmenting
potable supplies with recycled water. This work will address critical
areas of research necessary to address the myriad of unknowns
concerning SAT and the indirect use of recycled water for potable water
supply including the fate and significance of disinfection byproducts,
organics, and microbial pathogens.
The results of our investigation will help us to better understand
the complex nature of recycled water and SAT so that we may take
advantage of the benefits offered by indirect potable reuse based on
groundwater recharge such as: additional water quality improvements;
seasonal or longer-term storage without evaporative losses; protection
of water resources against recontamination (with coliforms and
parasites) by birds, mammals, and even humans; and prevention of algae
growth and associated water-quality problems such as algae-derived
taste and odor.
sat defined
Soil Aquifer Treatment can best be described as a groundwater
recharge method using recycled water. SAT relies on percolation of the
recycled water through soil and groundwater transport to further
improve water quality prior to reuse.
--Soil percolation encompasses several processes that occur as water
seeps downward through the soil under the influence of gravity
to enter the groundwater system. The soil acts as a filter to
improve the characteristics of the recycled water through
physical, chemical, and microbiological processes.
--Groundwater transport: After reaching the underlying aquifer,
groundwater moves slowly to extraction wells. During transport,
further water quality benefits are realized through a number of
physical, chemical, and biological processes.
purpose and goal of the study
The SAT Project is the first research program to focus broadly on
SAT as a system. Its goals are to provide the data necessary to support
the engineered design and operation of SAT systems, and to address
factors that are of interest to health regulators for the development
of regulations governing groundwater recharge projects.
Specific objectives of the project are to:
--characterize processes that contribute to organic chemical removal
and transformation during transport through the soil
percolation zone and underlying groundwater aquifer;
--investigate and model relationships among above-ground treatment,
wetlands polishing, and SAT;
--identify monitoring criteria that will provide proper assurances
regarding the elimination of viruses and other pathogens; and
--produce a framework or model within which SAT systems can be
designed and operated to meet regulatory criteria.
The effectiveness of SAT will be investigated and systematically
analyzed to determine the efficacy of the protective barriers inherent
in SAT systems: the interface at the soil-water boundary of the
infiltration surface; soil percolation; and groundwater transport. The
water quality benefits derived from the treatment in each barrier will
be evaluated based on the reductions achieved in levels of organic
carbon, nitrogen, and pathogens.
Field investigations and data gathering are being performed at at
least seven full- or pilot-scale recharge sites in California and
Arizona. These sites offer a range of different effluent qualities and
physical conditions such as depth to groundwater, soil and sediment
type, etc. Laboratory work is also being conducted to analyze the data
and develop the applicable models. These facilities are located in
Phoenix, Mesa, and Tucson, Arizona; and Riverside, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles County, and Orange County, California. Some of the more unique
research elements include use of genetic techniques to isolate and
identify viruses; analytical methodologies capable of identifying over
90 percent of the materials comprising the organic makeup of
groundwater and recycled water; unique tracers to track the movement of
recycled water as it infiltrates the groundwater; and a public
education/outreach component to disseminate the results of the study.
On behalf of the many public agencies, cities, and universities
that are participating in this exciting and promising research project,
we would like to thank the Subcommittee once again for the opportunity
to submit this statement and for your previous support for this
project. Soil Aquifer Treatment has great potential to alleviate the
coming critical water shortages in the arid western United States and
provide valuable information on a national level for source water
protection and supply. We thank you again for your commitment to this
project in fiscal year 1998, and ask you for your renewed support to
complete the level of funding requested for this project.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert J. Mason, Director, Environmental Lung
Center, National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding the
newly established Environmental Lung Center at the National Jewish
Medical and Research Center in Denver, Colorado. The National Jewish
Center, formerly the National Jewish Center for Immunology and
Respiratory Medicine, is the world's foremost center for the study and
treatment of lung disease.
As you know, there were included in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998 EPA Appropriations, funds for research at the Environmental
Lung Center. We have now successfully completed the Environmental
Protection Agency peer review process for the fiscal year 1997 funds
and are currently in the process of applying for the second round of
funding. We believe that a very productive relationship with the agency
has been fostered. Essentially, the mission of the Environmental Lung
Center will be to provide the sound science necessary to assist the
agency with regulatory policy in specific areas.
Generally speaking, the Environmental Lung Center is building upon
100 years of expertise in this specific science. The goals of the
Center include discovering the molecular mechanisms for environmental
and lung disease, including asthma and lung cancer; providing a
scientific basis for evaluating health hazards of indoor air pollution;
identifying the genetic and molecular basis for individual
susceptibility to environmental lung disease; and identifying the risk
and effect of air pollution on patients with pre-existing pulmonary
disease.
This research is extremely important given the fact that in the
United States, lung disease is a leading cause of death. It is now well
known that man-made environmental and occupational pollutants
contribute significantly to the rising numbers of those afflicted,
particularly impacting residents and commuters to urban areas and those
who work in occupations such as mining, construction, textiles and
manufacturing. Indoor air pollution and improper ventilation also cause
the spread of respiratory illnesses. To eradicate these illnesses and
address general environmental concerns, the Clean Air Act authorized
EPA to set exposure standards for six widespread air pollutants. As you
know, these standards continue to provoke heated debate in the
scientific and regulatory communities. Our task is to find out the
extent to which the exposure thresholds are true, as measured against
individual susceptibility, and to assist the regulatory bodies in this
country to come up with decisions regarding toxic thresholds of
compounds and the medical relevance of the EPA's fixed testing-station
data to surrounding populations.
As the only high ranking institute in the nation that concentrates
on lung disease and the only one that sees patients as well as conducts
research, National Jewish has made great contributions to the
advancement of medical knowledge about the effects of environmental
pollutants on the human pulmonary system. Its location in Denver is
significant in that the city is plagued with environmental pollutants
(nearly 300,000 Colorado residents have chronic lung disease, which is
well above the national average, although our patients come from all 50
states). Our dedicated research at National Jewish has shown definite
linkages between certain types of ambient air pollutants and asthma. We
are currently exploring this further, along with the effects of certain
pollutants on other lung diseases.
The Environmental Lung Center's research efforts will range broadly
from studies of molecular biology and immunology to direct studies of
air pollution on patients with lung disease. The focus of our work
during the current year will be on the special features of the lung as
an immune organ, the pathogenesis of oxidant and particulate inhalation
injuries, and two specific cohorts of patients, chronic beryllium
disease and asbestosis. For the purposes of this testimony, I will
describe the proposed studies in a very general way that will give the
Subcommittee a view into the complexities of determining safe levels of
airborne toxins given human susceptibility factors.
We know that the lung has a unique microenvironment to suppress
inflammation so as to minimize injury to its delicate gas exchange
units. We believe that alterations in these specific adaptations
account for individual susceptibility to environmental hazards. So, in
terms of the immune system, we will focus on the critical components of
immunity affecting the mucosal (pertaining to the mucous membranes)
immunity. These components are called the gamma/delta T lymphocytes. In
addition, we will focus on two surface-active proteins which are a
unique part of the immune system of the lung. We have been able to
clone these proteins and make recombinant proteins for determining
precise structure and function relationships. We are studying the
effects of these proteins to block specific infections. In another
project, we will characterize the antioxidant properties of the lung
that are critical to protection to the ozone and particulates. We will
begin our studies on respiratory viral infections, which we believe
greatly worsen the effects of air pollution, particularly those with
pre-existing lung disease. One of the most common occupational
pulmonary diseases in the aerospace industry is chronic beryllium
disease. We are close to determining the molecular mechanism of this
important immunologic disease. This will be the first time that an
antigen receptor on a T lymphocyte has been defined precisely for a
metal. We also have a cohort of patients with asbestosis, which will
provide us with the opportunity of evaluating the value of sputum
cytology for the detection of lung cancer in this highly susceptible
population. Although it may seem that sputum cytology would be useful
for screening for lung cancer, earlier studies (which may have been
flawed) with lower risk patients did not establish the benefit of this
approach for this purpose. This may be worth exploring again in the
future since lung cancer is the number one killer in this country.
In the next year we are requesting $1.75 million to continue these
projects and develop our ability to perform gene transfer and gene
knock out experiments in mice. The most exciting new technology is the
use of inducible promoters to turn on a certain gene in a specified
cell at a particular time. The technical components for doing this in
the respiratory epithelium are available, but accomplishing this feat
remains an exciting but formidable challenge for the next year. With
this technology we will be able to turn on a specific gene at a
particular site in the lung to defend against an environmental agent of
interest.
The major thrust for the next five years is to take advantage of
modern molecular biology and genetics in order to study environmental
lung disease. Never before have researchers had the ability to
determine the genetic basis for individual susceptibility and the
molecular mechanisms of disease. Our institution is internationally
known for its research in immunology, and we want to utilize this
expertise to study environmental lung disease. In order to accomplish
this goal, we need to expand our research facilities and core units in
order to accommodate these new programs. We will commit at least 2.5
million dollars in matching funds, and we are requesting 2.0 million
dollars to develop these research facilities.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that we are the best partner to provide
the type of sound scientific research necessary to assist the agency
with its regulatory decision-making goals. Our desire is to grow this
relationship and hope that the subcommittee will again provide $1.75
million to continue this relationship for another year. Mr. Chairman,
our mission is taking us to a new level of research, compounding our
need to renovate and expand our current research laboratory. Therefore,
we would also like to take this opportunity to present our need for $2
million as a federal share, to be matched by National Jewish, in order
to expand our research space. This federal investment will enhance our
nation's commitment to protecting the health and safety of its workers,
citizens and individuals the world over. The research conducted by the
Center will lead to medical breakthroughs and environmental findings
that will assist the federal government to set new standards for both
government and business. Your support for these efforts will save lives
and ultimately, save costs for the federal government and for
businesses who are currently struggling to comply with new standards.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Sven-Erik Bursell, Ph.D., Joslin Diabetes
Center
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we at the Joslin
Diabetes Center in Boston appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you again this year. We are extremely eager to report to you the
progress on the two region, two year diabetes pilot demonstration
project Joslin proposed to you last Spring.
The Joslin diabetes demonstration project will institute pilot
programs of detection, prevention and care in two regions: (1) Hawaii,
through Tripler Army Medical Center; and (2) New England through VA's
VISN-1. The objectives involve a training and technology transfer
exercise of Joslin's expertise utilizing Telemedicine infrastructures,
personnel and employee/patient bases of the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs.
We at Joslin would like to thank you for the supportive language in
the fiscal year 1998 VA/HUD Conference Report Appropriations Act
regarding the diabetes research project we are participating in with
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs in New
England and Hawaii. We would like to express our appreciation for the
support on diabetes issues to the majority and minority professional
staff of the Committee for their advice and counsel on the legislative
process and VA interface.
My testimony focuses on two aspects of the project: (1) A status
report on the current year; and (2) A summary of our request for second
year funding through DOD.
status report: first year activities
As you recall, the two objectives of the project are (1) Screening
for diabetes among DOD's and VA's patient populations in New England
and Hawaii, using an innovative technology which requires nothing more
than shining a light in the eye; and (2) Implementing improved diabetes
prevention and care protocols for the DOD's and VA's patient
populations in New England and Hawaii.
We were delayed in implementation somewhat this year due to DOD's
deliberations on where to place this project programmatically. While
the funding flow was being cleared, we have continued to invest
resources and develop elements of the program at Joslin. We have now
settled those issues and are linked with TATRC, the Telemedicine &
Advanced Technology Research Center at Fort Dietrick, Maryland.
Significant progress has been made towards establishing initial
pilot studies to study patients with diabetes. We have reached
understanding, with the support of DOD and VA personnel, on
implementation of the work plan we brought to the Committee last year.
We are in active discussions on implementation with both Departments.
Shortly, we will begin:
--Three Phase I pilot projects to provide information on the expected
magnitude of the proposed interventions and to evaluate the
feasibility of the application of these protocols at multiple
sites. After the Phase 1 pilot study, we will move to a Phase 2
large-scale study on both the Joslin Vision Network (JVN) and
the Diabetes Intensive Treatment Program (DOIT).
--The process of developing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies for both
the JVN and the DOIT Program at the DOD.
--The process of organization and distribution of the remote access
diabetic detection units at multiple sites.
By September 30, 1998, we will have accomplished the following,
despite the delay in our start date:
--Completion of Phase 1 studies in the New England area for the VA;
--Implementation of Phase 2 studies in the New England area for the
VA;
--Implementation of Phase 1 studies at Tripler Army Medical Center,
Hawaii;
--Deployment of three remote examination sites in New England;
--Initiation of the deployment of three remote examination sites in
Hawaii; and
--Further maturation of the technology at Joslin.
second year plan and funding needs
In Year 2 we will have accomplished the following objectives:
--Provide DOD and VA diabetes patients cost-effective access to the
benefits of annual retinal examination, diagnosis, and
treatment as necessary to reduce the risk of vision loss;
--Develop the utilization of a quick, efficient and easily acceptable
method of screening for diabetes at remote sites;
--Demonstrate efficient and effective methods to improve the
metabolic control for patients with diabetes.
Anticipating early implementation in November of 1997, Joslin began
procuring the necessary equipment to carry out the project. To date,
Joslin has expended approximately $2.0 million, without any
reimbursement from Federal funds. This has been a particular challenge
for a nonprofit institution whose annual shortfall is made up through
gifts from foundations and private donors.
Joslin was a little naive in the preparation of the budget we
prepared for the current fiscal year. We were not aware that at each
stage of DOD review and decision-making, a percentage of the funds
available would be deducted for program management and administrative
overhead. Nor did we anticipate several unforeseen expenses required by
the Department of Defense. We are also now faced with a budget from the
VA for $500,000 for the two-year period for their participation in this
project. As a result, the bare bones budget we submitted last year has
been reduced to an insufficient level. DOD officials have recognized
and appreciated Joslin's plight in this regard. The DOD program
managers have indicated that they will support a second year budget of
$6.4 million to assure that this important initiative can proceed.
In total, assessments by DOD and VA are projected at $2,000,000
from the funds we had originally budgeted for the first year costs of
$4.0 million.
The supporting detail for the second year request is in the final
stages of preparation. We are grateful that we have the programmatic
support of DOD in our efforts. We are also very fortunate that VA and
DOD officials understand the budget and funding issues, and will
support the second year effort at $6.4 million.
Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly, and
conduct the project in the manner and under the terms established by
DOD and the VA, we will require an appropriation of $6.4 million in
fiscal year 1999 through the Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my brief statement. We are pleased to
be a part of this project with the Department of Veterans Affairs and
appreciate your Committee's support.
I would be pleased to answer any question from you or any other
Members of the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
introduction
The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
live on the shores of Lake Superior in northern Wisconsin. The
Chippewa, or Anishinabe, migrated from the east and settled on Madeline
Island in the early 1600's. In 1825, the Treaty of Prairie du Chien
recognized the ownership of northern Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan
by the Chippewa. By 1842, the Chippewa had ceded a large portion of
this land base to the United States. Today there are 6,291 Bad River
Tribal members; 1,199 reside on the reservation and 5,092 live off-
reservation. The Tribe manages social services, natural resources,
education, health, housing, administration and legal departments as
well as a lodge and gaming facility.
The Bad River Reservation, established by the Treaty of 1854,
includes over 124,000 acres in Wisconsin's Ashland and Iron Counties
and is a highly valued ecological region. Bordering the shores of Lake
Superior, the reservation is the mouth of a large watershed that drains
much of northern Wisconsin. The rivers flowing through the reservation
are important spawning grounds for lake-run trout, salmon, sturgeon and
walleye as well as many other fish which make up a significant
subsistence resource for tribal members. In addition, the unique
drainage area known as the Kakagon Slough provides abundant wild rice
habitat that is a significant contribution to the Tribe's cultural and
economic health. The sloughs are the cultural and spiritual center of
the Bad River Tribe. They host the only remaining extensive coastal
wild rice marsh in the Great Lakes Basin. This area is relatively well-
sheltered, providing exceptional habitat for a variety of wildlife.
The challenge to preserve and enhance this and other areas of the
reservation is a daily concern of the Bad River Tribe. Half of the land
within the reservation borders is owned privately and subject to
intensive timbering which causes severe sedimentation in the waterways.
The larger rivers that flow through the reservation extend well beyond
the reservation boundary and are exposed to upstream contamination
sources. The encroachment of development threatens the protection of
nesting sites, rare and endangered vegetation species, and cultural and
historic features. To protect its resources, the Tribe is using a
watershed approach to resource management which will hopefully guide
land management practices throughout the 690,000 acre Kakagon/Bad River
watershed. Currently, the Tribe is producing a comprehensive watershed
management plan and continuing to build cooperation with off-
reservation stakeholders.
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
The Tribe wishes to express its support for President Clinton's
budget initiative, particularly the increase of funding for the General
Assistance Program, and the increases in both Clean Air and Clean Water
Act implementation funds.
In 1991, Bad River proposed and received a Multi-Media Pilot
Project to develop an environmental protection program on the
reservation. This nationwide pilot was the beginning of the General
Assistance program (GAP). While GAP funding has continued since 1991,
the level has never been sufficient for the development of
infrastructure that will enable the Tribe to manage its own
environmental programs, adequately represent itself, and make decisions
affecting its people and assert jurisdiction of its rights. At the
current level of funding, the GAP program exists in a reactionary mode.
One staff person is insufficient to handle all the air, water, solid
waste and hazardous waste issues on the reservation. This lack of
resources inhibits proactive steps such as long-range watershed
planning, development of environmental protection codes and
regulations, cooperative work with other governments on Lake Superior
issues, and sound environmental planning for sustainable economic
development.
Clean Water Act Funding
The Bad River Tribe supports the increase of 106 monies under
President Clinton's budget proposal. The reservation's water resources
quality and preservation are inextricably woven into fish, wildlife,
vegetation, human health and cultural issues. The surface waters of the
reservation provide nourishment and supporting the environment for the
tribal fish and game resources and are a host to the vast wild rice
beds previously described. Groundwater is the sole source of drinking
water on the reservation. As development in the watershed increases,
both groundwater and surface water are effected. The increase is 106
funding will enable the Tribe to continue development of a Water
Resources Office and a Tribal Water Resources Laboratory to establish
baseline parameters for the waters of the reservation. With this
information, the Water Resources Office can then begin to focus
monitoring, remediation and education efforts in the best possible
direction. The additional monies will also allow the Tribe to complete
the drafting of Water Quality Standards and an application for
Treatment as A State-regulatory.
Clean Air Act Funding
The increase of funding in the President's budget coincides
perfectly with the long-awaited publishing of the Tribal Authority Rule
in February of this year. Increased monies are necessary for Bad River
to establish baseline data about the air quality resources on the
reservation. A recent study by Dr. Peter Lee of Lakehead University
found that a variety of heavy metals including mercury had a
significant impact on the germination and growth of wild rice. The
Tribe would therefore like to monitor for mercury as well as
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
In 1992, the Tribe embarked on the process to redesignate its
airshed as a Class I Area under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act. The Tribe
completed its final draft redesignation report in June 1995 and is now
entering the final phase of the redesignation process. The additional
air monies will be necessary to complete this process.
We thank the Committee for its consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of James H. Schlender, Executive Administrator,
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Agency involved.--Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal year 1999 appropriations requested.--$174,476
Project.--Intertribal Lake Superior basin initiative
Project description.--To build on previous successes, the
Commission requests that Congress earmark $174,476 from the EPA's
fiscal year 1999 Great Lakes National Program Office and Coastal
Environmental Management (CEM) Programs to:
--develop, coordinate, and implement tribal strategies to protect the
Lake Superior ecosystem in conjunction with the Binational
Program, Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP);
International Joint Commission (IJC) meetings; and State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) forums at a cost of $70,000;
and
--expand cooperative contaminant studies for fish, animals, and
plants used by tribal members under rights reserved in the 1837
and 1842 treaties with the United States at a cost of $104,476.
Authorization.--The Clean Water Act designates the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) to develop and implement action plans
to carry out the United States' responsibilities under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement and subsequent amending Agreements. GLNPO is
directed to perform these functions in cooperation with tribal
agencies, among others. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c). In the Commission's
view, this is sufficient authority for Congress to provide funding for
tribal organizations, such as the Commission, to undertake initiatives
related to Great Lakes water quality. In 1998, GLIFWC will administer
over $70,000 in Coastal Environmental Management (CEM) funds from the
EPA to facilitate tribal participation in the Binational program.
On behalf of the eleven Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, the Commission would like to thank you for the opportunity
to submit testimony regarding the administration's fiscal year 1999 EPA
budget. The Commission's fiscal year 1999 request centers on two major
objectives:
--support of the EPA's Coastal Environmental Management Program and
its continued funding of tribal participation in
intergovernmental partnerships to develop, coordinate, and
implement tribal strategies to protect the Lake Superior
ecosystem in conjunction with the Binational Program, Lake
Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP); International Joint
Commission (IJC) meetings; and State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) forums at a cost of $70,000.
--the need to expand cooperative contaminant studies for fish,
animals, and plants used by tribal members under rights
reserved in the 1837 and 1842 treaties with the United States
at a cost of $104,476.
importance of lake superior and its environment to anishinabe people
Comprised of eleven tribal governments located throughout
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the Commission's purpose is:
--to protect and enhance treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and
gather on inland territories ceded under the Chippewa treaties
of 1836, 1837, 1842, and 1854;
--to protect and enhance treaty guaranteed fishing on the Great
Lakes; and
--to provide cooperative management and protection of these
resources.
Tribal members rely upon fish, wildlife, and plants for religious,
ceremonial, medicinal, subsistence, economic, and cultural purposes.
The importance of Lake Superior and its environment is documented in
the history and culture of the Anishinabe (i.e. Chippewa, Ojibwa)
people.
The seven prophets came to the Anishinabe when the nation lived
along the east coast. The prophets told the people that if they didn't
move they would be destroyed. There would be seven stops during this
migration. A turtle shaped island was the first stop in this migration
located in the St. Lawrence River, a little northeast of present day
Montreal. The Sacred Megis Shell guided the nation along the rivers and
streams leading the people to last stop at Madeline Island. Madeline
Island is located in Lake Superior off the northern shore of Wisconsin.
It was said that when the Sacred Shell was present that the Ojibway
would find a good way of life and that the Great Spirit would provide
for the people. These predictions came true for the people who found
bountiful food throughout the year in the forests, lakes, and wild rice
beds. The Ojibway people reaffirmed their commitment to preserving this
homeland for future generations when Chippewa nation signed treaties
with the United States Government at Madeline Island in 1842 and 1854.
While federal court rulings have reaffirmed the rights of tribes to
hunt, fish, and gather from lands and waters ceded under these
treaties, these rights will mean little if the resources are too
contaminated to be utilized by tribal members. Any contamination from
environmental degradation threatens the health, safety, and economy of
Chippewa people.
great lakes decision making and intergovernmental partnerships
component
Because Lake Superior is so important to tribes, they are vitally
concerned about its welfare. For tribes to participate in protection
initiatives to restore and protect this resource, they need to work
with other jurisdictions on a government-to-government basis, and need
strong governmental institutions to enable effective participation.
These needs are consistent with the goals of EPA's Indian Policy, which
are to promote self-government and work with tribes on a government-to-
government basis.
To further EPA's policy, and address tribal needs, adequate, long
term funding will be necessary to enable sustained participation in
initiatives to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Commission is
requesting that Congress earmark $70,000 immediately from the Great
Lakes National Program office or Coastal Environmental Management (CEM)
Program to:
--provide a grant to enable the Commission to continue its
participation in Great Lakes environmental policy making, and
--provide funds for technical projects so that the Commission is able
to contribute to technical working groups and adequately review
technical documents.
EPA funding will be used by GLIFWC to research environmental
issues, facilitate discussions and build consensus between tribal
leaders, and develop formal positions to be forwarded to appropriate
agencies. These efforts would complement the ongoing efforts by
Commission member tribes to develop and advance their governmental
positions.
Funding from EPA is also needed to facilitate the Commission's long
term participation in the Binational Program to Restore and Protect
Lake Superior. The Commission proposes to participate in both the
Binational Program's Task Force of senior governmental natural resource
managers and Workgroup composed of technical and scientific
professionals.
The Commission generally supports the continuation of CEM funding.
These funds are vital to development of programs to further the goals
of Remedial Action Plans (RAP's) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP's)
in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes are a precious, freshwater
resource that need and deserve special protection. Specifically, funds
are needed to assure the long term viability of the Binational Program
to Restore and Protect Lake Superior. Tribes have begun to participate
in the Binational Program, however, the process has proceeded for some
years without their input. Tribes have much to offer to Great Lakes
policy making; intergovernmental bodies such as the Binational
Workgroup and Task Force offer an opportunity for tribes to advance
issues of concern, and to work with other governments to ensure that
those issues are adequately addressed from a tribal perspective.
cooperative ceded territory contaminant studies
Tribal members retain a close relationship to their environment and
are directly impacted when toxins enter the Great Lakes food chain.
Under off-reservation treaty reserved rights, tribal members harvested,
processed, and consumed: 86,045 walleye; 1,740 musky; 1,757 northern
pike; 11,045 whitetailed deer; 153 bear; 5,725 ducks; and 70,424 pounds
of wild rice from 1993 to 1995.
In addition to harvesting natural resources for subsistence and
cultural purposes, tribal members also harvest and market Lake
Superior's fishery resources. This fishery is important to the economy
of tribes on Lake Superior. Between 1993 to 1995, tribes harvested a
total of 405,319 pounds of lake trout; 366,563 pounds of siscowet
trout; 977,023 pounds of whitefish; and 143,317 pounds of herring from
1842 ceded territory waters.
In recent years, potentially dangerous levels of mercury, PCB's,
and other chemicals have been documented in fish throughout the Great
Lakes region. Scientific studies have confirmed the direct correlation
between consumption of fish with high mercury and PCB levels and
adverse health effects. These include short-term memory and attention
deficits in children. The Wisconsin Department of Health recommends
limiting consumption of fish with .5 ppm and no consumption of fish
with 1 ppm or greater. Given the tribes' heavy consumption of fish, the
risks are obvious. This is why tribes have developed GIS maps to convey
important health information to tribal members.
To protect the health and safety of tribal members the Commission
is requesting funding to determine contaminant levels for eight
indicator species of Lake Superior fish harvested by tribes at a cost
of $40,150; determine contaminant levels for methyl mercury in fish
harvested by tribal members in Mille Lacs Lake at a cost of $9,000;
establish a long term monitoring program to access methyl mercury
levels in fish harvested and consumed by tribal members at a cost of
$35,326; and determine contaminant levels for heavy metals in wildlife
harvested by tribal members at a cost of $20,000.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Maulson, Tribal Chairman, Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Tom Maulson
and I am the Tribal Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am here to testify
on behalf of my people, to discuss their issues, concerns and needs.
The message from my people is that the United States must keep its
obligations to the Lac du Flambeau Band. The United States is obligated
by Treaty to provide critically needed social, education, health and
governmental services to the Band and its members in exchange for the
land and peace our forefathers provided. This is the heart of the
federal government's trust responsibility to the Band. And, this trust
responsibility is very much on the minds of my people who know how much
we gave up in exchange for the promises of the federal government. We
urge you to keep this in mind as well, as you consider funding for
Indian environmental programs.
The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is located in north-central
Wisconsin. The area is commonly called the ``Lakeland Area'' or the
``Northwoods'' and is the home for more than 1,500 members of the Lac
du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The descriptive names
indicate an area which is rich with lakes and forests. The Lac du
Flambeau Indian Reservation is 144 square miles which comprise
approximately 92,000 acres. Of our Reservation homeland, 55,000 acres
are forested with aspen, oak, hard maple, sugar maple, and various
evergreen species, 20,000 surface acres of lakes (158), 34 miles of
creeks, rivers, and streams, 14,500 acres of wetlands, and 2,500 acres
designated for housing and lease property. Approximately 25 percent of
the reservation area is owned by non-Band members and is considered fee
land. The Band was blessed with a very diverse ecosystem and a huge
responsibility to protect, enhance, and conserve the natural resources
for present and future generations of tribal members.
Because water resources represent such a significant portion of the
Reservation and are the foundation of our subsistence way of life, the
Lac du Flambeau Band requests $100,000 in fiscal year 1999 to
accomplish the following: implement a drinking water protection plan;
conduct a non-point source pollution inventory; conduct public
education forums for lakefront property owners; and revise Band water
quality standards.
Over the past eight years, EPA funding has played a vital role in
environmental management on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. While Lac
du Flambeau is eager to expand and improve environmental management
programs on the Reservation, tribes for many years received virtually
no funding. Even now, as EPA has begun to recognize tribal needs, we
have struggled to receive merely a pittance of the total EPA funding
budget. While the Band is grateful for past monies received, continued
support is necessary in order to maintain and develop environmental
management programs on the reservation.
Currently, the Lac du Flambeau Band only receives between $60,000
per year from the Clean Water Act program. This funding level has
allowed the Band to complete a baseline water quality study on more
than 90 percent of the reservation's surface waters as well as to
receive extensive training in the federally mandated water quality
standards program. While this has been essential to the operation of a
water resource program on the reservation, much more needs to be done.
In the upcoming years, the Lac du Flambeau Band must continue to
protect and manage water resources on the Reservation. The requested
$40,000 increase will ensure the Band's success in these efforts.
Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Band has both the
responsibility and the authority to manage the water resources of the
Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation. It is evident to the Band that to
effectively manage the water resources of the Reservation this
authority must remain with the Band. The Clean Water Act recognizes
that it would be impossible to manage water resources under any other
authority than the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa themselves. However,
because of State resistance to full tribal authority over Reservation
resources, State standards control.
At the present time, toxic pollutants, such as mercury, have
entered into Reservation waters and have led to a tribal ban on all
fish consumption of walleye from one of the best fisheries and most
beautiful lakes on the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation. These toxic
pollutants have been allowed to enter Lac du Flambeau waters under
current State of Wisconsin standards. Because the State does not
incorporate subsistence lifestyles in setting its water quality
standards, the notion that the State's level of protection is adequate
for the people of Lac du Flambeau is not a responsible one. Because of
the higher rate of fish consumption the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Band,
as well as other subsistence based Indian Tribes, require more
stringent water quality standards to support their culture and
lifestyle. We urge this Committee to support tribal primacy in this
area.
In addition, it is clear that Clean Water Act Programs, such as the
106 Water Pollution Control Program, are essential to water quality
protection on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Unfortunately, the EPA
allocates only 3 percent of the 106 Water Pollution Control funding for
tribal governments. States have been receiving this money for nearly
thirty years in order to build an environmental infrastructure. Indian
Tribes must be afforded time and money to bring environmental programs
on par to those of the states. The Lac du Flambeau Band requests that
the U.S. Congress mandate that the EPA to increase the 106 Water
Pollution Control set aside for Indian Tribes to 10 percent of the
total national allocation.
In addition to surface water resources, U.S. EPA has also assisted
the Band in implementing underground storage tank, radon, solid waste,
and wetland management programs on the reservation. These programs have
succeeded largely due to the U.S. EPA General Assistance Program (GAP)
to tribes. The General Assistance Program has helped to increase
environmental awareness on the reservation since it began in 1992.
Continued support of GAP will allow the Band to build on past
accomplishments as well as to ensure proper compliance with various
environmental regulations and mandates. At the present time, the Band
has begun the second year of a projected four-year budget for this
program. We request that $100,000 for fiscal year 1999 be earmarked for
the Band. This is essential in order to maintain two educated and
experienced individuals on our staff.
Currently we have more than 200 underground storage tanks on the
Reservation, most on non-Indian fee land, that need to be removed in
order to protect the Band's groundwater supply. The solid waste
management program also needs to be continued and expanded in order to
comply with Federal, State, and Tribal solid waste regulations. This,
in itself, is a monumental task for one individual. As mentioned above,
the environmental specialist is also responsible for radon testing in
tribal homes and governmental buildings, emergency response to toxic
spills, investigation of solid waste violations, conducting
environmental education awareness programs and developing and
implementing other environmental codes and ordinances. Increasing
funding in fiscal year 1999 to $100,000 will support additional staff
which will assist the Band in protecting and conserving our natural
resources.
We need the Committee's strong support to enable us to preserve and
expand our environmental programs. From our perspective, this effort is
vitally important to protect the future of ``Mother Earth.'' We look to
the United States to work with us to maintain our natural resources and
environment at a superior level.
______
Prepared Statement of Martin G. Barnes, Mayor, City of Paterson, NJ
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this statement for the record. My statement is in
support of a request for $5,500,000 from the Environmental Protection
Agency State and Tribal Assistance Grants special needs funds for costs
of a Combined Sewer Overflow Project in the City of Paterson. This sum
constitutes the capital costs to be incurred in the first year of a six
year Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Project which will cost $35,000,000.
The project would remove solids and floatables from CSO discharges into
the Passaic River. It is one of the largest and most complex CSO
projects of its kind.
Paterson is New Jersey's third largest city. It is situated in a
bend in the Passaic River in northern New Jersey. The city was founded
200 years ago at the inspiration of Alexander Hamilton, to take
advantage of the water power at the Great Falls on the river.
Once a proud industrial city (the oldest in the nation), it now
suffers from all the ills of an old urban area, from which much of its
wealth, upper and upper middle classes have fled. Its present
population is approximately 170,000. Unemployment (12 percent) is high;
poverty is high (25,677); median family income is low ($30,145); median
household income is low ($26,960). In a state with the highest property
taxes in the nation, Paterson has one of the highest property tax
rates. And its property tax ratables have been shrinking. The city's
bonded indebtedness is so high that its additional bonding capacity is
only some $12,000,000, making it impossible to issue bonds to pay for
the cost of the mandated sewer construction. Nor can any combination of
property taxes and sewer fees, or sewer fees or taxes alone solve this
dilemma. It is just too great a cost burden for the people of this city
to handle.
Nonetheless,Paterson has moved as rapidly as possible to comply
with EPA and State CSO requirements, and is anxious to come into full
compliance because it thoroughly understands the implications of the
present and further pollution of the Passaic River. The river
constitutes half of Paterson's boundary and is the city's greatest
natural asset. The people celebrate the river's Great Falls and the
Historic District surrounding the falls. But almost no use is made of
the river because it is so polluted. It has been established that
poisons contaminate the river less than a mile south of the city. The
pollution of the river has been condemned by a number of environmental
organizations. The state is working hard to clean up the pollution
sources and lawsuits are underway addressing various aspects of the
river pollution.
The project is important because it is quite complex, quite large
and has a huge impact on the environmental enhancement of the river. To
appreciate the cost and time required to correct the pollutant
condition in question, it is important to note the relative size and
complexity of Paterson's CSO's and the unusual work that will be
required to install a system that will remove the solids/floatables.
The city has 29 CSO discharge pipes ranging in size from 24 inches to
120 inches in diameter with peak discharge rates of 4 MGD to more than
1,000 MGD. In comparison, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission Water
Pollution Control Facility in Newark has an average daily flow of only
300 MGD. Overall the Combined Sewer Overflow discharge pipes in the
city have a combined flow capacity of more than 2.5 billion gallons per
day.
In fact the total of 31 Combined Sewer Overflows which must be
addressed cannot be designed and constructed all at once without
bringing the city to a standstill and overwhelming its capacity to
administer the project. Construction must be carefully staged and
managed with great care. Accordingly, the city has divided the work
into three categories to facilitate both design and construction.
In addition to the above, because of the size of a number of CSO'S
the proposed Romag/Netting facilities which have been recommended at
sites with peak wastewater flows in the range of 250 to 800 MGD have
never been designed nor constructed for this type of application in the
United States in the past.
The Romag screen is in use in Europe for CSO and Storm water
management, in more than 100 installations.
Also, the use of netting technology is in its infancy and its use
for solids/floatables capture from the fouled sewer has never been
demonstrated. For these reasons it is recommended that one of the
smaller Romag/Netting facilities be designed, constructed, and operated
for a reasonable time period to demonstrate the viability of this
option and/or design modifications which may be necessary for these
facilities to operate properly.
The proposed design and construction schedule has been grouped into
three categories as follows:
1. Those facilities which can be designed and constructed within a
reasonably short time period (netting technology);
2. Those facilities which may have an impact on the operations of
the Passaic Valley Sewer Commission (PVSC) Interceptor System and
therefore require PVSC approval prior to design and construction, and
(separation);
3. Those facilities which, because of the new technology and
difficulty in designing facilities to treat extremely high flows (<200
MGD), require an extended design and construction schedule to provide
for construction and operating data for smaller units prior to full
implementation (Romag/Netting).
Capital costs commence with easement negotiation and acquisition.
The city and the surrounding environment are in a desperate
situation. It is too late and pointless to assign blame. But the need
nevertheless exists. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I earnestly request your assistance with Federal funding
to remedy the situation.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary Kaatz, Chief Operating Officer, Forum Health
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
statement for the record to the VA-HUD Subcommittee in support of the
Southside Medical Center re-use initiative in Youngstown, Ohio. This
major community enhancement effort is taking place in collaboration
with numerous local political, community and civic leaders throughout
Youngstown.
As you know, many of our nation's cities, formerly dominated by
industrial employment bases, have slipped from their strong economic
positions as the forces of low-cost, foreign competition and new
technology waves have evolved. One of those cities, Youngstown, was
once a major steel producing ``hub'' with all of the infrastructure
attendant to supporting a vibrant local economy.
A strong component of the local Youngstown infrastructure, over the
years, has been the health care component of the economy. Developed to
support the local industrial economy, the health care sector has
provided not only traditional health services, but also employment to a
large sector of the population; thus it has been an important component
to the economic base.
Just as a major change came to the local economic landscape in the
industrial arena, so too did change come to Youngstown's health care
system in the form of market forces in managed care. In order to meet
these changes, Forum Health has undergone numerous adjustments,
including facility, resource and service consolidations.
As part of Forum's efforts to ``re-tool'' its health care system to
operate more efficiently, officials have decided that it is no longer
financially prudent to maintain the 500,000-plus square foot Southside
Medical Center campus. The ``re-tooling'' effort is helping to reduce
regional health care costs and implement efficiencies, but at a price
to the local employment base.
The various changes which Forum has made to the operations at the
Southside campus have not been made without community involvement. In
fact, numerous local officials and community leaders have discussed
those needs in South Youngstown which should be addressed, and put
forth an assortment of recommendations as to the ways in which the
Southside campus facilities can best be utilized.
These recommendations have guided the efforts of Forum over the
past two years while officials have implemented the various
consolidations and other cost-cutting efforts. What has become apparent
in this effort is that the local needs of the Southside Youngstown
community pose a challenge much greater than any one organization can
address.
Based on the recommendations, Forum Health believes that numerous
opportunities exist for multiple re-uses of the Southside medical
campus. In fact, these opportunities can be a ``natural fit'' with the
needs of highest priority.
Southside Youngstown is a good example of a city with a long list
of problems, including: chronic unemployment, crime, below-average
schools and an underserved population with respect to health care. It
is these needs which the Southside campus can play a part in
addressing.
All of the recommendations, which have come forth as a result of
Forum's discussions with local officials, dovetail well with community
development themes, and are ones for which the Southside Hospital
facility could serve as a base. Potential tenants for the facility
include:
--Educational program space for welfare-to-work transitions
(including computer-assisted learning). The facility is already
wired to support extensive computer use, with a potential for a
fiber optic link to Youngstown State University. Collaboration
with agencies dedicated to job training and welfare-to-work
transitions could be launched on a substantial scale.
--Opening of a police substation would add a needed sense of security
to the area.
--Office accommodations for local social agencies. These entities,
many of which are interested in this project, can benefit from
the modern facility design, the synergy with other building
tenants and a location close to public transportation routes.
--Job training programs for adults and youths. In cooperation with
local job training agencies, there are opportunities for job
training programs in numerous disciplines.
--Clinical health outpatient services. The facility is equipped and
configured for outpatient health services in this medically
underserved area of Youngstown.
--Future assisted living space could be an option in the large and
well-constructed rooms which are part of the complex.
The above-noted examples are simply a few of the numerous
possibilities for re-use of the Southside Medical Center campus. All of
the possibilities are enhanced by the condition in which the facilities
have been, and are, maintained, including compliance with current
building life-safety and fire codes.
Mr. Chairman, the ultimate re-use of this facility will be a
community development/enhancement effort which fits well within the
guidelines of the HUD Economic Development Initiative guidelines. The
$1 million in federal grant aid which Forum is requesting will assist
with renovation and conversion as well as other components of the
project.
Forum Health is prepared to donate the entire complex to a local
community development entity so that the Southside complex continues to
play a vital role in the South Youngstown community. A foundation of
civic partnership and community collaboration can ensure that the
facilities continue to serve the community just as they have over many
years.
I urge your strong consideration and I thank you for allowing this
statement for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of William Polf, Deputy Vice President for External
Relations and Strategic Programs, Health Sciences Center, Columbia
University
I am Dr. William Polf, Deputy Vice President for External Relations
and Strategic Programs at the Health Sciences Center of Columbia
University. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony before the
Subcommittee to update you on the progress of development of the
Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park.
As you know, the Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park,
located on the Health Sciences campus of the Columbia-Presbyterian
Medical Center in New York City, is one of the first urban scientific
research parks dedicated to biomedical research and the development of
the emerging new biotechnology industry. It is the first research park
in New York City, and one of the few in the nation devoted specifically
to housing both academic and commercial research to help create a
synergy between university research and the development of commercial
applications in pioneering new medical technologies, pharmaceuticals,
and diagnostics. Development of the Audubon Park is supported by a
partnership among Columbia University, New York City, New York State,
and the Federal government. The past support of this Subcommittee has
been critical in ensuring the success of Audubon.
Audubon combines three functions that together serve the national
interest by providing a vital and innovative mechanism for expanding
the availability of innovative medical treatments and enhancing health
care to medically underserved citizens, while maintaining America's
leadership in one of our most important economic sectors, biomedical
research and development. Audubon provides a location for the
continuing progress of biomedical science in the discovery of the root
causes of many diseases and the development of the most advanced
methods to diagnose and treat them. Audubon offers facilities and
programs for translating the discoveries achieved in the scientific
laboratory into the treatments that reach the bedsides of patients
across the country. Audubon is an instrument for the creation of new
business and jobs in the economically depressed neighborhoods of
Washington Heights and Harlem. As a central element of the new
Empowerment Zone program in New York, Audubon is providing job training
and business development services to the north Manhattan neighborhoods.
When the Park is completed, nearly 2,500 new jobs will have been
created, including scientific, research, laboratory, clerical,
administrative, retail, and building operations and support.
Audubon will provide a center for enabling American biomedical
science to generate new business in advanced pharmaceutical and medical
technologies, two cornerstones upon which the American economy can hold
its own and grow in an increasingly competitive international business
setting. By helping build the research and development base that
provides a scientific and technological foundation for American
business, Audubon will create new American jobs. In addition to this
important economic stimulus, the health benefits from new discoveries
at the Park will flow directly to the surrounding community which is
characterized by high rates of illness associated with poverty,
inadequate healthcare, and urban distress.
Audubon houses New York City's only biotechnology business
incubator, the Mary Woodward Lasker Research Facility (Audubon I), home
to fifteen companies, and the Russ Berrie Medical Sciences Pavilion
(Audubon II), with research programs in genetics, cancer, diabetes, and
other disciplines, and new medical services to the community. Together,
these first two buildings constitute a major resource for discovering
important new medical science in a host of diseases, transferring new
knowledge into new diagnostics and medical treatments, developing
revolutionary pharmaceutical based on breakthroughs in biotechnology,
and applying those benefits to people who need health care throughout
the world.
Audubon III will move the concept to a new stage by creating space
for the expansion of new science, new mechanisms of technology
transfer, new opportunities for research collaborations, and new
locations for biotech companies. The Audubon Park is proving that
medical breakthroughs are enhanced when academic and commercial
research move forward together. Audubon III will take that fact to the
next step by providing opportunities for academic research programs and
biomedically-related companies to locate in the same facility.
As your Subcommittee works to establish its funding priorities for
fiscal year 1999, I respectfully request that $10 million be dedicated
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) for the development of Audubon III.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
testimony on behalf of this important and exciting initiative to the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Otto Raabe, Professor Emeritus of Radiation
Biophysics, University of California
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
thank you for this opportunity to discuss specific radiation safety
issues currently under consideration. My name is Otto Raabe, I am
Professor Emeritus of Radiation Biophysics at the University of
California, Davis, California. I am also a board-certified health
physicist, and the current President of the Health Physics Society. I
have a doctoral degree in Radiation Biophysics and I have worked in the
field of radiation safety for almost forty years. I have published over
200 scientific papers. I am an expert in the field of radiation safety
and radiation bioeffects.
the health physics society (``specialists in radiation safety'')
The Health Physics Society, formed in 1956, is a scientific
organization of scientists and professionals who specialize in
radiation safety. Its mission is the safeguarding of human health and
the environment from potentially harmful exposures to radiation or
radioactive materials in both public and private activities. Today our
over 6,000 members represent all scientific and technical areas related
to radiation safety including academia, government, medical
institutions, research and development laboratories, analytical
laboratories, consulting firms, and industry in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. The Society is chartered in the United States as
an independent non-profit scientific organization, and, as such, is not
affiliated with any government or industrial organization or any
private entity. Its headquarters are in McLean, Virginia. The Society
is dedicated to the development, dissemination, and application of
scientific and practical knowledge regarding radiation safety and
control.
I have attached three Health Physics Society position statements
that are relevant to this testimony. They are entitled: (1) Radiation
Risk in Perspective, (2) Radiation Dose Limits for the General Public,
and (3) Radiation Standards for Site Cleanup and Restoration. I ask
that these be included in the record with this testimony.
environmental protection agency activities affecting radiation safety
standards
I am aware that the Subcommittee has previously considered the
interaction of various Federal agencies in radiation safety matters and
has expressed concern about the role of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in setting radiation safety standards. Before
the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
federal guidance and recommendations concerning ionizing radiation
protection standards were the responsibility of the Federal Radiation
Council (FRC) which was formed in 1959 by Executive Order 10831. As the
Subcommittee knows, the functions of the FRC were transferred to the
EPA in 1970. This gave EPA the authority to ``advise the President with
respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health,
including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of
radiation standards in the establishment and execution of programs of
cooperation with States.'' Other federal agencies, such as the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
themselves have extensive experience, expertise, and regulatory
authority regarding radiation safety practices and in the promulgation
of radiation protection standards that affect workers, the public, and
the environment. The perspective of the EPA may not always be shared by
these other agencies.
Several guidance and policy reports have been prepared by EPA under
its federal guidance role that have addressed worker and public doses
and standards. For the most part, the guidance reports have been
tabulations of doses calculated by methods developed by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). These have
been non-controversial and useful documents. However, recently EPA has
attempted to generate precise estimates of cancer risks that they
associate with exposure to very small doses of ionizing radiation
(smaller than natural background levels of ionizing radiation) using
simplistic linear models relating risk to dose. Actually, the only
human risk data available involve very high doses such as occur in
atomic bomb detonations. There are no valid data demonstrating any
risks from radiation at low doses such as doses associated with natural
background (300 mrem per year or 20,000 mrem [20 rem] in a normal life
time). There is, in fact, a body of data that suggests that low level
exposure to radiation may be beneficial.
Everyone is continuously exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation
associated with natural background sources. We always have been and we
always will be! In addition, we are all exposed to small amounts of
man-made radioactive materials in the environment representing less
than 1 percent of other normal exposures. Also, medical exposures add
about 15 percent to the total. These background exposures are not
hazardous! At best, the risk estimates that EPA has calculated for
small doses have very large unspecified uncertainties. Actually, these
calculated risks are gross overestimates and are truly meaningless.
The seriousness of the situation has recently been emphasized by
the publication of the ``Interim Version'' of Federal Guidance Report
No. 13 (FGR-13), entitled ``Health Risks from Low-Level Environmental
Exposures to Radionuclides,'' that has been prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 70/
Monday, April 13, 1998/Notices, page 18008). FGR-13 contains
tabulations of risk coefficients that are intended to provide estimates
for about 100 important radionuclides of ``* * * the probability of
radiogenic cancer mortality or morbidity per unit activity inhaled or
ingested, for internal exposure, or per unit time-integrated activity
concentration in air or soil for external exposure'' for low doses
(<0.2 gray, which for gamma radiation equals 0.2 sievert or 20 rem,
where the gray is a unit of absorbed dose and sievert and rem are units
of equivalent dose applicable to humans and where 1 rem equals 1,000
mrem) and calculated for the whole U.S. population (adjusted for age,
sex, and life span distributions). Only cancer risks are considered in
FGR-13.
The numerical cancer risk values found in FGR-13 were created by
merging a highly sophisticated organ dosimetry methodology with
speculative linear dose-response risk models (see EPA 402-R-93-076,
1994). Within FGR-13 are tabulations of risk coefficients for
inhalation of radionuclides in air, for ingestion of radionuclides in
tap water, for ingestion of radionuclides in food, for external
exposure to radionuclides in air, for external exposure to
radionuclides on the ground surface, and for external exposure to
radionuclides in soil. Although the tabulated values are given to three
or four significant figures, the values are neither precise nor
accurate. The models used are imaginary, unreliable, and grossly
overestimate the risk associated with low doses. The tabulated values
are wrong, and the estimated risks are unverifiable.
The recommendation of the Health Physics Society position statement
``Radiation Risk In Perspective'' (www.hps.org) has apparently not been
considered in preparing FGR-13. That position statement specifically
``recommends against quantitative estimation of health risk below an
individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in
addition to background radiation.'' The HPS position statement further
states: ``below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental
exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed
or are non-existent.'' This is the main range of doses for which FGR-13
claims to provide specific risk estimates! I believe that the formal
codification of FGR-13 would be a serious mistake. The Subcommittee
should direct EPA to discontinue these unnecessary attempts to assign
cancer risks to doses too small to lead to any public health
consequences.
As an example of the implications of the use of the tabulated
values from FGR-13 for estimating risks associated with exposures to
radioactive materials, consider the first entry in Table 2.1,
``Mortality and morbidity risk coefficients for inhalation.''
Radioactivity that is taken into the body produces an internal
radiation exposure. The first entry is for inhaled tritiated water
vapor. Tritium is the radioactive form of hydrogen found to some extent
in all water on the earth, and is formed by both natural processes
(cosmic radiation in the atmosphere) and by people (nuclear
technologies). A single glass of tap water typically contains about 1
becquerel (unit of radioactivity) of tritium. This first entry in the
table states a morbidity (occurrence of cancer) risk of
0.00000000000152 per becquerel and a mortality of 0.00000000000104 per
becquerel. FGR-13 here implies that one person would be expected to
develop some unspecified form of radiation-induced cancer and have a 68
percent chance of dying if all 270,000,000 people in the U.S. were each
to inhale 2,440 becquerel of tritiated water vapor. This calculation is
meaningless because the tiny risk assigned to tritiated water has a
gigantic uncertainty that includes zero (no risk at all). The
tabulations in FGR-13 are the product of unproven mathematical models
rather than data on actual risks. Some people reading the tables in
FGR-13 may rely on these inaccurate values and reach incorrect
conclusions about radiation risks. The risk coefficients given for
about 100 other radionuclides in FGR-13 are likewise misleading. My own
research with internally deposited radionuclides suggests that zero
risk is the most likely value for such a small exposures.
There are many technical errors in FGR-13, but the more important
issue is its underlying philosophy. The type of risk calculations
suggested by FGR-13 are truly ridiculous. Such calculations might be
used to frighten people into believing a risk exists when, in fact, no
known or expected risk is associated with low doses of ionizing
radiation. The use of population risks depends on a speculative (and
inappropriate) mathematically linear model. If the FGR-13 calculations
had assigned error bars, zero risk would have been within the error of
every risk value that is given.
With respect to radiation safety standards, there has been a trend
in the direction of increasingly stringent standards designed to
control very low doses to the point that the standards being used are
based only on speculative, unproven, and controversial models of
potential radiation risks to the public at radiation doses of which
there are no known or expected risks. This trend is based on faith
among some in a simplistic idea that radiation risks are proportional
to dose no matter how small the dose: the so-called linear no-threshold
(LNT) model. The extensive data that cast major doubts on the
applicability of mathematically linear models have apparently been
discounted as aberrations. It is easy to show that this model does not
apply to protracted radiation exposures such as experienced by workers
and the public. In my own studies, I have found radiation
carcinogenesis to be highly non-linear and dose-rate dependent. An
effective threshold occurs because the cancer latent period is not a
constant as assumed by EPA but increases without limit as dose rate
decreases.
The EPA has also promulgated excessively stringent suggested limits
for radon in homes. Again, EPA depends on mathematically linear models
of risk that are derived primarily from studies of lung cancer in
uranium and other underground miners who were heavy cigarette smokers
and were exposed to extremely high levels of radon in mines several
years ago. The recent BEIR VI report funded by EPA depended on these
mathematically linear models for its main conclusions, meanwhile
concurrently stating that the actual data on radon in homes could not
disprove the hypothesis that there is no risk at low levels (such as
radon concentrations in air that are less than 10 picocuries/L). The
standard for homes used by EPA would suggest the evacuation of most
homes in the State of Colorado, although Coloradans enjoy one of the
lowest lung cancer rates in the U.S. Some important elaborate studies
of radon in homes in the U.S. have consistently shown that U.S.
counties with the very lowest radon concentrations in homes do not tend
to have the lowest lung cancer rates. Actually, almost all lung cancer
is caused by exposure to tobacco smoke.
Trying to comply with stringent standards involving levels of
radiation exposure that are much smaller than natural background levels
is very expensive and unnecessary since there are no known or expected
adverse effects at these low levels. More stringent standards would be
overly restrictive for the public and the nation without actual
benefits. Excessively stringent standards will cause costs to the U.S.
Government associated with remediation of contaminated sites to
skyrocket with no measurable improvement in human health. For example,
the $300 billion estimated cost of DOE site remediation could double if
more stringent standards are required. Do we really want to pay to move
virtual mountains of nearly clean dirt from one State to another in the
name of decontamination? The Health Physics Society is concerned about
safeguarding health and the environment, but it is counterproductive to
attempt to enforce unnecessarily restrictive standards.
Recently, the NRC concluded that clean-up standards for sites
contaminated with radioactive materials should reduce levels to the
point where calculations indicate that no member of the public will
receive more than 25 millirem dose per year from the site. The EPA
objected based on the results of one of their speculative radiation
risk models and insisted that the NRC 25 millirem/year standard was
``not adequately protective''. EPA claimed that the NRC standard needed
to be lowered to 15 millirem per year. This is unfortunate! Would the
EPA require reopening and recleaning of already released sites at great
public expense? Neither of these two dose limits would pose any cancer
risk to anyone. In fact, the current 100 millirem standard is more than
adequate protection and would also not involve any meaningful risk! [A
dose of 100 millirem is about equal to the extra whole body radiation
dose received by a person each year by moving to Denver, Colorado, from
New York, Washington, or San Francisco.)
Consider the somewhat inconsistent mix of current radiation
standards. As the EPA moves towards lower values, the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) promote a 100 mrem/year
dose limit for members of the public; NRC and DOE have codified this
limit in 10CFR20 and 10CFR835, but current Federal guidance still uses
500 mrem/year. At the same time EPA uses a public limit of 4 mrem/year
received from ingestion of radionuclides in drinking water in 40CFR142,
a 10 mrem/year limit for the air exposure pathway in 40CFR61, 25 mrem/
year for all pathways for the nuclear fuel cycle in 40CFR192, and a
mixed standard for uranium mill tailing clean-up and indoor radon. Even
professionals are puzzled!
Should EPA be successful in forcing their unnecessarily stringent
standards on the other agencies, the costs to the U.S. Government
associated with remediation of contaminated sites will climb
dramatically. If we adapt EPA's interpretation of radiation protection
standards and cancer risks, we would recommend evacuation of the State
of Colorado where the altitude and natural radioactivity in the soil
result in background radiation that is about two times higher than in
San Francisco, New York, or Washington. In fact, Colorado has one of
the lowest cancer rates in the U.S. The Health Physics Society position
statement ``Radiation Dose Limits for the General Public'' recommends a
100 mrem per year standard from nuclear technologies, and the position
statement ``Radiation Standards for Site Cleanup and Restoration''
recommends a 25 mrem per year standard for cleanup activities.
The Subcommittee should consider the possibility that the roles and
inter-relationships of EPA, DOE, and NRC in the setting of radiation
protection standards need to be markedly improved. FGR-13 needs to be
withdrawn. The NRC should be allowed to set clean-up standards that
will not be questioned by EPA. Your Subcommittee should consider
alternative mechanisms for Federal guidance for radiation safety.
America needs a new interagency council to provide Federal guidance and
establish consensus standards that utilize the best scientific
information and provide both safety and practicability. Congressional
action to resolve radiation standards issues and set appropriate limits
could markedly reduce the costs associated with radiation safety and
the restoration of contaminated sites.
______
Prepared Statement of Virgo Lee, Trustee, NYU Downtown Hospital
Thank you Chairman Specter and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am Virgo Lee, a
partner in M.R. Partners, an investment banking firm based in New York.
I have a life-long commitment to serving the Asian community in the
United States. I have been Director of the Mayor's Office for Asian
Affairs in New York City from 1990 through 1994 and a Trustee of NYU
Downtown Hospital from 1994 to the present.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on a matter
vital importance to Lower Manhattan's 350,000 residents and 375,000
member workforce who depend on the emergency services of NYU Downtown
Hospital. I am here today to seek your Subcommittee's support for a
project to rebuild the Hospital's aging emergency room facilities. This
project impacts the health and safety of all of Lower Manhattan's
population and is of particular importance to the Chinese community of
New York and the Wall Street business community.
NYU Downtown Hospital is the only acute care health facility and
the only emergency center in Lower Manhattan, an area as populous as
the tenth largest city in the United States. Located in the heart of
the World's Financial District and adjacent to New York's Chinatown,
the Hospital provides daily emergency care for the most vulnerable and
frail of the city's residents, as well as for its most powerful.
Because of a shared acknowledgment of the Hospital's importance to
the overall health of our community and to the economic vitality of
Downtown Manhattan, many of Wall Street's corporate leaders serve on
the NYU Downtown Hospital Board along with leaders of New York's
growing Chinese community. The Board of Trustees of NYU Downtown
Hospital has designated renovation of its emergency room as its highest
priority.
This level of community support is relatively new, having emerged
and grown since 1990 with a change in Hospital leadership. We are now
attempting to reverse three decades of neglect due to losses incurred
by the Hospital's forerunner that left it mired in debt and unable to
make improvements to critical facilities such as the emergency room.
The value of the Hospital's emergency services to the Downtown
community was dramatically underscored by the 1994 terrorist bombing of
the World Trade Center. Due to the proximity to the Trade Center of the
Hospital's Emergency Department, NYU Downtown Hospital served as the
primary emergency facility and treated more than 200 persons injured in
the disaster. The Hospital, long known for its expertise in mass
emergencies and in emergency heart attack treatment, earned city,
state, national and international recognition for its response to the
World Trade Center disaster.
Leaders of the Financial District, while recognizing this project's
significance in meeting the day-to-day emergency medical needs of our
employees, join with me in supporting the pressing need to provide
adequate and efficient service facilities for members of New York's
immigrant Chinese community.
The growing population of Chinese immigrants in need of special
services and the increasing residential population in Lower Manhattan
are expected to place a further strain on a facility that averages
30,000 visits a year. Complete renovation of the emergency facilities
is not only imperative, it is urgent. NYU Downtown Hospital, the single
largest provider of inpatient and outpatient healthcare services to New
York's underserved Chinese community, seeks federal support to redesign
and renovate inadequate hospital emergency facilities to improve
healthcare access for Chinese immigrants.
This renovation plan, known as Project 2000, is the centerpiece of
the Hospital's $25 million capital campaign. The remaining funds, which
will also be directed to programs that improve healthcare access to an
underserved Chinese community, will be raised through private
philanthropic sources. These funds will go towards general operating
support; key programs including maternal and child health and Hepatitis
B intervention, and to the Chinese Community Partnership for Health
Endowment Fund to continue the hospital's community-based health
screening and outreach services to new immigrants.
problem
Recent Chinese immigrants to the United States, often from
impoverished rural communities and having little formal education, no
English-language skills, limited financial resources and virtually no
experience with Western medical practices, face daunting obstacles in
accessing healthcare. In New York where the Chinese population doubled
between 1980 and 1990 and is projected to double again by 2005,
barriers to medical services represent a public health time bomb with
implications for the general population.
NYU Downtown Hospital, designated as a financially distressed
hospital by the New York State Department of Health, is located in
direct proximity to New York's Chinatown community and has become the
primary provider of acute care health services to this growing
underserved population. The Hospital has 30,000 emergency room visits
annually and more than 10,500 inpatient admissions. Some 58 percent of
NYU Downtown Hospital's inpatients are Chinese, many of whom are first
generation immigrants with little or no ability to pay for healthcare
services. The Hospital's uncompensated care for 1997 was $9 million, or
10.7 percent of the total Hospital budget. Another 40 percent of
patients are covered by Medicaid.
The barriers to healthcare faced by new Chinese immigrants served
by NYU Downtown Hospital go beyond language issues. Other obstacles to
healthcare access are the distinctive beliefs and practices of the
Chinese regarding health and illness. Often unaware of healthcare
services and programs vital to disease prevention and health
maintenance, many new immigrants lack basic information about risk
factors and symptoms of disease. Preventive healthcare is rarely sought
and Emergency Room treatment becomes a last resort for many new
immigrants only after home remedies and herbal medications fail.
addressing the problem
Committed to serving the Chinese community and the growing
immigrant population, NYU Downtown Hospital has joined with the
leadership of 32 major Chinese community service organization
associations, garment industry unions and businesses to implement an
array of programs and services to minimize obstacles to healthcare. The
first segment of that effort focused on bringing health screenings and
education directly into the Chinese community. In less than four years,
the Hospital has served more than 29,000 people through the services of
the Chinese Community Partnership for Health and earned national
recognition for the success of the program.
The second segment of the Hospital's plan to improve healthcare
access for Chinese immigrants focuses on encouraging use of Hospital-
based services in the early stages of illness or injury. NYU Downtown
Hospital, a patchwork of four buildings constructed at different times
from 1949 through 1972, is daunting to navigate for even the most
sophisticated of Hospital visitors. To make the Hospital more
accommodating to our Chinese patients, major improvements must be made
to the facility overall, and to the 1970's-era Emergency Room, in
particular.
Our plan is to consolidate and integrate virtually all inpatient
services, including emergency services, into one wing that would be
designated as the Hospital's new main entrance. Once inside the new
main entrance, patients and visitors will enter an enlarged lobby where
key services such as triage, inpatient registration, information and
security, cashier and the patient advocate's office, are within steps
of entering. This design provides easy access to key services, on-the-
spot communication with problem-solvers and continuity of services for
greater efficiency.
Walk-in patients seeking emergency treatment will be met at the
door of the new main entrance and directed to the triage nurse. Pre-
treatment for ER patients and the ER lobby area will be located
adjacent to the new Emergency Room in a physically distinct section
within the main lobby.
The Emergency Room, considered state-of-the-art when it was built
in the early 1970's, would undergo major reconstruction and upgrades to
meet the pressing needs of the people we serve. Planned renovation
includes:
--a designated area for PromptCare, a service designed to treat and
release patients with routine problems within 20 minutes
--construction of treatment room for women to provide greater privacy
and to accommodate specialized medical equipment
--reconstruction of all patient rooms for easier access and greater
visibility by staff
--upgrade of an existing pediatric emergency room to provide
appropriate amenities for children and their parents
--relocation of supply facilities and redesign of traffic patterns to
enhance efficiencies in patient care
conclusion
As your Subcommittee works to establish funding priorities for
fiscal year 1999, I respectfully request that $10 million be allocated
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) Account for renovation of the Hospital's
emergency room.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
testimony on this important project to the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of Toxicology
The Society of Toxicology appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning fiscal year 1999 funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is a professional organization that
brings together over 4,000 toxicologists in academia, industry, and
government. A major goal of SOT is to promote the use of good science
in legislative and regulatory decisions. With scientific data as our
guide, we can use sound judgment in addressing numerous environmental
issues. Too often, you are asked to make decisions without the benefit
of sound science. We work closely with the EPA in its cooperative role
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in
addressing issues related to environmental health risk. The research
supported by these agencies is critical to ensuring that policies
affecting health and the environment are based on the most up-to-date
scientific knowledge.
We would like to begin our testimony today by thanking you for your
past support for research programs that foster links between science
and environmental policy. In particular, the Society appreciates the
Subcommittee's support of the Superfund Basic Research Program. As we
stated in our testimony last year, the Administration continues to
request cuts to this program and each year it is this Subcommittee that
takes a leadership role in restoring funding. We hope you will do the
same this year.
superfund basic research program
Funding for the Basic Research Program is passed through the EPA to
NIEHS as established in Section 311 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986. The NIEHS administers the Superfund
Hazardous Substances Basic Research Program which supports university
and medical school research to understand the public health
consequences of local hazardous waste sites, as well as to develop
better methods for remediation. Currently, there are 18 programs at 70
universities involving more than 1,000 scientists. This research
program complements other research programs carried out by the EPA and
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. It is the only
scientific research program focused on health and cleanup issues for
Superfund hazardous waste sites.
Research funded by the program focuses on developing methods and
technologies to detect hazardous substances in the environment,
assessing and evaluating the effects of hazardous substances on human
health, developing methods to better assess risks to human health
presented by hazardous substances, and developing basic, chemical, and
physical methods to reduce the amount and toxicity of hazardous
substances.
For example, researchers are studying the health affects of
chromium, a hazardous substance found at many Superfund sites.
Researchers at the University of Cincinnati are looking at basic
mechanisms by which chromium exposure causes cancer. To date, mouse
models have indicated that the introduction of chromium into the lungs
causes cell mutations in the lung tissue. Further research will be
conducted to look at other factors that may play a role in triggering
cancer development depending on the level of chromium exposure. Once
this information is available, it may be possible to develop specific
mechanisms and strategies for minimizing the health effects of chromium
in the environment.
Remediation research conducted under the auspices of the Superfund
Basic Research Program has led to the development of several modified
clays which have proven effective in removing pentachlorophenol (PCP)
from groundwater and water systems. Results of recent studies conducted
by Texas A&M University indicate that concentrations of PCP as high as
10 mg/l are reduced to non-detectable levels using these modified
clays. It also appears that the clays are useful in removing other
organic compounds. Using these clays to decontaminate water is an
inexpensive and effective alternative to charcoal.
As indicated above, there have been many significant
accomplishments over the last eleven years as a result of the research
conducted through the Superfund Basic Research Program. These
discoveries have improved our cleanup efforts and have helped the
public to understand the health risks of many contaminants found at
hazardous waste sites. However, we have much more to learn about the
health effects of hazardous waste. Therefore, SOT hopes you will
continue to fund this program at a sufficient level. Specifically, we
urge the Subcommittee to provide $40 million in fiscal year 1999 to
fund the Superfund Basic Research Program. This increase of $5 million
over last year's funding level would cover additional programmatic
costs associated with the competitive grants coming up for renewal,
including the establishment of committees to conduct peer reviews and
performance of the peer reviews.
worker training program
We would also like to take a moment to mention the Worker Training
Program that was established at the same time as the research program
to provide classroom instruction and field expertise for Superfund site
and emergency response workers. Similar to the Basic Research Program,
funds are provided to the EPA and passed through to NIEHS. Since the
Worker Training Program began, over 450,000 workers nation-wide have
been trained in both classroom seminars and hands-on exercises. NIEHS
develops technically-proficient curriculum materials and quality-
controlled course presentations for training these workers. NIEHS
courses have established new benchmarks for quality in worker safety
and health training. Included among the NIEHS grantees are labor
management trust funds, university consortia, labor organizations,
public health consortia and community college consortia. The Society
urges the Subcommittee to continue funding this important program at
least at the level provided in fiscal year 1998.
airborne particulate matter research
The Society is pleased by the approach taken by the Subcommittee
last year to initiate a comprehensive peer-reviewed research program
relating to airborne particulates. The research process laid out by the
Subcommittee allows for science to lead regulatory efforts. SOT
supports the involvement of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in
developing both a near-term research plan and a long-term research
plan. It is critical that the development of the plan include
consultations with the NIEHS, the Department of Energy, industry, and
advocacy organizations.
It is my understanding that the first report by the NAS proposes a
comprehensive research program with short-term research efforts focused
on developing a better understanding of how particulate matter affects
health. We believe this is an appropriate focus in the first few years
of the research program. Therefore, the Society urges the Subcommittee
to provide at least $49.6 million in fiscal year 1999 for the
particulate matter research program.
national institute for the environment
The Society is aware of Congressional efforts to create a National
Institute for the Environment, including direction by this Subcommittee
to the National Science Foundation to provide a report on how they
would create such an institute and the potential costs of such an
endeavor. The purpose of the Institute would be to fund environmental
research in order to provide a science base for public policy
decisions. It is believed that such an institute could help inform the
current debates involving clean air, nonpoint source pollution, and
global warming. While on its face creating a separate institute appears
to be a way to better coordinate environmental science and research
efforts, SOT is concerned that creating a National Institute for the
Environment will duplicate existing research programs and agency
functions. The Society does not see the need at this time to create
another bureaucracy which will become isolated from the other science
functions.
endocrine disruptors
Endocrine disruptors are compounds in our environment which may
have an affect on thyroid and reproductive function and development. At
the present time, there is diverse scientific opinion as to the extent
that such environmental agents affect human health. The Society is
supportive of Congressional initiatives to pursue research on the
effects of environmental agents. We believe, however, that Congress
should use scientific experts to assist in the development of
legislation, but should refrain from mandating specific approaches such
as the development of screening and testing procedures. The Society
recommends that Congress involve a scientific body such as the National
Academy of Sciences to assess the nature and the extent to which
environmental endocrine disruptors are a human health problem and, as
necessary, to recommend the most appropriate approach to resolve any
problem.
In the case of particulate air pollution mentioned above, Congress
involved the National Academy of Sciences and required the development
of an integrated research strategy to address this issue in the absence
of mandating specific scientific approaches. This example is more in
keeping with the scientific process and is the approach that the
Society of Toxicology believes that Congress should now take for the
endocrine disruptor issue.
conclusion
Sound science should be the essential underpining of our
environmental health regulatory efforts. The Society of Toxicology is
made up of many of the leading experts in the field of toxicology who
are happy to be a resource for the Committee when questions arise
concerning environmental health and safety issues.
The public wants to know whether their communities are safe from
hazardous contaminants in the air they breathe and the water they
drink. The research conducted by EPA and NIEHS provides policymakers
with the data you need to make decisions about the appropriateness of
environmental health regulations. We urge you to continue to support
the important research programs outlined in our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. W. Richard Ott, Provost, Center for the
Engineered Conservation of Energy, Alfred University
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to
the hearing record of this Subcommittee regarding an important economic
development initiative in Allegheny County, New York. This statement is
to urge the Subcommittee's support to obtain an Economic Development
Initiative grant of $2 million for a ``living laboratory'' to deploy
and test new energy efficient technologies at the Alfred University
Center for the Engineered Conservation of Energy (EnCo). This
laboratory will be a gateway to the business incubators in the
``ceramics corridor'' between Alfred and Corning, New York.
Alfred University is comprised of undergraduate, graduate and
professional schools. It is best known as the home to the Center for
Advanced Ceramics Technology and the NSF Industry-University Center for
Glass Research. The University currently produces \1/3\ of the
country's ceramic engineers and has the only doctoral program in glass
science in the United States.
The laboratory Alfred University is seeking to construct will be a
smart, self-powered building where promising energy efficient
technologies can be tested and demonstrated full-scale, and will be
flexible to allow it to be continuously adapted to emerging
technologies. This laboratory will provide a critical link to the end
of a research continuum where applied development and demonstration are
essential for commercialization. Many such efforts get caught in a
``valley of death'' which comes between laboratory testing and
investment. A research demonstration of technologies, combined with the
business incubators in the area, will provide an impetus for venture
capital in the region to generate new businesses and jobs.
Currently, one of Alfred University's most unique capabilities is
its ability to work with the small, start-up energy and environmental
technology companies where a large percentage of the region's job
growth occurs. While Allegheny County is the second poorest in New
York, the potential for growth in this particular area is outstanding.
Local businesses as well as the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA) support the development of this
laboratory. Alfred University's location in the ``ceramics corridor,''
comprised of industry and academic talent in these areas of research
will feed into the business incubators and enhance this consortial
initiative, which currently involves not only industry but also state
and local agency partners. The State of New York invested the initial
$10 million to develop the business incubators. Besides growing new
energy-related companies, the incubator buildings themselves are
ideally suited to incorporate new energy conservation technologies in
their operations. In addition, several area industrial parks, including
those in Alfred, Hornell and Wellsville, NY also offer the opportunity
for fledgling companies to develop and utilize newly developed energy
technologies through close ties with EnCo and Alfred University.
It is a fact that industries often have difficulty in getting the
help that they need from universities. In contrast, a core competency
of Alfred University is its ability to open the door for both
individual companies and groups of companies to obtain that assistance,
and to get answers to questions by locating people who are willing to
work together with them. The University's ability to locate and provide
rapid technical services to companies is well established. This service
aspect of the University is being further developed. Companies have
traditionally come to Alfred because of its ability to react more
quickly and innovatively to their needs than can the larger research
institutions.
EnCo is also interacting with the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC). As you know, ARC is a unique partnership of Federal, state and
local governments that participate in projects that benefit the
business and industrial community, funding infrastructure, business
development, and human resources projects. In assigning project
priorities, the highest consideration is given to promotion of jobs and
private investment through direct creation of jobs, attracting private
investment, or upgrading the workforce for regional jobs. EnCo's
interaction with ARC will further enhance regional economic development
goals.
It is for these reasons that we ask your consideration for funding
in the amount of $2 million to build the ``living laboratory'' at the
Center for the Engineered Conservation of Energy at Alfred University.
The potential for the economic development of the region will be
greatly enhanced by the success of this initiative.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Barbara J. Cole, Director, Lane Regional Air
Pollution Authority
My name is Barbara J. Cole. I am the director of the Lane Regional
Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) on whose behalf I am submitting this
written testimony. LRAPA is a local air pollution control agency in
Lane County, Oregon.
I am writing to you regarding the President's fiscal year 1999
budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
specifically with regard to funds for state and local air pollution
control agencies. The President's request includes an $8.3 million
increase in grants to state and local air quality agencies under
Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, totaling approximately
$190.2 million. While I am pleased that the President's budget
acknowledges the need for additional funds, this increase is grossly
inadequate to support state and local air quality air pollution control
efforts that are needed to protect public health. LRAPA is currently
faced with increased federal requirements associated with the new fine
particulate monitoring network and other programs under the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, I recommend an increase of $121 million above the
President's request for fiscal year 1999, which includes $23 million
more in Section 103 funds for the fine particulate monitoring network
and an additional $98 million for the Section 105 program.
LRAPA has been delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to
administer federal and state air quality laws within Lane County,
Oregon. LRAPA and other air pollution control agencies nationwide must
carry out numerous activities to implement federal, state and local
clean air requirements--both new initiatives that focus on emerging
problems and ongoing activities to preserve the gains and improvements
in air quality that have already made. In the past, air quality in
areas of Lane County did not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter. Our efforts
over the past 20 years have culminated in compliance with federal air
quality standards in all Lane County communities. We and our member
jurisdictions have made substantial investments in control strategies
and public education efforts. The communities within Lane County are
struggling with the adverse effects of growth. Even though we are
currently meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we can
not afford to relax our air pollution control efforts. If we do, air
quality will once again degrade to unhealthy levels again. In fact, we
must increase our air pollution control efforts in order to offset the
increased emissions that result from growth. We are also concerned
about compliance with the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone and particulate matter. It is our goal to work with sources
in Lane County to encourage emission reductions sufficient to avoid
violating the new standards. These efforts all require resources.
I am very concerned about EPA predictions of decreased funding for
EPA's Region 10 the future. EPA Region 10 includes Oregon, Washington,
Idaho and Alaska. EPA expects a national reallocation of federal air
pollution control grant money among their regions. The plan is to
apportion more resources to regions of the country that have not yet
attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and less to regions
that have. Oregon promptly, responsibly and competently did what was
necessary to meet federal air quality standards. All areas of Oregon
currently are in compliance with all National Ambient Air Quality
Standards although not all have been formally redesignated by EPA as
attainment areas. Maintaining compliance in Oregon will require
additional resources, not less. I understand the logic of shifting
federal dollars to regions where the health risk is the greatest;
however, this approach in effect rewards communities that were less
aggressive in cleaning up their air and punishes communities that
cleaned up their air sooner. Communities that are struggling to
maintain clean air will have to make greater state and local
investments if the proposed reapportionment is implemented. The
apportionment of a smaller piece of the air quality funding pie to EPA
Region 10 is being discussed for future fiscal years at the same time
EPA and the President are recommending a smaller pie for air programs
nationwide. This would result in substantially less federal funding for
Oregon's air quality programs.
In light of our many responsibilities, I am extremely concerned
about additional recent trends in federal funding for state and local
air pollution control agencies. With respect to fiscal year 1999, there
are two major problems: the new cost of monitoring for fine particulate
matter (PM-2.5) and the operating costs for other Clean Air Act
programs.
EPA has estimated that $98.3 million is needed to deploy a national
fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) monitoring network comprising 1,500
sites (including purchase of equipment and the costs of operating and
maintaining the system and analyzing data). On many occasions, EPA
committed to fully funding this program with new money; unfortunately,
EPA has not met its commitment and the full funding the agency promised
has not become a reality, making the new federal air quality
requirements are unfunded mandate. If the promised funding is not
provided, the LRAPA will have to find new local sources of revenue to
comply with these new federal requirements. EPA is funding the initial
purchase and operating costs for the monitors. However, the monitors
are very expensive to operate and maintain. We do not have the
resources to conduct the monitoring after the first year or two that
EPA is partially funding.
Instead of providing the promised $98.3 million over two years for
the new PM-2.5 monitoring network, EPA has allocated (or proposed) only
$75.3 million in new money between fiscal year 1997-1999--a shortfall
of $23 million--and has reprogrammed $13.7 million away from other
extremely important and grossly underfunded non-PM-2.5-monitoring
activities that state and local agencies must perform by federal law.
We urge Congress, therefore, to increase Section 103 grants for the PM-
2.5 monitoring network by $23 million over the President's request. The
U.S. Senate shared our concern with this problem and, in response,
approved an amendment to the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (Senator Inhofe's amendment) on March 4, 1998, that
called for EPA to fund 100 percent of the cost of the PM-2.5 monitoring
network by fiscal year 2000, through Section 103 of the Clean Air Act,
and to do so without reprogramming funds from other clean air
activities. Further, the amendment calls for EPA to restore to state
and local air programs in fiscal year 1999 any funds previously
reprogrammed or diverted from Section 105 grants.
While PM-2.5 monitoring activities are very important, state and
local air quality agencies have many other critical responsibilities.
Yet, even as the need for federal funds is increasing, Section 105
grants (for non-PM-2.5-monitoring activities) have steadily decreased
in recent years. Since fiscal year 1995, federal grants for
implementing the Clean Air Act (not including PM-2.5 monitoring) have
decreased by over $40 million (not including the effects of inflation),
representing a 23 percent cut. These cuts have made it extremely
difficult for us to effectively address the critical air quality
problems that need our attention and resources. The diminishing
resources are being felt in Lane County. LRAPA, like most local and
state air pollution control agencies nationwide, is years behind
schedule in implementing the federal operating permits program for
industrial sources. We have not had enough resources to compile a
comprehensive emissions inventory identifying the cumulative sources of
air pollution for more than five years. An accurate emissions inventory
is necessary for air quality planning. Our monitoring equipment is old
and in need of replacement. We have been forced to drop enforcement
actions for air pollution violations due to a lack of resources. A
large portion of air pollution is from transportation and individual
activities. We have lacked the resources to invest in the public
education and incentive programs that are needed to reduce emissions
from these sectors. These activities are essential to our efforts to
assure healthy air in Lane County.
EPA also is well aware that state and local air grants should be
much higher to support our activities. Beginning in January 1997, the
agency in cooperation with the associations of state and local air
quality agencies--STAPPA and ALAPCO--undertook a four-month, intensive
effort to identify and estimate the costs related to the activities
that should be funded in fiscal year 1999 with state and local air
grants under Section 105 of the Clean Air Act. This project relied upon
the expertise and efforts of approximately 70 federal, state and local
participants.
Based upon an analysis of what it would take to operate a good
(although not perfect) program, the study concluded that Section 105
grants should be increased by $98 million in fiscal year 1999 (this
estimate does not include PM-2.5 monitoring costs, since those are
addressed under Section 103). The study identified many activities that
should receive increases in fiscal year 1999 over fiscal year 1998
levels, including, among other things, minor source inspections and
permits; development, replacement and/or upgrade of monitors (in
addition to PM-2.5 monitoring); collection of emission and pollutant
data; training; implementation of ozone strategies; compliance
assistance activities, especially for small businesses; multi-state
approaches to regional air quality problems; monitoring of emissions of
toxic air pollutants; and implementation of strategies to address toxic
air emissions in urban areas. Specifically in Lane County, an increase
such as the one I am recommending is needed to catch up with the
backlog in our compliance assurance efforts for industrial sources, to
evaluate and abate the public health risks associated with toxic air
pollution in our communities, and to take the steps necessary to
prevent violation of the new ozone and fine particulate matter (PM-2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to provide citizens and small
business owners information and assistance to minimize their air
quality impacts, and to modernize our monitoring network.
In spite of the significant funding shortfall identified by the EPA
needs assessment study, EPA has not only not proposed budget increases
in operating programs in fiscal year 1999, it has actually called for
decreases in Section 105 grants and has proposed reprogramming funds
away from these operating activities. We urge you to reverse this trend
and provide state and local air agencies with $98 million above the
President's request for Section 105 grants.
Since state and local air quality agencies have the primary
responsibility for implementing our nation's clean air laws, we at
LRAPA are diligently seeking healthful air quality for our citizens. We
cannot do this without adequate funding.
Other environmental laws and public demand are decreasing the
availability of timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest. This has
caused severe economic stress in many communities including Lane
County. Economic development agencies are aggressively working to
attract new industries to offset the losses in forest products
enterprises. Air quality regulation of these new facilities is very
resource intensive, especially in the first few years. Reduced federal
funding of our air programs is making the transition to an economy less
dependent upon timber more difficult. The burden of these federal
actions taken together pose a serious hardship for our communities.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony on a
matter of great importance to community. If I can answer any questions
or provide any additional information please feel free to contact me.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor James Garner, Village of Hempstead, Long
Island
Chairman Bond and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mayor James
Garner of the Village of Hempstead, Long Island.
I appreciate your receiving this testimony from me regarding a
special problem in the Village of Hempstead, Long Island. Senator
D'Amato and Senator Moynihan are familiar with the problem and I have
asked them to inform you of their interest in solving the problem.
The Village is located in Nassau County which is in the center of
Long Island and twenty-six miles east of Manhattan. Hempstead is the
largest village in the state of New York and in many ways is much more
like a medium size city than a village. The Village population
according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 50,500, but I can tell you as a
person who walks the streets of the Village and sees the records for
the amount of residential water use and sewer flows that the population
is closer to 70,000.
Hempstead Village is the terminus for the central line of the Long
Island Railroad and makes us the transportation center for the County.
Because the Village is the center for many of Nassau County's social
service agencies and public transportation, the Village has become home
for many new immigrants who have come to the greater New York City
area. Our population is very diverse: 65 percent African American, 10
percent Caucasian, and 25 percent Latino.
The growth of Long Island following the Civil War saw the Village
become the center of retail shopping for the County. The construction
of one of the largest shopping malls in the country north of the
Village during the 1960's resulted in the loss of revenue and tax base
in the 1970's and 1980's. Overnight the Village began to change. Major
retail stores relocated to shopping centers and families began to
relocate in other nearby towns. The traditional demands for social
services increased at the same time that tax revenue decreased.
During the past eight years, we have begun to turn the tide. The
Village has attracted new development and begun to rid itself of the
drug and crime activity which scared away citizens. Unfortunately while
all of these other problems were mounting, the Village's infrastructure
was also beginning to decay. One of the most important parts of our
public works system, the water treatment plant, has deteriorated to the
point where it needs emergency help to allow us to maintain a safe,
reliable water supply for public health and fire protection.
Our century old water supply system suffers from age and the threat
of groundwater contamination. The risk of vandalism also adds to our
concerns about the system because of the perverse nature of some
individuals behavior these days and the proximity of the open water
treatment facilities to a major thoroughfare running through the
Village and other public areas near the plant.
Nassau County Health Department data show that since 1994 Hempstead
has the greatest concentration of residents in the County affected by
the pathogens, ``Cryptosporidium'' and ``Giardia'' in the County. The
Village's drinking water wells are also at risk from industrial
hazardous waste in a groundwater plume moving toward the Village from
Roosevelt Field. The sources of the pollution are suspected to be
several industrial sites and Mitchell Field, a former federal airbase
and Charles Lindbergh's departure point on his transatlantic flight to
Paris. These sites are one mile from the Village limits. Hempstead has
already been impacted by groundwater contamination and has been
treating water from two of its wells for ten years. Last spring three
of Hempstead's nine wells were impacted by the movement of the plume.
At times last summer, the Village would not have been able to
effectively fight a large building fire because of the low water
supply. The lack of an adequate water supply also is having a negative
impact on the Village's economic development program. Covering the
basins will protect the drinking water supply and new aeration nozzles
will provide more efficient removal of volatile organic compounds from
the water and oxidization of iron in the water supply.
Hempstead has not been successful obtaining assistance from New
York's environmental bond issue because the high income levels of
Nassau County were used in evaluating the Village's application. Even
if the Village qualified for State loans, it does not have the bonding
capacity for the project. The Village tax base is affected by the low
income population and the amount of commercial office space occupied by
County and State agencies which do not pay taxes. The concentration of
lower income people in the Village is, in part, caused by the location
of State and County social services agencies in Hempstead. The eroded
tax base causes Hempstead to continually defer maintenance on critical
infrastructure projects like the Clinton Street water treatment
facility, new well construction and the water distribution system.
Facility improvements require $10 million to cover the aeration
basins, replace aeration nozzles, rebuild portions of the aeration
basins, replace pipes, rehabilitate four existing wells and drill two
new wells. Your help will enable the Village to overhaul its water
supply plant and system. Hempstead needs an affordable, reliable and
safe water supply to continue to rebuild its tax base and meet the
needs of its predominately moderate and low income population.
Thank you for your interest in this matter and to Congresswoman
McCarthy for her interest in helping solve this critical problem. I
will be pleased to provide whatever additional information is necessary
to answer your questions and look forward to working with you to solve
this problem.
______
Prepared Statement of Don Ouchley, General Manager, Brownsville Public
Utilities Board
Dear Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Ouchley, General Manager of the
Public Utilities Board for Brownsville, Texas, a city of 130,000, the
largest city in the south Texas area of the United States-Mexico
border.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before your Committee
concerning the priority environmental problem faced by the Brownsville,
Texas area--our lack of a long term water supply. The reason that we
are here is to ask you to designate $3.0 million from the Border
Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) for the use of Brownsville to
initiate the implementation of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir
project.
The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project is the most important
component of an integrated plan for meeting the projected water needs
of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. It provides an opportunity to capture
water that has passed all other uses and, without this project flows to
the Gulf of Mexico unused. It is, in short, a major water conservation
project.
The structure creating the impoundment would release adequate water
to satisfy both environmental and downstream uses. The project uses the
existing river channel for storage and will be accessible to numerous
users within the United States and Mexico, rather than constructing
currently authorized off-channel reservoirs which are remote to
existing water supply facilities, accessible to a limited number of
municipal users and providing no benefit to Mexico or to meet in-stream
flow needs.
The Project encourages water conservation because under current
water management conditions, a significant portion of the water that is
saved by water conservation practices is not conserved in storage, but
instead flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Absent the Project, the IBWC
must continue to release water from Falcon Reservoir seven days in
advance of the anticipated diversion. If the released water is not
diverted due to reduced demand, or due to unanticipated inflows, the
water flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The project is the ultimate
conservation project for our region and can conserve more water than
any other alternative available. The project conserves water for all
users since every acre foot of water utilized by the project will
result in an acre foot remaining in storage behind Falcon Dam for the
benefit of all users, municipals, industrials and agriculture.
The project has the strong support of the State of Texas, in fact,
the Texas Water Development Board has incorporated it as one of its top
priorities in the south Texas water plan. There is also written support
from Mexico and from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas. Finally the
project has the broad support of local governments, citizens, and,
increasingly, local environmental organizations.
We need the assistance because existing EPA and Border Environment
Coordinating Committee (BECC) rules restrict the use of these funds to
wastewater and drinking water facilities and do not cover water supply
projects. The need to obtain a stable long term water supply for the
entire Brownsville area is the overwhelming top border environmental
priority for our area. If the BEIF is to help improve the quality of
our public health and environment some funding needs to be spent on
this Weir project.
Our difficulty occurs because the BECC funding emphasizes funding
for wastewater and water treatment plants for smaller communities. Yet
Brownsville has spent over $40 million over the past five years to
upgrade these same types of facilities in order to meet state and
federal standards. As a result water and sewer rates have been
significantly raised and the availability of funding for the
Brownsville Weir water supply project is bleak unless our already high
utility rates in south Texas are raised even higher. We, and our
Congressional delegation, assumed in our support of NAFTA that Border
Environmental funding would be available to reduce the financial impact
on the lower income communities along the border. In meeting
environmental and public health needs the City has paid more than $40
million for its major wastewater and drinking water plant improvements
so we strongly believe that we should be able to obtain the $3.0
million out of the over $400 million BECC border funds already
appropriated for border environmental protection for our top priority.
disclosure of federal funds
The Brownsville Public Utilities Board did not receive any federal
grant funds last year.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Davenport, Executive Director, Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today concerning the need for assistance in
implementing the Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program.
New Jersey is distinguished as being the birthplace of industry in
the United States. The industrial centers of Newark, Jersey City and
Paterson developed and thrived from the early nineteenth to the mid-
twentieth century, generating the goods and capital that contributed to
the building of our state and nation. We are now faced with the task of
undoing the destruction to the local environment caused by those early
endeavors.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) serve 47
municipalities in heavily industrialized Northern New Jersey, including
the cities of Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City. Established in 1902 to
alleviate pollution in the Passaic River, the Commission operates the
sixth largest wastewater treatment plant in the United States which
treats 330 million gallons per day of wastewater generated by 1.3
million people and 350 major industrial customers. The Commission's
infrastructure has a current replacement value of over $3.0 billion.
The Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program seeks to improve
the area's waterways to allow unrestricted recreational and commercial
uses. The program includes assisting volunteer groups with shoreline
cleanups, the trackdown and clean-up of toxics leaching into the sewer
systems, and efforts to reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows
(CSO's).
The sewer systems in seven member municipalities are combined, with
domestic and industrial wastewater using the same pipes as stormwater
runoff. During times of rain, these sewers cannot handle the huge
volume of combined sewage, which then overflows in an untreated state
into the Passaic River and Newark Bay. The overflows contain floating
materials which are washed from the streets, toxic organic compounds,
heavy metals, and disease causing microorganisms.
EPA has promulgated a Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow plan which
requires CSO owners to either reduce the quantity of overflows or
provide treatment to meet water quality goals. These requirements are
typically met through the total elimination of CSO's by constructing
new wastewater sewers in every street or by a system to capture and
store the CSO overflows for later treatment. These alternatives would
take at least 15 years to implement and have a construction cost of $1
to $2.4 billion.
The cities of Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City are among the
poorest in the nation, with 1989 median household incomes averaging
less than $26,000. The unemployment rate in 1993 was 10.3 percent and
14 percent of the population was living below the poverty line. The
ocean dumping of sewage sludge was halted in 1991 by constructing
massive sludge processing facilities which were paid for entirely with
local funds. Debt service now consumes one out of every five dollars in
PVSC's budget.
A search was initiated to find a plan which could still meet the
goals of EPA's Long Term Control Strategy but at a cost which the
cities could afford. A comprehensive review of the treatment plant's
capacity was undertaken utilizing the latest state-of-the-art three
dimensional computer modeling techniques. The study, overseen by a
panel of nationally recognized waste treatment experts, recommended a
series of in-plant treatment improvements which will double the plant's
ability to successfully treat wet weather flows. A doubling of wet
weather treatment capacity will result in PVSC exceeding EPA's Long
Term requirements for pollutant reductions for CSO's. The improvements
involve modifications to existing treatment units and therefore can be
on line only three years after the project funds become available.
The cost for the first phase of the improvements will total $18.5
million of which we are requesting a Federal Special Needs Grant of
$14.8 million. The 20 percent match would be paid for with state and
local funds.
We believe that this innovative program meets the needs of
environmental protection by utilizing state-of-the-art techniques to
maximize the effectiveness of existing infrastructure. In an era of
scarce public resources, this program will serve as a National
Demonstration Project for other communities facing vast infrastructure
needs with only limited fiscal resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Ed Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water
Utilities Public Service Board
Dear Chairman Bond: The purpose of this brief testimony is to thank
you and the Members of this Committee for providing three million
dollars in EPA Border Environmental Infrastructure Funding (BEIF) for
our El Paso/Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project. This money
is the catalyst for assuring that the more than two million urban and
rural residents of the El Paso/Juarez/Las Cruces region will have safe
drinking water well into the 21st century.
The funding was provided by your Committee because the EPA rules
established for BEIF funding restricted their use for this type of
multi-national, multi-state water supply program that is the region's
top priority. The monies will now allow the New Mexico-Texas Water
Commission to conclude the ongoing water supply and environmental
studies that will, in turn, allow the local communities and irrigation
districts in two states and the U.S. and Mexican governments to make
long-term water quality and water supply decisions.
As you may be aware, the United States recently filed a quiet title
lawsuit over the ownership of the water in the Rio Grande.
Historically, water litigation is lengthy and costly not only in terms
of dollars, but also in terms of acrimony created between states and
communities. We believe that because of the working relationships and
cooperative data-based regional planning which have developed as a
result of the El Paso/Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project,
parties as diverse as Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and the cities of El
Paso and Las Cruces, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of
Justice were able to work out a mediation plan. The plan is designed to
efficiently address the critical issues over water--how much, who owns
it, who uses it, its quality, etc. The one thing all parties can agree
on is that responsible decisions cannot be made until everyone knows
how much water is available and what the alternatives are for most
efficiently managing it. This is what the $3 million will accomplish.
The mediation should begin next month. The result is a new sense of
possibility for a plan or program that will provide long-term
sustainable water for the cities, the farmers, and the rural
communities--based on the outcome of the sustainable water study funded
by this committee.
In conclusion, it is important for your Committee to realize that
this sustainable water supply effort is the top priority for this
heavily populated El Paso region of the border. You should also
understand that existing EPA BEIF rules make the BEIF program an
uncertain source of funding for future water supply projects without
the direct guidance of this Committee. State and local monies are
difficult to obtain because the scope is regional and multi-
jurisdictional and if any participant decides to use its funding as
leverage then the mediation suffers. With these BEIF funds it allows
the process to proceed. We believe this is exactly what the Congress
intended the BEIF program to be used for when NAFTA was passed.
We thank you again very much for the direct appropriation of last
year's funding for this project. We will continue to keep you informed
of our progress.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Kirk Humphreys, City of Oklahoma City
Dear Mr. Chairman, my name is Kirk Humphreys and I am the newly
elected Mayor of Oklahoma City replacing Ron Norick who has retired
after eleven years as Mayor.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before your Committee today on
the need for additional funding to complete the difficult task of
restoring the area devastated by the Murrah building bombing.
Former Mayor Norick, the City Council and the City staff wanted me
to express our special appreciation for your visit to the bombing site
three years ago within the first week after the bombing. This visit and
the kind support that you expressed at that time were a major boost to
our local elected officials, our Congressional delegation and most
important the bombing victims and the shocked citizens of Oklahoma
City. We were hurting and you stepped forward to provide the most
important long term assistance that our city received--the help we
needed to rebuild.
Oklahoma City is requesting $23 million in additional funding to
complete the task of repairing the destruction caused by the bombing of
the Murrah on April 19, 1995. The funds will be used to complete damage
repairs and economic recovery through the loan program and therefore
will be dedicated for exactly the same purpose and on exactly the same
projects as described in the original request. The new request for
funding is the difference between our initial damage estimate and the
real cost of restoring buildings and economic activity in the north
central area of the City's downtown.
It was understood at the time of the first request that our damage
estimate would not be accurate because (a) it was rushed due to there
being other more urgent priorities associated with the rescue effort,
(b) the estimators (public works officials) had no previous experience
with an event of this nature, and (c) access within the area was
substantially restricted by the FBI because this was a crime scene.
This was why we indicated at that time that a further request was
probable.
Attached are two maps which identify (1) estimated structural
damage right after the bombing and (2) buildings where structural
damage has actually been repaired with program funds. These differences
are similar to those found with earthquake estimates, emphasizing that
it takes time to fully identify structural damage. However, earthquake
damage, because it is caused by ground waves, is very different from
bomb damage, which results from wind (blast) damage over pressure--two
very different stresses. Because no precedent for bomb damage exists in
the country, other than limited military tests, local architects and
engineers have found it very difficult throughout the program to
distinguish bomb damage.
The bombing directed against the federal building devastated a
large part of downtown Oklahoma City an area already under economic
stress. Outside consultants have recommended major new efforts in
housing and economic development to achieve recovery of the bombed
area. But we need to be able to follow our original plan to provide a
source of low interest loans to assist small businesses relocating to
the area. If we don't, these businesses will not come and the area will
not recover. The bomb was not directed at Oklahoma City--it was
directed at the federal government. We simply need the help to restore
this already depressed area of our city to a level that provides a
chance for future economic stability.
The plan to restore the north central part of Oklahoma City was two
fold. Repair the buildings first and help reestablish businesses within
the area second. The first objective is on the way to being completed.
The second depends on the availability of low-interest loans that will
be created through a low-interest loan pool administered by local
banks.
Without this type of incentive small business has no reason to
return to the area because most either closed or relocated. If closed
they need start-up help--if relocated they need a reason to come back.
We must have them back--or some businesses to replace them or the
Murrah bombing area will essentially remain a shell.
Our goal is to get us back to square one, April 18, 1995. Beyond
that, the City will use its own resources to bring about the
revitalization of downtown Oklahoma City. That we intend to do so is
attested to by the City's MAPS program which is funding approximately
$300 million in downtown redevelopment projects, separate and distinct
from the bomb affected area. The City is also investigating other
avenues for supporting additional downtown improvements. Oklahoma City
is committed to its downtown area, but doesn't want handouts to achieve
this. The request for additional bomb funds is only to get us back to
our pre-bombing starting point in north central Oklahoma City. Beyond
that, we will take care of our needs using our own resources.
The following illustrates our original request (based on estimates)
relative to actual funding required (based on assessed construction
costs).
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended to
reflect
Original Expended actual
request funding
required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damage Claims and Reconstruction 18.8 34.2 40.2
Loans..............................
Economic Recovery Loans ($40 million 12.0 1.3 16.0
loan pool).........................
Infrastructure Repairs.............. 6.7 2.0 3.6
Administration and Program 1.5 1.5 2.2
deliveries.........................
-----------------------------------
Totals........................ 39.0 39.0 62.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City's recovery effort has the same structure and is targeted
towards achieving the same purpose as originally proposed by the City
and stipulated in the enabling legislation for the original $39 million
grant. We presently fall short of achieving that purpose because we did
not appreciate the scale of damage when we made our first request
immediately after the bombing (the magnitude of which is graphically
portrayed by the attached maps showing preliminary and actual bomb
damage). As I stated earlier, the $23 million we are seeking is the
difference between our immediate post bombing estimate and the cost of
reconstruction.
We greatly appreciate your help in securing the original $39
million that started us on the road to recovery. We will be equally
grateful if you can assist us in completing this difficult task.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.006
______
Prepared Statement of Dave Waller, Missouri Rural Water Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on behalf of the Missouri
State Rural Water Association and the other 45 state rural water
associations. First I want to thank you and your Committee for
increasing the Groundwater/Wellhead protection program and the Training
and Technical Assistance program up to $8.2 million last year to allow
for all state rural water associations to operate full programs.
The purpose of our testimony is to urge your support for the
continued funding of the Rural Water Training and Technical Assistance
program and the Groundwater/Wellhead protection program which is
authorized in the Safe Drinking Water Act and operates in forty-eight
states. These programs provided for over 12,100 on-site visits, trained
over 41,300 people in every rural county in the country and have
completed over 2,300 small community groundwater protection programs.
These are the primary programs that have direct on-site contact with
the smallest community water systems where the impact of the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act regulations is the most difficult.
The vast majority of water systems (94 percent) are small, serving
less than 10,000 people. The majority of noncompliance with the federal
requirements (90 percent) is in the same category. According to EPA's
Small Town Task Force Advisory Committee, which was created by Congress
to provide policy recommendation to the EPA Administrator, ``small
towns are different from large towns--not just smaller.'' The task
force listed reasons for this observation including: ``small towns
seldom have engineers or laboratories, there are few, if any training
opportunities, local training usually does not exist, small towns, as a
rule, have little or no professional staff, and small communities often
lack political strength, both on the state and the national level.''
The Task Force recommended that, ``EPA must provide, where ever
possible, expanded technical assistance.''
Of particular importance in our request for funding this program is
that the primary problem in implementing the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act is the ability of small systems to comply with the law. If
small system compliance is the major focus of the law then we urge the
Committee to consider as a priority this funding for the one program
that most effectively addresses that concern. There is overwhelming
agreement that the only way to improve the compliance of small systems
is to make direct on-site contact with operators, managers and local
elected officials. The positive effect of these contacts is the heart
of rural public health protection.
While small system compliance with this SDWA is the main focus of
the Rural Water Technical Assistance program, it is important to
understand that the real long-term benefit of this program is the
assurance of continuing local government control and responsibility for
small and rural drinking water systems as opposed to more federal
government intervention. Federal intervention and federal rules
decrease the efficiency and increase the cost of small water system
operations. If that is to be reversed there must be an alternative to
federal regulations for protecting the public health. We believe that
alternative is to consistently improve the capability of small systems
through better management, improved equipment, expanded water sharing,
reasonable consolidation and other efforts that make small systems more
viable and less subject to national environmental regulatory
intervention. This is exactly what on-site technical assistance carried
out by each state rural water association accomplishes.
The best illustration of how this grassroots approach works is the
rural water groundwater protection program. In the past, some
environmental organizations and some Members of Congress have pressed
for a federally mandated groundwater protection regulations. A federal
program would expand EPA's role in land use decisions in every county
in the country. The rural water program was created as an alternative
to that idea. The innovative rural water approach pursues a more
workable program that assists small water systems to become the
catalyst for implementing wellhead/groundwater protection ordinances in
their own communities. Local folks want to protect their groundwater
but they need a little help to get started. This program has worked
beyond everyone's best expectations--over 2,000 communities have or are
adopting ordinances and it is spreading rapidly to cover other rural
communities in these states. It has become the one new approach
replacing any discussion of federal groundwater protection mandates.
This point is very important. Our belief that the only way to
reduce federal environmental regulation is to develop an alternative
approach for solving the environmental problems. In rural and small
communities these alternatives can best be developed and implemented by
the rural folks themselves. The primary mechanism for the rural
communities is to identify and focus on how to solve these problems has
been the rural water training and technical assistance program. That is
why we are urging the Committee to look at this program as its top SDWA
priority. This program provides the core effort for a return of
environmental management to the local elected officials. In this
Congress, particularly, the objectives and activity of this program
reinforces other Congressional efforts to reduce federal mandates and
federal regulations.
The program is operated by the Rural Water Associations. We are a
federation of state rural water associations--one such association
exists in each state. The statewide membership of each association is
comprised of small nonprofit water systems and small towns. All members
have water supply operations as their primary daily activity. State
membership averages about 300 systems from all geographic areas of each
state. These are active members--who continuously participate in the
training and technical assistance program in an effort to improve their
drinking water. This program assists all small water systems whether
they are members of the state association or not. With a significant
turnover in water operators and board members, the need for training
and technical assistance remains constant.
One very positive aspect of the program has been the interest in
states and even EPA regional offices to expand the program in
individual states when additional funds are available. There are over
20 additional full-time persons funded to do this same work from other
funding sources. For example, four additional Florida Rural Water
Association in-the-field staff are paid for with state funds. All these
efforts are interrelated with the EPA program funded by this Committee.
In addition, a growing number of states are creating new grant and loan
programs to finance rural water systems to assist in upgrading them to
meet SDWA requirements. Again, it is this EPA funded program that has
become a catalyst in state after state for innovative and broad ranging
efforts to improve drinking water facilities. To make this work the
program provides the following framework for water system assistance:
--frequent training sessions covering a variety of rural water
subjects in all rural areas of a state
--a minimum of 200 on-site technical assistance contacts each year
--border-to-border contact with all rural water systems in each state
through a state rural water association office
--monthly or quarterly newsletters with simple advice for improvement
of water system operations, as well as a very clear description
of changing EPA standards for SDWA compliance
--immediate on-site assistance for any small system in the state
expressing operation or management difficulties by contacting
the state rural water association office
--coordinated rural water system efforts within a state to press for
increased state and local funding which reduces demand on USDA
grants and loans
--cooperation from all small water systems with EPA and state
regulatory personnel which allows them to deliver their message
and monitor the level of effort for SDWA compliance among small
water systems
The number of participants in the training sessions continues to
increase as do the number of rural water systems actively participating
in the overall state association programs. For example, state
associations annually conduct approximately 860 workshops and provide
training for 41,000 rural water operators and other personnel
representing 17,000 water systems nationwide. Over 11,500 technical
assistance on-site hours, including visits for serious compliance
problems with the Safe Drinking Water Act, were also carried out and
were normally the only hands-on assistance provided to these systems to
help them meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This is an important time in the evolution of federal environmental
protection programs. The Congress is using existing programs to
determine how to reduce federal mandates by turning over more
responsibility to local governments. We urge the Committee to review
the Rural Water Training and Technical Assistance program in this
light. This program is national in coverage but local in operation and
implementation. It provides clearly documentable accomplishments in the
number of systems assisted and local groundwater ordinances adopted. In
short, it is local, fully documented, and it addresses the number one
priority in the SDWA--small community and rural water systems.
Attached is a copy of a report done by the EPA Compliance Division
evaluating the effectiveness of Circuit Riders for improving compliance
with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in Iowa and Colorado. The
documented success of improved compliance will allow EPA to rely more
extensively on this type of grassroots effort as opposed to increased
regulatory enforcement. State rural water association in-the-field
staff are a viable alternative to increased federal mandates.
We are requesting $8.85 million this year to allow for the first
cost-of-living increase for our in-the-field staff in six years. The
other one half of the increase would allow us to start a program in
Alaska and Hawaii.
Thank you very much for your past support. We have tried to make
this the best program this committee appropriates money for and we will
do the same next year if you will continue our funding.
Partners in Healthy Drinking Water Grants
u.s. epa/office of compliance--january 1998
overview
EPA awarded grants totaling $150,000 to support three pilot
projects that assisted small and very small public water systems to
improve their compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act: Colorado
Department of Health and the Environment, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources; and the Alaska Water Wastewater Management Association.
Two of the projects, Colorado and Iowa, focused on the total
coliform rule (TCR). The TCR rule was selected because of its
importance in detecting the presence of potential microbiological
contamination to drinking water. Historically, a large percentage of
small and very small public water systems have problems complying with
the monitoring and reporting requirements of the TCR.
Due to the different needs of Native American villages in Alaska,
the Alaska project focused on a variety of more site-specific technical
assistance needs.
description of pilots
Colorado Department of Health and the Environment
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment identified
153 public water systems which were chronic TCR noncompliers as mentees
for the program. Approximately 30 mentoring systems were selected.
These included: the Colorado Rural Water Association (CRWA), and public
water systems that had excellent compliance records.
The type of assistance provided included: (1) site visits and phone
calls to identify problems and remind operators to take samples; (2)
assistance with sampling and analysis; and (3) training.
Results.--After assistance was provided, 62 percent of the non-
compliant community systems came into compliance; and 59 percent of the
non-community systems achieved compliance.
Mentees who remained in compliance for one year and all mentors
received free training opportunities. Twenty-six mentors attended the
annual Colorado Rural Water Conference; and 103 mentees attended local
training courses sponsored by the Rural Water Association or AWWA.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Iowa Rural Water Association
Iowa's project used two mentoring approaches: (1) created mentoring
relationships between employees of Iowa's larger, regional rural water
systems and very small systems operators; and (2) provided assistance
to very small systems by using IRWA circuit riders as mentors. All
mentees chosen had received failure to monitor notices in several of
the preceding monitoring periods.
Results.--280 systems received technical assistance; 89 percent of
the systems who received assistance did not receive failure to monitor
notices in the subsequent monitoring period.
Other Non-mentoring Projects
TCR Calendars (1996 and 1997).--Calendars were mailed to all small
water systems in Iowa and to those who requested one (approximately
2,500 systems). Feedback indicated that operators liked having one
place to record their sampling information and stickers to mark the
sampling days and lab results.
TCR Brochure.--This brochure summarized the TCR monitoring
requirements; approximately 2,500 were distributed. They were mailed to
a targeted audience, private labs, related agencies, such as IDNR
regional offices, as well as affiliated groups that agreed to promote
the teleconference.
TCR Teleconference.--The teleconference provided training on how to
meet the requirements for bacteriological water testing. Iowa held two
teleconferences with a total of 325 participants. Survey responses from
97 participants returned following the first teleconference indicated a
high level of satisfaction with the TCR teleconference.
TCR Video.--This tool was used to provide training to small systems
owner/operators on how to take TCR samples and was distributed to all
mentees.
Alaska Water Wastewater Management Association (AWWMA)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) worked
closely with AWWMA to choose systems with one or more of the following
characteristics: (1) new operators; (2) non-compliers; (3) financially
needy; (4) interested operators. Systems in noncompliance were matched
with mentors who were in compliance, had more expertise in water
treatment, and were located in the same geographical area.
Four remote village operators participated. Mentors visited the
villages to become familiar with their systems. Some of the mentees
went to the mentor's communities to observe and participate in the
operation of the larger, more complex systems.
Results.--Strong mentor/mentee relationships were established and
efforts to correct specific problems through one-on-one training of the
mentee operator by the mentor were successful. For example, one mentor
assisted a mentee with repairing a flow meter and now the mentee can
perform the repair unassisted. Another mentor provided instruction on
how to optimize filter performance and how to conduct proper TCR
sampling
Generally, it's hard to measure the benefits of these types of
direct technical assistance on small communities. AWWA felt, however,
that the participating communities would gladly offer their
appreciation and enthusiasm for the improvements that resulted from
receiving this assistance.
Federal Funding Disclosure.--The Missouri Rural Water Association
is a non-profit trade association. We received the following pass
through federal grants and contracts last year:
EPA Technical Assistance program.............................. $85,000
EPA Ground Water Protection program........................... 85,000
USDA Circuit Rider program.................................... 85,000
USDA Wastewater Technician program............................ 85,000
______
Prepared Statement of Dave Bolin, President, Groundwater Protection
Council
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Dave Bolin, I am President of the Groundwater Protection
Council and the Assistant Oil and Gas Supervisor for the State Oil and
Gas Board of Alabama. I have two Masters' Degrees in Engineering and a
Ph.D. in ground water hydrology.
My agency is a typical member agency in the Ground Water Protection
Council. We are responsible for the environmental safeguards related to
oil and gas exploration and production. Many of us are also responsible
for state ground water and surface water protection programs. Through
the GWPC, my agency and the other states work together to protect
ground water resources while reducing the cost of compliance to
industry.
We feel that GWPC's mission reflects the future of environmental
protection: that we regulators must form partnerships, together with
industry and local government, to protect the environment. This is the
alternative to a command and control regulatory model which we feel
often results in unintended consequences, like unnecessary cost to
industry and local government. Neither of these consequences help to
protect our environment nor effectively utilizes limited resources.
In addition to expressing the state governmental agencies'
appreciation for your assistance last year, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to emphasis one main point today--that success in implementing the Safe
Drinking Water Act's source water protection program, and the Act's oil
and gas exploration programs depend primarily on state government
agencies like mine. And because we are the keys to success and
workability of these two EPA delegated programs, we urge the
subcommittee to look at increasing funding to innovative state programs
as an alternative to expanding the federal bureaucracy. In both the
underground injection control program and the source water protection
program, EPA has requested additional funding.
An example of environmental innovation is GWPC's proposal to
provide states with the data and information to allow them to comply
with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act's requirement that states submit
a source water plan to EPA next year. We are currently developing a
data system that many states will use as the core of their source water
program. There is no other data system being developed by EPA or anyone
else to assist states. Mr. Chairman, states must start submitting plans
for EPA approval next year and many states could use the assistance. We
feel that additional source water resources should be utilized to get
this information system to states so that they can comply with EPA's
requirements. Without such a uniform system, many states will spend
millions to develop dozens of different systems that may not be
accepted by EPA; or worse, many will miss the compliance date opening
them up to court actions and more bad press on environmental progress.
I have enclosed with my testimony six letters from state governments
supporting the GWPC data system. One state EPA said, ``this system
could serve to standardize the electronic format for national reporting
of source water assessments * * *.'' The other states: Ohio, Illinois,
New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Mississippi are all very hopeful they will
be able to use this system. This proposal would require $750,000 in
fiscal year 1999.
Our other priority is the EPA underground injection control
program. It is our hope that you will consider increasing the program's
funding in this EPA budget. Increasing the UIC grant to $17.0 million
in this year will not only help protect the environment, but also
reduce the environmental regulatory cost burden on the oil and gas
industries and state agencies. Currently, as a result of overburdened
state agencies, industry may face slower processing of oil and gas
production permits which decreases production and makes foreign
production more competitive. Limiting production because of a shortage
in oversight resources is pushing producers overseas. Also, EPA is in
the process of developing a new regulation for us to implement called
the Class V rule. It will require our agencies to start regulating up
to one million new wells and severely stressing state resources.
In closing Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the Committee for
the previous support and ask for your support again on these two
priorities.
additional explanations and analysis submitted for the committee record
reasons to increase the states' epa/uic funding grant in fiscal year
1999
Allow state environmental agencies to continue to protect
underground water supplies and maintain efficient state oversight of
the oil and gas industry practices throughout the country. Currently,
as a result of overburdened state agencies, industry may face slower
processing of oil and gas production permits which decreases production
and makes foreign production more competitive. Limiting production
because of a shortage in oversight resources is pushing producers
overseas.
EPA is in the process of developing a new regulation for us to
implement called the Class V rule. It will require our agencies to
start to regulate up to one million new wells. Most will be very small
businesses (farms, service stations, repair shops, print shops, dry
cleaners, etc.) and most will be in rural areas (because there are no
centralized sanitary sewers). This will require tremendous state
resources.
The Budget Agreement provides EPA increased funding for federal
environmental protection. We feel increased environmental funding
should be used to increase programs such as the UIC to help relieve the
burden on states and the oil and gas producers.
Each of the signatures on this letter are members of the Ground
Water Protection Council (GWPC). The GWPC is a national non-profit
organization that promotes the safest methods, most cost-effective
regulation, and comprehensive ground water protection procedures and
underground injection techniques related to oil and gas activities. The
GWPC provides a forum through which members, consisting of state and
federal ground water and underground injection control regulators,
industry representatives, environmental representatives, and concerned
citizens work together to protect ground water resources. We feel
strongly that the oil and gas industry supports our requests.
In each of the last ten years, Congress has provided $10.5 million
to state UIC agencies in the EPA budget for continued operation and
enforcement of the national underground injection control programs and
we'd like to thank you for that. However, in the last ten years, the
funding match has shifted from [75 percent federal: 25 percent state]
to [25 percent federal: 75 percent state]. At the same time, federal
funding for our sister agency's program (the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act State Public Water Systems Supervision program) has more than
doubled. The UIC delegated program has not expanded as the overall EPA
budget has continued to grow.
current status of gwpc survey on assessment of class v impacts
In 1999 the EPA will issue new Regulations governing very shallow
wells, which are typically large industrial septic systems in non-
sewered areas. EPA estimates that there could be over 300,000 of these
``wells'' in the U.S. all of which must be inspected, and perhaps shut
in and/or remediated. This will take significant additional resources
on the part of the states. The GWPC is nearing completion of a
nationwide financial needs assessment to determine what the eventual
cost of implementing these new regulations will be for the states.
While I do not have the entire survey result yet, I do have the
estimates for Alabama. Based on full compliance we have determined that
it will cost over an additional $360,000 to implement the new
regulations in Alabama, which has a small state program compared to
perhaps California or Texas, where program costs could easily exceed
$1,000,000. Yet all this still somehow is expected to be taken from the
current $10.5 million which also funds the other UIC program
implementation.
summary of accomplishments of last year's wellhead technical assistance
funding
Assistance to state governments with implementation of UIC and ground
water protection programs:
Conduct a National Stakeholders Conference on Ground Water and UIC
Issues.--The GWPC conducted the 1997 Annual Forum, a technical
conference on Ground Water, Watershed, Source Water, Wellhead
Protection and Underground Injection Control. The September 1997
conference held in Cleveland, OH, strengthened partnerships and
identified opportunities for flexibility in carrying out regulatory
responsibilities. The attendees, totaling 321, included stakeholders
from the public and private sector, state agencies, local governments,
and effected industries. Each participant received a copy of the
proceedings at the conference.
Early Involvement in the National Ground Water and UIC Program
Implementation.--GWPC participated in two informal State workgroup
meetings regarding the development of policies, regulations, and other
issues relating to ground water and UIC program implementation. The
meetings were held in October 1997 and March 1998. GWPC selected State
Class V agency representatives to participate in the meeting and
provided transportation funding for these representatives.
Communication and Training for States and Industry.--GWPC published
and distributed, bimonthly, The Ground Water Communique to all state
UIC and Ground Water Agencies and the Industry. The Communique tracks
and summarizes both national and state legislation, rule making,
guidance and technical information important to state program managers.
Special purpose information on both the UIC and Ground Water programs
was collected and/or distributed on an as needed basis by use of mail,
e-mail, FAX, GWPC home page, or conference calls. Within this task GWPC
also conducted training sessions addressing legislation, regulation and
policy issues facing Class I, II, and III injection wells. This
training was held at GWPC's Annual UIC Meeting in Houston, TX, January
1998.
Develop Model to Determine Cost to Administer a State UIC
Program.--GWPC participated in an informal state workgroup meeting
regarding the development of an assessment of costs to run an adequate
state Class V UIC program. GWPC selected States Class V agency
representatives to participate in the meeting and provided
transportation funding for these representatives. Conclusions from the
workgroup meeting spurred the development of the resource model. GWPC
distributed the model to all fifty state ground water agencies and
gathered specific State resource information.
Development of a Wellhead and Source Water Protection Data
Management System.--The GWPC has developed a pilot wellhead and source
water protection data management system capable of tracking and
querying national, state and local wellhead and source water protection
information including the locations of public water supply intakes.
Federal Funding Disclosure.--The Ground Water Protection Council is
a non-profit trade association of primarily state environmental
agencies. We received the following federal grants and/or contracts
last year:
EPA Wellhead Technical Assistance program..................... $400,000
DOE Risk Based Data Management System program................. 750,000
______
Letter From James L. Crawford
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of Pollution Control,
Jackson, MS, April 8, 1998.
Mr. Michael Paque,
Executive Director, Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Mr. Paque: I was most impressed with the demonstration in
Maryland of the source water protection software package being
developed by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). Let me
encourage GWPC to continue development of the Environmental Information
Management Suite--Source Water Protection Module that combines data
management and analysis, geographic information system (GIS) mapping,
and interactive Internet publishing capabilities. I am convinced that
this pilot project will be a major asset for states in implementing the
1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
When fully developed, this system will enhance the ability of
states to protect source waters and make information available to the
public using the World Wide Web and provide states with the ability to
electronically report progress on their Source Water Protection
Programs to Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
system will also enhance the efficiency of programs by allowing states
to electronically exchange data with the National Rural Water
Association technicians also involved in Wellhead and Source Water
Protection Programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was written to provide considerable
flexibility in the implementation of source water protection while at
the same time providing some overall national consistency. The system
is attractive to states like Mississippi because it is being developed
with direct input from the states and uses priorities established by
the states. Unlike other national databases, GWPC's Source Water
Protection data management system is a tool that meets our needs.
The GWPC is providing an excellent service to the states in
developing this computer application and the Mississippi DEQ looks
forward to using this system to protect the source waters of our state.
Sincerely,
James L. Crawford,
Chief.
______
Letter From Michael G. Baker
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Columbus, OH, April 10, 1998.
Mr. Michael Paque,
Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Mike: Another successful meeting in Annapolis. You and your staff
did a great job. While there are still some issues to resolve with
USEPA, we were able to lay some good ground work at the meeting.
I also want to let you know my interest in learning more about the
Environmental Information Management Suite (EIMS) GWPC has developed.
As I have discussed with Paul Jehn, we have been working on development
of our own data management and GIS application for the Division of
Drinking and Ground Waters for several years. After seeing the
demonstration of the Source Water Protection Module of the EIMS I'm
wondering how I may be able to link these two efforts. The EIMS appears
to provide some extremely useful, easy to use tools that would enhance
our current development plans. I will be following up with Paul to see
if we can arrange a demonstration for my GIS and data management
experts.
I also hope GWPC can continue to develop the program in light of
some of the recommendations discussed at the Annapolis meeting. I think
this system could serve to standardize the electronic format for
national reporting of source water assessment and protection progress.
It could also serve as a tremendous tool to States and public water
suppliers in making results of assessments available to the public via
the World Wide Web.
Congratulations on another successful meeting.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Baker,
Program Manager.
______
Letter From Richard P. Cobb
ILL,
Springfield, IL, April 10, 1998.
Mr. Michael Paque,
Executive Director, The Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Mike: I am writing this letter to encourage The Ground Water
Protection Council (GWPC) to continue the development of the
Environmental Information Management Suite Source Water Protection
Module. This pilot project which combines data management and analysis,
geographic information system mapping, and interactive Internet
publishing is a tool which will assist states in the implementation of
the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
When fully developed, this system will enhance our ability to
protect source waters and make information available to the public
using the World Wide Web. At the same time, we will be able to
electronically report progress on source water protection to Congress
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This system will
also add to the efficiency of our programs by allowing us to
electronically exchange data with the National Rural Water wellhead and
source water protection programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was written to provide considerable
flexibility in the implementation of source water protection while at
the same time providing some overall national consistency. The system
is attractive to states like Illinois because it is being developed by
states using state priorities. Unlike other national databases, GWPC's
source water protection data management system is a tool that meets our
needs.
The GWPC is providing an excellent service to the states in
developing this computer application and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency looks forward to using this system to protect our
source waters.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Cobb,
Manager.
______
Letter From Sarah Pillsbury
Department of Environmental Services,
Concord, NH, April 9, 1998.
Michael Paque,
Executive Director, The Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Mike: I am writing this letter to support the continued
development at The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) Environmental
Information Management Source Water Protection Module. I was very
impressed at a recent demonstration of this pilot project. The project,
when completed. will combine data management and analysis, geographic
information system mapping, and interactive Internet publishing. I
believe it will be a great tool to assist states in the implementation
of Source Water Assessment Programs required by the 1996 amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act. When fully developed, this system will
enhance the ability to protect source waters and make information
available to the public using the World Wide Web. As I understand it,
it will also allow for electronic reporting on source water protection
progress to Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It
will also allow for the electronic exchange of data with local source
water protection programs and other partners in production such as the
Northeast Rural Water Association.
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides considerable flexibility in
the implementation of source water protection while at the same time
providing some overall national consistency. The system is attractive
to states like New Hampshire because it is being developed from the
State's perspective. Therefore, it should both address New Hampshire's
needs while at the same time providing necessary information to USEPA.
The GWPC is providing an excellent service to the states in developing
this computer application and New Hampshire DES looks forward to using
this system to protect our source water.
Sincerely,
Sarah Pillsbury,
Source Water Protection Coordinator.
______
Letter From Patrick W. Rice
State of Nebraska,
Department of Environmental Quality,
Lincoln, NE, April 8, 1998.
Mike Paque,
Executive Director, Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Mike: I am writing this letter to encourage the Ground Water
Protection Council (GWPC) to continue the development of the
Environmental Information Management Suite, Source Water Protection
Module. We recently learned about some of the features of this software
tool and how useful it will be for data management and analysis,
geographic information system (GIS) mapping, and possibly Internet
publishing, especially in reference to the States' implementation of
the Source Water Assessment Program. We are especially excited about
this software's capability to be easily used on any Nebraska Department
of Environmental Quality staff's desktop computer with our existing GIS
coverages.
When fully developed, this system will enhance our ability to make
information available to the public to allow better decisions to be
made to protect the state's drinking water. An added advantage will be
if the software system is capable of assisting states with their
reporting obligations to the USEPA and Congress. Our efficiency and
progress in the implementation of the Source Water Assessment Program
will be greatly augmented with the use of this tool.
Please consider this letter as an indication of our whole hearted
support for the further development of this computer application. The
Nebraska DEQ looks forward to using this system to better serve the
State's Public Water Supply Systems and implementation of the Source
Water Assessment Program, as specified in the 1996 amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Sincerely,
Patrick W. Rice,
Assistant Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. William A. Burke, Chairman, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Mr. Chairman my name is Dr. William A. Burke. I am the Chairman of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District. First, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today to express our
appreciation for your past support of our air quality management
efforts.
My purpose for being here today is to request the support of this
committee for providing some specific demonstration funding for the
Southern California Air Quality Management program. Our primary reason
for this request is that, as you know, our region has been designated
by EPA as having the most severe air quality problem in the country. We
are also widely recognized as the sole Air Quality program that has
developed a number of innovative local air pollution control programs
that have been widely replicated throughout the country. Presently we
are in a major debate with EPA over their approval of our 1997 Air
Quality Management Plan.
Our major problem is that meeting EPA standards will require an
even more accelerated effort to develop innovative programs to meet
ending deadlines. Failure to meet these deadlines or to obtain EPA
approval of our plan will result in increasingly severe federal
restrictions which will negatively affect our regional economy. We must
rely on new technology and innovative implementation of existing
technology or we will not comply. We cannot accelerate this innovation
without additional funding this year.
Other Air Quality Management Programs across the country will be
facing similar difficulties in the future. Many of these Districts are
dependent on the continuing development of the innovative program
development in our Los Angeles basin. As a result of this
interrelationship between our programs and the compliance of other Air
Quality Districts we believe that the demonstration funding will have
both immediate and long term national air quality improvement impact.
The thrust of our program has been to clean the air while
mitigating the negative impact of Clean Air rules on our citizens and
our economy, particularly on our small business owners. To do this we
have initiated a number of innovative programs which have been imitated
in other parts of the country. We have also significantly improved the
air quality in our region despite our continuing population growth.
However, in order to meet EPA criteria we will need to expand our
already overextended program. To do this we will need additional
federal help.
Our financial problem from the beginning has been the limited level
of federal funding allowed for the Los Angeles area under the Clean Air
Act. With over 12 percent of the population and with the only severe
air quality category in the country our state is provided no more than
10 percent of the federal air quality funding. Even with these
restrictions the federal grant program has been reduced at the same
time that clean air standards have been increased.
We are requesting that you increase the Administration Clean Air
compliance program from $190 million to $240 million dollars. We are
also requesting that you require the additional $50 million to be
designated based on the existing air quality severity with at least 20
percent going to California where the nation's major air quality
problems exist. If there is a problem with the legislative restriction
of not more than 10 percent of any funding going to one state we would
urge you to provide $5.0 million in the EPA appropriations for the
implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management innovative
program. Attached is a list of projects to be funded immediately.
This increase in funding and the emphasis on directing monies
toward the area under the most stress from poor air quality would be a
major step in national public health improvement. We simply can't have
the federal government increase standards, increase monitoring costs
and increase enforcement without any increase in the federal share for
meeting these requirements.
Thank you for your assistance.
south coast air quality management district--potential projects for
consideration of additional epa grant funds (funding amount--
$5,000,000)
Enforcement/Compliance
Identify and educate impacted industries and operators of large
water heaters and small boilers (75,000-2,000,000 Btu/hr). Develop
field enforcement procedures for these sources. SCAQMD Rule 1146.2
imposes new emission and retrofit requirements on these previously
unregulated sources starting in 2000. (Projected cost--$150,000)
Establish, expand, and implement an area source compliance program
for non-permitted sources that emit ozone precursors or particulate
matter. Identified sources exempt from current AQMD rules will be
required to provide limited emissions information and follow
standardized operating parameters issued by the AQMD for a source
category. An annual compliance checklist will include(s) verification
of data like company name, owner and address, plus a few questions
specific to the equipment category, such as fuel usage, operating
times, etc.
A new compliance program will be developed to provide efficient
deployment of resources. Compliance will consist of mailing, along with
the annual renewal, a compliance questionnaire requesting specific
information on the operation of the source's equipment based upon the
equipment category. This audit function will further determine the
level of compliance effort which may need to be conducted. System
automation of the filing submittals and annual renewals will be
required (to minimize the amount of staff necessary to drive this
program), as well as development of new forms and enforceable
procedures for the source categories. Area source programs, such as
this one, have national utility because it can reduce the
administrative burden of permitting and decrease costs to industry
while maintaining a robust compliance program. Other agencies will have
similar needs to balance resources and permitting requirements while
securing emission reductions from area sources. (Projected cost--
$1,000,000)
Good Science
PM-2.5 Monitoring enhancement: besides the standard set of
reference methods, collect additional data to break down concentration
to 2-hour or hourly basis (currently collected on 24-hour basis). The
current collection does not now provide data on diurnal patterns. The
additional data would provide more accurate information as to how
pollutants are dispersed through the basin; the data would also help
evaluate the PM-2.5 modeling. (Projected cost=$75,000)
Meteorological monitoring: supplement meteorological data by adding
profilers (three at $200,000 each). The additional equipment would
provide the ability to model any day of the year (instead of doing
SCOS). (Projected cost--$645,000)
Evaluate the consolidation of the toxics emission inventory and the
criteria emissions inventory for the purpose of compiling a single
inventory system. (Projected cost--$150,000)
Evaluate and quantify emissions associated with non-permitted
combustion source categories (e.g., small internal combustion engines,
small boilers, ovens, dryers). Conduct source tests, if necessary, to
develop updated emission factors. (Projected cost--$150,000)
Continue research development of the PM-2.5 model (EPA's model has
not yet been proven; there is a need to look at other models to
determine most efficient and effective model). (Projected cost--
$150,000)
Develop an inventory for non-permitted fugitive emissions from
refineries, oil and gas production facilities, and terminals.
(Projected cost--$100,000)
Modernize laboratory instruments to provide more accurate data for
detection and investigation of pollution problems. (Projected cost--
$250,000)
Develop a new annual emission reporting software application to
provide additional flexibility for incorporation of new requirements
(i.e., rules, policies, and calculation methodologies) which allows the
AQMD to compile and audit the annual emission reported data to provide
more accurate emissions data for the inventory. (Projected cost--
$100,000)
Convert the AQMD's reported annual aggregated emissions into CARB's
source code classification. (Projected cost--$100,000)
Environmental Results
Determine what additional reductions can occur to meet the PM-2.5
standards through further research studies. (Projected cost--$125,000)
Research and evaluate potential emission reductions for the new 8-
hour ozone standards. (Projected cost--$100,000)
Research and evaluate additional permit requirements needed as a
result of the new federal standards. (Projected cost--$100,000)
Partnerships
Develop cooperatives with colleges and universities within the
AQMD's jurisdiction to work with graduate students on Masters and
Doctorate projects that research, analyze, and document potential
solutions emission reduction scenarios. (Projected cost--$50,000)
Pollution Prevention
Research and report on latest technological breakthroughs to reduce
emissions of stationary source pollutants, especially VOC and toxic
pollutants. Develop and implement demonstration projects to determine
feasibility, enforceability, and financial impacts. (Projected cost--
$750,000)
Disseminate information through concentrated outreach efforts on
the latest technological breakthroughs and new technological methods.
Demonstrate equipment that emits less pollutants in industry settings.
(Projected cost--$250,000)
Develop an emissions tracking program (computerized database) that
would assist companies in tracking and calculating sales and emissions.
Architectural Coating manufacturers produce and market their products
under various brand names and distribute the products through a variety
of different modes (i.e., direct sales, job shops, wholesale
distributors, etc.). It will be important to develop an effective means
of tracking product sales information. This database can be utilized
for the averaging provisions found in AQMD's Rule 1113--Architectural
Coatings, as well as for CARB's Consumer Products Rule and its
averaging provisions. This database may also be used for compliance
with the proposed National AIM Coatings Rule.
This database will assist local, state, and national companies that
use averaging provisions to comply with the rules, as well as provide a
mechanism whereby industry can determine if use of averaging is the
most cost-effective method of compliance. A consideration within the
database may be to develop an excess emission fee calculation for
companies that want to continue selling non-compliant coatings. The
excess emission fees collected would fund additional research and
development efforts to lower VOC content of coatings and/or consumer
products. This concept also included the proposed National AIM Coatings
Rule. (Projected cost--$110,000)
Develop a mechanism to clearly identify the major area source
inventory of coatings and solvents usage. A large portion of the
solvents and coatings are categorized in the Category of Emission
Sources as ``Other.'' The AQMD proposes to more accurately define the
sources of emissions in this category, as needed, to identify more VOC
reductions and develop control measures on sources where the AQMD has
better information. (Projected cost--$100,000)
Evaluate state of the art technology for low-VOC coatings.
(Projected cost--$150,000)
Update VOC/PM speciation profiles to reflect VOC product
reformulation, toxics regulations, and the introduction of new species.
(Projected cost--$150,000)
Research and evaluate a seasonal usage approach for coatings.
Determine the financial feasibility and the enforceability of allowing
higher emission coatings to be used during non-peak smog seasons. Based
on the latest modeling data, and taking into consideration the
narrowing ozone season over the past five years, a seasonal coating
usage-based rule can be developed to regulate architectural coatings
during the peak smog season. Also included would be development of a
protocol for determining SIP equivalency for this alternative control
strategy. (Projected cost=$100,000)
Environmental Justice
Research, evaluate, and provide field testing equipment which will
result in better detection for inspectors to investigate pollution
problems in response to public complaints. (Projected cost--$80,000)
Provide outreach to inform public and industry of EPA's newly
recommended PSI scale. (Projected cost--$70,000)
______
Letter From Ken Kirk
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Washington, DC, April 30, 1998.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
Chair, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bond: This week your subcommittee is scheduled to
begin consideration of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1999
funding request. I am writing, for the record, on behalf of the members
of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) to urge
strong federal financial support for our national clean water program.
Our national clean water program is at a crossroad. For 25 years,
the Clean Water Act focused almost exclusively on controlling
discharges from point sources of pollution and we've made enormous
progress towards achieving our clean water goals. But we can no longer
rely on the tools of yesterday to solve the water quality problems of
today and tomorrow. In AMSA's view, we are not going to achieve our
water quality goals unless point and nonpoint sources work together, on
a watershed basis, to address the remaining sources of impairment.
Congressional support of these efforts is essential. There are
significant opportunities to make great progress today towards
improving water quality.
Specifically, AMSA urges Congress to fully fund the
Administration's Clean Water Initiative to improve controls on nonpoint
sources of pollution; reinforce the federal commitment to biosolids
recycling by providing $1 million to develop a Code of Management
Practices to encourage greater public acceptance of biosolids; and fund
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) at $2 billion annually to
support both point and nonpoint source pollution control efforts.
in support of the clean water action plan
As municipalities struggle to comply with the mandates of the Clean
Water Act, their efforts are frustrated by the existence of relatively
unregulated nonpoint sources of pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is
the single largest remaining source of water pollution today. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, nonpoint sources of pollution
are responsible for 60 percent of the country's remaining water quality
problems. Rural runoff has been identified as the cause for public
health scares, including the recent fish kills caused by ``Pfiesteria
piscicida'' in the waterways of Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas.
As a nation, we can not make significant further progress in cleaning
up and maintaining water quality without addressing the significant
problems associated with nonpoint sources of water pollution.
During his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton
announced the Clean Water Initiative, a planning and funding proposal
to redirect the water program. At the heart of the initiative is the
Clean Water Action Plan, which was released last February. The plan
``aims to achieve clean water by strengthening public health
protection, targeting community based watershed protection efforts at
high priority areas, and providing communities with new resources to
control polluted runoff.'' The action plan includes new initiatives to
reduce public health threats, improve the stewardship of natural
resources, strengthen polluted runoff controls, and make water quality
information more accessible to the public. Additionally, the plan
coordinates the activities of several federal agencies on water quality
issues. The Administration has requested $568 million to support this
effort. Specifically, $148 million has been requested in the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1999 budget for the Clean Water
and Watershed Restoration Initiative. Funding the Clean Water
Initiative overall represents a significant opportunity to make real
and substantial improvement to the water quality of rivers, lakes and
streams nationwide. We urge you to fully fund the Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Initiative. Additionally, we urge you to support
the overall funding request for the Clean Water Initiative and commit
to moving the national clean water program forward.
in support of biosolids recycling
An integral component of the national clean water program is the
safe and reliable reuse of biosolids. Biosolids are the rich, organic
by-product of wastewater treatment, which can be beneficially used as
fertilizer on agricultural land, as landfill cover and in a variety of
other applications. Five years ago, EPA released its final 40 CFR Part
503 regulations encouraging the beneficial use of biosolids.
Misinformation and unfounded fears have undermined progress towards
public acceptance of beneficial use activities. An immediate, sustained
and strategic effort is essential to ensure that the benefits of this
valuable recycled resource are widely recognized and our goal of
beneficial use is realized.
In the fall of 1997, AMSA partnered with the Water Environment
Federation (WEF), in collaboration with EPA, to form the National
Biosolids Partnership to identify and coordinate activities at the
local level to promote public acceptance of biosolids beneficial use
programs. Beneficial use can be a tough sell in many areas of the
country and misinformation often leads to the derailment of local
recycling efforts. The ultimate decision for biosolids management rests
at the local level with local wastewater management agencies in the
best position to identify opportunities for enhancing public
perception, encouraging reuse, and supporting the federal government's
beneficial use goal. Essential to this process is the development and
implementation of a Code of Management Practices to provide local
agencies with the information needed to raise biosolids quality above
the current conservative regulated levels. This Code will be developed
with input from affected stakeholders, as well as include third party
verification to strengthen its validity in the public arena. EPA has
made $250,000 available to the Partnership in 1998 to develop the Code.
Additional funds are necessary to complete the document along with a
third party verification mechanism. To ensure essential support for
sustainable biosolids activities, and to promote recycling
opportunities of this valuable resource, we urge you to appropriate $1
million for this critical National Biosolids Partnership effort.
in support of the clean water state revolving fund
As our water quality focus shifts to a more comprehensive approach,
addressing the control of more complex, costly and diverse sources of
pollution, continued federal funding of projects mandated by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) is critical to the ultimate achievement of national
water quality goals. Last fall, we celebrated the 25th Anniversary of
the enactment of the CWA. The CWA is undoubtedly our nation's most
successful environmental statute. Through a strong federal financial
commitment of grants in the 1970's and early 1980's, and then later the
establishment of the Clean Water SRF to provide low interest loans,
plus an enormous local investment, municipalities have built and
improved upon over 16,000 wastewater treatment plants.
These facilities provide safe and reliable wastewater treatment
services to over 70 percent of the nation's population and over 99
percent of the urban population. Additionally, many publicly owned
treatment works (POTW's) administer the national industrial wastewater
pretreatment program as co-regulators with the Environmental Protection
Agency. This program requires more than 200,000 factories nationwide to
remove toxic and other harmful pollutants from the effluent prior to
discharging to public sewers. Contributions of POTW's to municipalities
go far beyond treatment of wastewater. Local economies rely on cleaner
rivers, lakes and streams to promote tourism and business development,
and preserve wildlife habitat.
There is no doubt that investment in the national clean water
program pays. However, we still have a long way to go before we fully
realize the fishable/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act.
In its 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimated a total of $139.5 billion in
wastewater treatment needs. That total includes: $44 billion for
wastewater treatment (includes secondary and advanced treatment); $10.3
billion for upgrading existing wastewater collection systems; $21.6
billion for new sewer construction; and $44.7 billion for controlling
combined sewer overflows (CSO's). The survey modeled needs for
controlling stormwater at $7.4 billion and for nonpoint source control
projects at $9.4 billion.
As high as they are, we believe that EPA's numbers are
conservative. Other surveys have estimated much higher costs associated
with addressing stormwater, combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer
overflows. To more accurately quantify the nation's wastewater price
tag, AMSA and the Water Environment Federation have commissioned a
study designed to identify outstanding needs associated with both point
and nonpoint source pollution control. We look forward to sharing the
results of the survey with you in the next few months when it is
completed.
Perhaps more importantly, AMSA's recent financial survey's clearly
indicated a significant increase in per capita wastewater debt at the
local level with an associated increase in user rates over the last
several years. Local users currently fund more than 90 percent of
capital improvement projects and 100 percent of operations and
maintenance costs. For many communities, these costs are staggering.
For the 1999 budget cycle and beyond, AMSA urges Congress to fund
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund at least $2 billion annually to
support both point and nonpoint pollution control efforts. In addition,
considering the enormity of the price tag, we believe that the results
of the AMSA/WEF project will warrant consideration of reestablishing a
federal grants program to support further progress in water quality
improvement at the local level.
Our national clean water program is at a crossroad. To address the
remaining threats to water quality--nonpoint source pollution, combined
sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows and stormwater management--we
need to think long term, invest wisely, and protect and expand on the
improvements we've already realized. There are opportunities to realize
significant improvements in the short term, and we look forward to
working with you and your colleagues in Congress, the Administration,
and state and local government to ensure safe, clean water for all
Americans.
Thank you for your support of the clean water program.
Sincerely,
Ken Kirk,
Executive Director.
Note: AMSA represents the interests of more than 180 of the
country's publicly-owned wastewater treatment agencies, which
collectively serve the majority of the sewered population in the United
States, and treat and reclaim more than 18 billion gallons of
wastewater each day. Over the past 28 years, AMSA has maintained a
close working relationship with both Congress and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in the development of environmental
legislation and policymaking. AMSA member agencies play a major role in
their local communities, often leading watershed management efforts,
promoting industrial/household pollution prevention and water
conservation, and developing urban stormwater management programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Lino DeAlmeida, Jr., President, National Utility
Contractors Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Lino
DeAlmeida, Jr. I am President and Chairman of Consolidated Construction
Management Services, Inc., headquartered in Colts Neck, New Jersey. I
am pleased to submit testimony on behalf of the National Utility
Contractors Association (NUCA) and voice our industry's strong support
for the U.S. EPA's two state revolving fund programs. NUCA is a family
of 1,900 companies that build and repair water, sewer, gas, electric,
and communications systems. Our members also supply the materials and
services that are necessary for construction of these facilities.
Infrastructure must be in my blood. My father was a heavy
construction contractor, and I started with his company at 8 or 9 years
old, working summers as a water boy. I gained experience in just about
every position--laborer, mason's helper, equipment operator, estimator,
job superintendent, project manager, and others. After launching a
valuable and enjoyable sabbatical as a litigator, the construction
industry (and my father) called me back 20 years ago to oversee the
construction of a massive sanitary sewer project. I've been hooked ever
since.
I enjoy the competitive challenge of bidding a project. I enjoy the
challenge of developing and completing a project, and I particularly
enjoy working with and serving people--the people in my company, the
people who employ my services, and the public that benefits from the
projects we complete.
Environmental infrastructure projects are essential public assets
that generate enormous benefits. They strengthen communities and
improve people's lives immediately. They are a lifeline that transcends
local and state boundaries. We can and must build, improve, and
maintain them. Let me assure you that the costs of poor environmental
infrastructure are very high. I've seen raw sewage pour out of broken
or inadequate pipelines and into natural waterways. I've seen failed
leaching systems. I've seen broken water mains gush. I've seen sewer
moratoriums shut down economic development. I've also seen communities
with no facilities at all. It's never a pretty picture.
My testimony consists of several observations. First, the EPA's
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program (Clean Water SRF) is an
infrastructure financing success story. Second, environmental
infrastructure needs are massive. Third, additional federal
capitalization of the Clean Water SRF and the fledgling Drinking Water
SRF in fiscal 1999 and beyond will grow these funds so that
environmental infrastructure needs can be fully addressed in
perpetuity.
a report card on the state revolving fund
A 10-year progress report on the Clean Water SRF was published in
January by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities and the
Environmental Financial Advisory Board. The report demonstrates that
the Clean Water SRF is an outstanding taxpayer investment. Here are
some of the highlights.
--The 51 SRF's constitute a loan pool of more than $24 billion. As of
June 30, 1997, 82 percent of the available funds had been
loaned (including 5,680 separate loans). This ratio of SRF
assistance as a percent of available SRF funds has steadily
improved since the program's inception in 1987. Growth in
lending has also been steadily rising, soaring to nearly 1,000
loans in both 1996 and 1997. The program is working effectively
to build wastewater treatment systems, which, in turn,
strengthen the tax base, protect public health, clean the
environment, and provide a better overall quality of life.
--Total federal capital grants of $13.2 billion have been nearly
doubled by other SRF funding sources including state
contributions ($2.7 billion), leveraged bonds ($8.8 billion),
and principal and interest payments ($4.3 billion). Loan
repayments and interest in 1997 alone were nearly $1.2 billion.
The program operates like a community bank and represents a
true national partnership with states and localities. The
program pays.
--Communities of every size participate in the program. While most of
the cumulative assistance has gone to larger communities, most
of the loans have gone to smaller communities.
We are confident that the new Drinking Water SRF will replicate
this success.
a report card on the condition of our environmental infrastructure
The SRF programs are effective, but they are not big enough to
handle present and future financing needs. Water supply and wastewater
facility needs are well documented and alarming in scope. Much of the
need is created by population growth, economic growth and development,
and the decay of facilities that have exceeded their life expectancies.
Last September, the EPA released its latest clean water needs
survey, a joint effort between the states and the EPA. The report
concludes that total 20-year Clean Water SRF-eligible needs exceed $139
billion. In a similar survey last year, the EPA reported 20-year
drinking water infrastructure needs of $138 billion. In both cases, it
is primarily pipelines that need to be built, repaired, or replaced.
Also in both cases, the numbers are daunting. Furthermore, a 1998 U.S.
Infrastructure Report Card was recently issued by the American Society
of Civil Engineers. Drinking water and wastewater facilities received D
and D+ grades respectively.
We need to fix the cruddy pipes. There is no alternative. The
average American uses 100 gallons of water daily just at home. The
water has to be delivered. More than 100 virus types can occur in human
feces. Proper collection and treatment is necessary to destroy the
infectious particles. It takes 20 gallons of water to produce a pound
of steel, and a typical office requires 14 gallons per employee per
day. Again, all this water must be treated and transported before and
after consumption.
conclusion
The SRF programs are effective environmental infrastructure
financing tools that are becoming more attractive to potential
borrowers every year. In light of the magnitude of the water and sewer
infrastructure gap, we trust that the subcommittee will continue to
provide seed money for years to come.
NUCA is working with an infrastructure research and consulting firm
to develop state-of-the-art economic models that can be used to
evaluate the effects of various investment scenarios. We will provide
this information to the subcommittee as it becomes available in the
coming weeks. Until then, we are hesitant to recommend specific funding
levels for the two SRF's for fiscal year 1999. We also wish to extend
an invitation to the subcommittee to use these models when they are
completed.
Thank you.
______
Letter From Howard A. Roitman
Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials,
Washington, DC, April 24, 1998.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: It is the practice of the Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to provide
comment from the perspective of the State program managers of solid and
hazardous waste concerning the annual environmental budget proposed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Your Appropriations
Subcommittee will soon be conducting hearings and making funding
decisions regarding the EPA's fiscal year 1999 environmental budget
proposal, and we know that you will move swiftly to finalize your
recommendations for the full Appropriations Committee.
ASTSWMO is a nonprofit association whose members are the directors
of the State solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs. We believe
that our members, as practicing waste managers implementing State and
certain delegated federal program activities, have gained practical
insights into the operation of the statutes and regulations which make
up national policy for solid waste management and remediation programs.
Consequently, they are well positioned to advise the Subcommittee
regarding budgetary implications for those programs. We believe that as
State program implementers, we have a special responsibility to address
the budget for the national waste programs, and to share that
evaluation with your Subcommittee. We trust the Subcommittee will
recognize that our views are entirely bipartisan, representing the
professional opinions of State government managers who, like you, must
balance resources with genuine environmental needs. We have no special
interests other than to ensure that we can carry out effective,
environmentally sound programs in the manner prescribed by federal and
State statutes and regulations. We respectfully request that this
letter be made a part of the record of your Subcommittee's
consideration of EPA's fiscal year 1999 proposed program.
Your Subcommittee has a strong track record in support of sound
State waste management programs and I would like to express our
continued appreciation for that support. In this letter, we would like
to address several of the waste-related issues in the fiscal year 1999
EPA budget:
Hazardous waste program grants to states.--The current Presidential
fiscal year 1999 EPA Budget proposal indicates no growth for the
Hazardous Waste categorical grants. Unfortunately, this continues and
worsens the steady erosion of these essential funds to support the
execution of federally mandated rules for both the hazardous waste and
underground storage tank (UST) regulatory and enforcement programs. As
the Subcommittee knows, EPA does not implement these protective and
preventative rules; States do. Yet, while EPA has increased its own
budget proposals by substantial amounts in recent years, it has held
State hazardous waste funds at minimum increases, and this year no
increase at all. We appreciate that Congress has provided these grant
funds at the proposed level without challenge during this same period,
but we think it is time to identify this shortcoming in the
Administration's budget for what it is, a growing, serious problem for
State waste programs.
While the EPA budget continues to propose some interesting
initiatives, someone has to stay at home and implement the current
statutes. That ``someone'' has been State waste programs and we are
beginning to be stretched very thin by this allocation of funds to
federal initiatives over regulatory compliance. For example, the fiscal
year 1997 enacted funding for the hazardous waste financial assistance
program was $98,298,200 (the requested amount) and the fiscal year 1998
enacted funding was $98,598,200 (again, the requested amount). In
fiscal year 1999 there is not even a minor increase, so States are
actually losing ground as their program responsibilities continue to
grow, and the rate of inflation in their costs is not balanced.
The regressive impact will be even more apparent in the UST program
where EPA has announced a major enforcement effort to press for
compliance with the regulatory upgrades required of all UST owners
before December 22, 1998. Our own estimates, based on the fiscal year
1997 reports of 27 participating State programs, indicate we are at an
overall rate of compliance of 41 percent with that goal. Moreover, our
members believe that the bulk of those tanks not yet in compliance
belong to small operators, historically among the most demanding
customers to bring aboard through intense compliance assistance
programs. Yet, under the EPA proposed budget, this categorical grant
remains at $10,544,700, exactly where it has been frozen since fiscal
year 1997. When you divide that equally among 50 States, you will see
why we cannot gain much ground at this funding rate.
Leaking underground storage tanks cleanups.--Keeping with the theme
of supporting underground tank programs, we are also disappointed to
see the Administration set such a low threshold for fiscal year 1999's
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Fund expenditures. Last year's
appropriation of these already collected trust funds was $65,000,000,
and the task ahead is enormous. For some reason, the Administration has
set its goal at only $71,000,000 ($69,100,000 for actual cleanup work)
for fiscal year 1999. We know the so-called ``pipeline'' of sites
awaiting these cleanups is full, States make up the vast balance of
this funding along with responsible parties, and of those thousands of
UST's still out of compliance, many will simply walk away, leaving
leaking tanks behind. We cannot explain why EPA has set this threshold
so low, yet leaking tanks reportedly remain the major source of ground
water contamination. If States are given more resources in this common
area of site contamination, we can make great strides. For example, in
fiscal year 1993 States received $83,610,000 in LUST funding, and
managed to achieve 31,621 tank cleanups as a result. Consequently, we
suggest the Subcommittee explore this budget element for a substantial
increase if we are seeking significant results.
Superfund.--Finally, we would like to address the federal Superfund
program request for fiscal year 1999 funds. This is fundamentally a
federal program in its current statutory configuration. State program
managers have a critical interest in the way EPA conducts that program.
Congress recognized this by providing a statutory provision requiring
the meaningful participation of States in site decisions, and has
provided some funding to make that State involvement possible. Also,
States must shoulder 10 percent of fund financed site costs as their
share of the cleanup. In addition to the NPL sites, programs such as
Brownfields depend upon State site management under voluntary cleanup
programs or State Superfund cleanup laws. The net result is that States
care very much about progress in Superfund cleanups, and continue to do
their share to move that program along.
In fiscal year 1999 EPA plans to continue these programmed cleanups
and perhaps accelerate them. Our members must be supportive of
continued progress in this federal cleanup program as long as it
involves a partnership in selecting and prioritizing new cleanups. We
have discussed this with EPA and have their assurances that the Regions
will work with States as new work is selected and scheduled so that
State priorities are considered, and the work requiring State resources
to achieve the meaningful involvement required considers the State's
ability to work alongside their federal counterparts. It is especially
important that any NPL starts which will begin under fund lead, and
which require State matching funds, must have prior State concurrence
to ensure that the money can be obtained from State legislatures in
time to proceed. Consequently, we tend to look at this issue as one
that will be resolved on a local basis, as Regions and State programs
work through the difficult decisions of site-by-site costs and
benefits. We understand that Congress must address this proposed
increase on a national level, but until these site decisions can be
worked out at the Region-State level, we are unable to put forward a
collective view about the overall funding levels. We do believe that
funding is important for those sites where EPA and States have agreed.
On a national basis, we are much more troubled to see that the
remaining balance of the Superfund trust fund is being spent down with
little indication that CERCLA will be reformed and reauthorized in time
to ensure funding at least at current levels by fiscal year 2000. We
say this with no intent to be critical of any party engaged in the
extremely difficult reauthorization efforts. We too have been very
active in this debate, and so we are more aware than many of the very
deep divisions of views and convictions that make agreement so
difficult. We commend those members of Congress who have kept these
negotiations moving long after many would have given up, and count
ourselves among those still committed to reaching resolution in the
105th Congress.
However, our members recall the 1984-85 period of uncertainty when
responsible parties began to have doubts about the future and federal
offices were concerned with future contracting in periods where funds
were not yet authorized or appropriated. This uncertainty had the
effect of delaying a significant number of cleanups. As a matter of
contingency, we urge Congress to begin to consider how we can avoid
such a hiatus in the event CERCLA cannot be reauthorized in the current
situation, and provide some degree of certainty to the program beyond
fiscal year 1999. We have no specific recommendations, but we hope that
if it is not possible to reauthorize the statute and reestablish some
flow of income for the trust fund, the Appropriations Committees will
find some way to assure the nation that the Congress can and will keep
the cleanup constructions going into fiscal year 2000. We should not go
into development of a fiscal year 2000 federal budget without some
degree of certainty. The Subcommittee's goal to support these cleanups
has always been clear, but we hope that you can establish that sense of
continuity to those directly involved in planning future CERCLA
cleanups.
In closing we thank you for your consideration of our views and for
your past support of State waste program efforts. Your Subcommittee has
been key to adequate funding of that program in past budget years and
we have great confidence that you will be central to a successful
outcome for the fiscal year 1999 process as well. We are ready at any
time to assist your staff in exploring our proposals in greater detail,
and would welcome their inquiries. Should you consider it useful to the
Subcommittee, we would volunteer to testify on any aspect of our
program knowledge as you proceed with the difficult task of evaluating
national needs and making the hard choices that lie ahead. Please
contact ASTSWMO's Executive Director, Thomas Kennedy, at telephone
number (202) 624-5828 or fax number (202) 624-7875 for any further
information or assistance.
We hope that our information will constructively assist you in that
task. Thank you for your past support of waste program efforts, and for
your consideration of these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Howard A. Roitman,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the University of Miami.
There are three very important projects which the University is working
on and looking for your support: the first project, a joint
collaboration between the University of Miami, Florida State
University, the University of Florida and the University of South
Florida concerning El Nino; the second, the formation of a National
Center for Coral Reef Studies, which builds on the University's long
history of leadership in U.S. coral reef research; and our third
project, funding a demonstration project to handle medical waste
treatment facility.
el nino consortium
On behalf of the University of Miami and Florida State University
jointly I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your affirmative response to
the Florida Delation's earlier requests concerning The Florida
Consortium for Climatic Research, a project involving the University of
Miami, Florida State University, the University of Florida, and the
University of South Florida.
The importance of El Nino South Oscillation (ENSO) events as a
major source of climate fluctuations, together with advances in ENSO
predictability, suggest that forecasts have significant potential for
benefitting agricultural productivity and economic decision-making. For
fiscal year 1999, we seek $3 million for the Florida Regional
Application Center.
The geographic focus of the project will include the southeastern
U.S., a large food producer whose productivity is significantly
impacted by weather conditions generated by the ENSO phenomenon.
Decisions made by well-informed participants from farm to policy level,
made several months or seasons in advance, can significantly benefit
productivity.
This project presents an end-to-end approach that will provide the
bridge between climate and forecast producers, such as the recently-
formed International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRICP),
and agricultural decision makers. Specific objectives for the project
are to: (1) adapt, develop, and evaluate a generic, flexible set of
tools and methodologies for assessing regional agricultural
consequences of El Nino events and for applying forecasts to improve
agricultural decision-making; (2) demonstrate by successful
applications of forecasts to agriculture and other sectors which would
benefit best in the southeastern United States that began in 1996; and
(3) assess the value of climate predictions to different agricultural
sectors in these southeastern region.
national center for coral reef studies
Local changes in water quality, broader scale environmental changes
potentially related to global climate change such as global warming,
and fisheries over-exploitation of coral reef ecosystems, are known to
be contributing to deterioration of coral reefs world-wide. Scientists
are hampered in helping government make critical and socially difficult
management decisions by our rudimentary understanding of coral reef
ecosystem processes. Coral reef environmental research has historically
been piece-meal and underfunded, with few attempts at true
interdisciplinary process-oriented research.
We respectfully request that $2 million in funding by EPA be made
available to establish a National Center for Atlantic and Caribbean
Coral Reef Studies. These funds will be used by the Center to foster
greater organization and collaboration within the U.S. scientific
community, to develop a new level of understanding about the processes
and environmental conditions necessary for the establishment, survival
and sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems, and to assist in the
transfer of this information to managers and the general public. The
Center will establish visiting professorships and small
interdisciplinary working groups, comprised of preeminent U.S. and
international scientists. The tasks of these groups will be to
synthesize and integrate existing information, and to develop new
approaches to studying specific and significant gaps in our
understanding of coral reef function. The Center will also assemble
small groups of scientists to conduct pilot projects to demonstrate the
feasibility of the proposed new approaches. The Center will involve
young scientists from throughout the region, as post-doctoral fellows,
and thus contribute to the training of the next generation of coral
reef scientists. This thoughtful approach to coral reef science would
be unique in the United States.
electron beam technology for treating medical waste
Recent EPA regulations limiting emissions from medical waste
incinerators have forced all hospitals to reconsider their medical
waste treatment approaches. Considering the fact that most hospitals
utilized incineration processes in the past, it is clear that these new
regulations have forced huge numbers of medical facilities to explore
alternative technologies to incinerate. The first technology to be
explored in replacement of incineration is autoclaving. However, this
has always been a particularly troublesome technology for hospitals,
due to odors, maintenance of the equipment and the requirement to
subsequently dispose of a very unmanageable residue.
While several new technologies have evolved over the past few
years, in an attempt to replace incineration, none have been
demonstrated to efficiently deal with the problem of infectious medical
waste. Technologies that totally destroy the waste for example are
extremely expensive, and equipment that is included in these designs,
remains untested and therefore, will require an inordinate amount of
maintenance over the life of the equipment.
One technology that shows promise for handling infectious medical
waste is high energy electron beam treatment of the waste. This
technology renders waste disinfected and therefore capable of being co-
mingled with non-medical solid waste. Once the medical waste has been
disinfected, it can be further processed for instance, by shredding to
reduce volume, if that is an issue in selected communities. Usually,
the volume of medical waste is not a consideration, only its infectious
nature.
Funding from the Department of Energy, Florida Power & Light
Company (a utility in South Florida), the Electric Power Research
Institute and the University of Miami have supported development of
electron beam technology for treatment of hazardous medical waste.
Utilizing close to $2 million in funds, the world's first prototype
facility, capable of treating up to 500 lbs per hour, was constructed
at the Jackson Memorial Hospital/University of Miami Medical School
Complex in Miami, Florida. This new and unique facility includes an 8
million volt linear accelerator, coupled with a conveyor system and
commercial shredding facilities. The facility was inaugurated in 1997,
and since that time has undergone some modifications to the equipment,
as well as testing in order to obtain permits for operations from State
regulatory agencies. In early 1998, a license to operate as a medical
waste treatment facility was issued by the State of Florida, therefore,
making this facility the first licensed medical waste treatment
facility utilizing electron beam technology in the world. This facility
now is poised to demonstrate its treatment efficacy and cost
effectiveness on real medical waste generated within the hospital
complex at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida.
It is respectfully requested that the EPA provide $1.5 million to
support the demonstration of electron beam technology for treating
infectious medical waste in Miami, Florida, utilizing the unique
facilities recently constructed there. In order for the technology to
become commercially acceptable, demonstrations on actual medical waste
generated in hospitals must be undertaken. The facility is located on
the Jackson Memorial Hospital/UM Medical School Complex in Miami, and
therefore, there is ready access to all types of medical waste
generated in this complex. The complex comprises approximately five
hospitals with a total bed capacity of close to 2,700. Therefore, all
types of medical wastes are generated in this facility and can be
tested through the electron beam process. EPA support of this
technology would help in the agency's efforts to identify new
technologies to offset the phasing out of medical waste incinerator
capacity due to the recent USEPA regulations.
Studies supported by the above request would focus on the ability
of waste from designated sections of the hospital to be treated by the
electron beam system. Experiments would monitor the treatment
efficiency, as well as power requirements, to achieve selected degrees
of treatment. Dosimetry experiments would also need to be run in order
to verify total waste treatment, when exposed to the electron beam
field. Other studies will include an evaluation of volume reduction
capacities, due to shredding, utilizing commercial equipment already
available at the facility. In addition to the above fundamental work,
selected sections of the hospital will be re-instrumented with
collection facilities to make the actual handling of medical waste more
safe, and simple for hospital staff. The E-beam system will be coupled
with a shredding system, therefore, the product leaving the treatment
plant will be a disinfected material with a volume reduction of
approximately 80 per cent. Landfills in the South Florida area
receiving these residuals will be monitored both for acceptance by the
municipalities as well as the behavior of the shredded medical waste.
This full scale demonstration will allow for a determination of the
overall treatment efficiency of the electron beam process. In addition,
true costs can be generated, because of the scale of the facilities,
which will then be utilizable by agencies and municipalities interested
in this technology. Once this demonstration has been concluded, this
technology then can be readily commercialized as the full scale data
will be available to the public.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for
your time and allowing me to provide information on these three very
significant projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to have this opportunity to
comment on the administration's fiscal 1999 budget request for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Dam Safety
Program.
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization. It represents more than 120,000 civil
engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering.
ASCE has a long standing interest in FEMA's mitigation program.
This program provides for the development, coordination and
implementation of policies, plans and programs to eliminate or reduce
the long-term risk to life and property from natural hazards such as
floods, earthquakes and dam failures.
fiscal year 1999
First, we would like to begin by thanking the members of this
subcommittee for their support last year in providing the full funding
of $2.9 million for the National Dam Safety Program--the first national
program of this type aimed toward preventing dam failures. ASCE
commends Chairman Bond, in particular, for his continued support and
leadership on this important issue.
ASCE believes the $2.9 million is a solid starting point for states
to begin improving their dam safety programs. However, dam safety is
not a one-year program and much more work needs to be done to ensure
that the nation's 93,000 dams continue to work effectively and safely.
The inspection and maintenance of our nation's dams is an on-going
problem, and requires continued attention to avert potentially
catastrophic consequences.
Notwithstanding the immense benefits to be gained, the
administration's fiscal 1999 budget request of $1.5 million falls
woefully short of the $3.9 million authorized in the Act; and more
importantly, it is inadequate to implement the National Dam Safety
program in even a minimally acceptable manner. This request is an
alarming step backwards for public safety at a time when states--which
are struggling with minimal budgets and staff--are just beginning to
make their first real progress toward the establishment of truly
meaningful safety programs.
Annual budgets in some states average less than $10 per dam; and in
some cases, one employee has the responsibility to inspect and evaluate
more than 2,500 dams. A handful of states do not even have adequate
programs in place to regulate the safety of their dams. The National
Inventory of Dams revealed that a majority of high or significant
hazard dams do not have Emergency Action Plans in place which would
mean the difference between timely downstream evacuation and disaster.
For these reasons, ASCE respectfully requests this subcommittee's
support for additional funding of $2.4 million in fiscal year 1999 for
FEMA to implement the program in accordance with the intent of the Act.
This modest, yet vital, funding will enable the states to improve their
fledgling dam safety programs, which in turn, will translate into
reduced risks to life and property. Dam failures are extremely
expensive from all points of view, and we should give special attention
to the old adage that ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.''
The following activities will be funded through this appropriation:
--$2 million for incentive grants to states to upgrade their dam
safety programs;
--$500,000 for training State Dam Safety Staff;
--$1 million for research to improve the techniques and equipment for
rapid and effective dam inspections; and
--$400,000 for salaries and expenses for FEMA to administer the
program.
dam repair costs
Dam failures affect thousands of lives and cost millions of
dollars. The 1976 failure of the Teton Dam resulted in damages of $900
million and 11 fatalities. The failure in July 1982 of Lawn Lake Dam, a
small earth embankment, produced $35 million in damages and three
fatalities. In 1996, the failure of a small dam in New Hampshire
resulted in one death and $5.5 million in damages.
dam conditions
Reports show that an alarming number of dams across the country are
showing signs of age and lack proper maintenance. The American Society
of Civil Engineers, in its recently released 1998 report card on the
nation's infrastructure, estimates that it will take over $1 billion to
rehabilitate the 1,800 dams that have been identified as unsafe in the
United States.
Downstream development is increasing. Most older dams were built
without adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which
causes water to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are
the most common deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam
safety officials estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing
or are disasters waiting to happen. One-fourth of all U.S. dams are
more than 50 years old, and by the year 2020 that figure is expected to
increase to 85 percent.
Approximately 9,280 regulated dams nationwide are considered to be
high-hazard (category I), meaning that their failure will likely cause
loss of life and significant property damage. Even more significant are
the roughly 1,800 regulated dams that are considered to be unsafe. Many
of these are also in high-hazard locations. This means they have
deficiencies which leave them more susceptible to failure. Thirty-five
percent of the high-hazard dams have last inspection dates prior to
1990. Thousands of other dams are in need of rehabilitation to keep
them from becoming unsafe. These repair projects are on hold because of
a lack of funding.
Equally alarming is the fact that many dams built more than 50 to
100 years ago have been abandoned and the owners are unknown. These
dams are not inventoried, inspected or regulated, and no one is
volunteering to pay for their repair.
Many civil engineers involved in the operation, maintenance and
inspection of the nation's dams know all too well the risks associated
with unsafe dams in high-hazard locations. In North Carolina alone
there are 874 dams in ``high-hazard'' locations with 40 classified as
unsafe.
A complete chart of states' dam inventory data is included at the
end of this written testimony.
conclusion
In closing, ASCE strongly urges this subcommittee to recognize the
benefits of this modest investment in public safety by providing
additional funding of $2.4 million to enable FEMA to implement the
National Dam Safety Program.
ASCE looks forward to working with the subcommittee and its staff
on this critical public safety issue.
1998 STATE DAM INVENTORY DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State national Total State State high- State reg. Government
inventory \1\ regulated \2\ hazard \3\ unsafe \4\ ownership \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................... 1,570 1,704 184 150 25
Alaska..................................... 99 87 18 .......... 55
Arizona.................................... 315 214 73 23 173
Arkansas................................... 927 427 98 25 363
California................................. 523 1,232 394 .......... 536
Colorado................................... 1,648 1,808 292 189 428
Connecticut................................ 707 3,230 236 NR 251
Delaware................................... 73 98 9 NR 75
Florida.................................... 572 NR NR NR 15
Georgia.................................... 4,853 3,311 366 57 634
Hawaii..................................... 129 129 56 .......... 29
Idaho...................................... 343 431 100 13 80
Illinois................................... 1,226 1,226 156 NR 387
Indiana.................................... 1,001 1,506 245 NR 316
Iowa....................................... 2,465 2,514 66 2 1,437
Kansas..................................... 6,077 9,899 200 51 1,363
Kentucky................................... 955 924 147 .......... NR
Louisiana.................................. 381 311 12 .......... 90
Maine...................................... 617 694 23 59 57
Maryland................................... 273 361 56 6 162
Massachusetts.............................. 1,528 2,921 333 21 685
Michigan................................... 909 1,191 83 NR 378
Minnesota.................................. 932 852 40 NR 532
Mississippi................................ 3,191 3,328 238 10 121
Missouri................................... 4,032 614 195 20 206
Montana.................................... 3,517 3,219 153 13 795
Nebraska................................... 2,029 2,029 92 .......... 1,027
Nevada..................................... 323 577 106 8 74
New Hampshire.............................. 613 3,106 87 .......... 364
New Jersey................................. 806 1,580 183 32 350
New Mexico................................. 501 522 160 3 152
New York................................... 1,633 5,645 372 57 676
North Carolina............................. 2,699 4,646 874 40 199
North Dakota............................... 770 1,308 26 5 191
Ohio....................................... 1,766 2,703 502 450 505
Oklahoma................................... 4,510 4,380 145 5 150
Oregon..................................... 833 3,733 122 .......... 186
Pennsylvania............................... 1,315 2,886 735 7 501
Puerto Rico................................ 36 36 33 .......... 31
Rhode Island............................... 185 506 17 .......... 80
South Carolina............................. 2,252 2,242 149 3 283
South Dakota............................... 2,392 2,252 48 4 140
Tennessee.................................. 1,044 593 136 28 382
Texas...................................... 6,838 7,247 818 403 2,734
Utah....................................... 654 1,948 214 41 198
Vermont.................................... 343 1,001 51 NR 141
Virginia................................... 1,581 482 103 50 360
Washington................................. 653 865 94 13 238
West Virginia.............................. 537 354 248 49 233
Wisconsin.................................. 1,291 1,080 192 NR 618
Wyoming.................................... 1,216 1,332 64 3 221
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 74,467 93,952 9,280 1,837 19,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes federal and non-federal dams over 25 ft. in height or 50 acre-feet in volume; or anything above 6
ft. in height with downstream damage potential should it fail.
\2\ Includes all dams under state regulatory control.
\3\ High-Hazard by state definition derived from state inventory in column 2.
\4\ Dams with identified deficiencies by state definition (varies state to state) derived from state inventory
in column 2.
\5\ Derived from national inventory in column 1.
Note: Inventory sizes vary from state-to-state because of number of dams, but also because state laws vary on
which dams are included under their jurisdiction.
NR--Not Reporting. Some states do not keep data on ``high-hazard'' and/or ``unsafe'' categories.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.007
American Society of Civil/Engineers' ``1998 Report Card for America's
Infrasture''
Roads............................................................. D-
Bridges........................................................... C-
Mass Transit...................................................... C
Aviation.......................................................... C-
Schools........................................................... F
Drinking Water.................................................... D
Wastewater........................................................ D+
Dams.............................................................. D
Solid Waste....................................................... C-
Hazardous Waste................................................... D
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Average grade............................................... D
National Council on Public Works Improvement's 1988 ``Report Card on
the Nation's Public Works''
Highways.......................................................... C+
Mass Transit...................................................... C-
Aviation.......................................................... B-
Water Supply...................................................... B-
Wastewater........................................................ C
Water Resources................................................... B
Solid Waste....................................................... C-
Hazardous Waste................................................... D
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Average grade............................................... C
ASCE cautions against directly comparing its grades with the
Council's grades. Although ASCE examined largely the same categories as
the Council did in 1988, there are differences worth noting. ASCE added
a category on school buildings and divided the Council's ``highways''
category into two categories: ``roads'' and ``bridges,'' to more
specifically reflect their conditions. The Council also focused on
ports, inland waterways and flood-control dams in its ``water
resources'' category. ASCE chose to focus on the nation's dams.
ASCE experts based their evaluations on existing reports (see
corresponding Issue Briefs for each category). ASCE determined its
grades by evaluating the infrastructure's condition, performance,
capacity and funding.
ASCE's 1998 Report Card for America's Infrastructure Advisory
Panel:
--Charles A. Parthum.--He is chair of ASCE's Committee on Government
Affairs, and is a past-president of the Society. He is a
consultant for the environmental engineering firm Camp Dresser
& McKee in Cambridge, Mass.
--Dr. C. Michael Walton.--He is chair of ASCE's National
Transportation Policy Committee, and chair of the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He has
served on a number of government-appointed national study
panels, and review committees for the Transportation Research
Board and the National Research Council.
--Virginia Valentine.--She is chair of ASCE's National Infrastructure
Policy Committee, and serves on ASCE's Board of Direction. She
is a senior vice president for the water resources engineering
firm Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., in Las Vegas.
--Robert T. Chuck.--He is chair of ASCE's National Water Policy
Committee, and is the Pacific Islands Water Resources Manager
in the Honolulu office of the environmental engineering firm
CH2M Hill.
--Conrad G. Keyes, Jr..--He is chair of ASCE's National Environmental
Systems Policy Committee, and is the principal planning
engineer for the U.S. Section of the International Boundary &
Water Commission of the U.S. and Mexico.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: The Association of
State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) is pleased to have the opportunity
to comment on the Clinton Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
request for the dam safety program in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) budget.
ASDSO is a national organization of more than 1,500 state, federal
and local dam safety officials and private sector individuals dedicated
to improving dam safety through research, education, and communication.
Our goal is to save lives, prevent damage to property and maintain the
benefits of dams by preventing failures. Several devastating dam
failures occurring in the late 1970's focused attention on the need for
stronger coordination of dam safety programs at state and federal
levels and led to the establishment of ASDSO in 1984.
I would like to begin by thanking the members of this subcommittee
for their support last year in providing the full funding of $2.9
million for the National Dam Safety Program. In particular, ASDSO
wishes to recognize and thank Senator Bond for his leadership and
commitment to ensuring that this program was fully funded in last
year's spending bill. This money has provided the states with the
opportunity to fund research activities to improve the techniques and
equipment for inspections and monitoring of dams and to set up training
programs for state dam safety inspectors.
We believe the $2.9 million offers a solid starting point for
states to begin improving their dam safety programs. However, dam
safety is an ongoing effort and much more work needs to be done to
ensure that the nation's 93,000 dams continue to work effectively and
safely. Reports show that an alarming number of dams across the country
are showing signs of age and lack proper maintenance. By 2020, more
than 85 percent of our dams will be more than 50 years old, which is
the typical design life of a dam.
The Administration's fiscal 1999 budget request of $1.5 million
falls short of the funds needed to successfully administer the program.
It is also well below the $3.9 million authorized in the Act. States
are just beginning to use the $2.9 million to upgrade their dam safety
programs, and to reduce these funds in fiscal 1999 would be extremely
short-sighted.
ASDSO, therefore, respectfully requests this Subcommittee's support
for an additional increase of $2.4 million to fully fund the National
Dam Safety Program at the $3.9 million authorized level. In doing so,
we would also request that the $400,000 authorization for additional
staff to administer the Program in FEMA be specifically earmarked for
that purpose, including 4 work-years.
The following activities will be funded through this appropriation:
--$2 million for incentive grants to states to upgrade their dam
safety programs;
--$500,000 for training State Dam Safety Staff;
--$1 million for research to improve the techniques and equipment for
rapid and effective dam inspections; and
--$400,000 for salaries and expenses for FEMA to administer the
program.
This modest, yet vital funding would help reduce the risks to life
and property due to dam failures by providing states with resources to
improve their dam safety programs. It is an investment in public safety
that will reduce loss of life, property damage and much larger federal
expenditures which come out of the National Flood Insurance Program and
the President's Disaster Relief Fund as a result of dam failures.
safety and regulation
Regulation is essential for the reduction of the hazards involved
with dams. That responsibility rests almost entirely with the states.
More than 95 percent of the dams in the U.S. are privately owned and
regulated by state dam safety agencies. While the majority of states
have been working to improve their programs in the last 20 years, most
are still struggling with minimal budgets and staff. A handful of
states do not even have adequate programs in place to regulate the
safety of their dams. The 1995-96 National Inventory of Dams revealed
that a majority of high or significant hazard dams do not have
Emergency Action Plans in place which would mean the difference between
timely downstream evacuation and disaster.
Safety is essential to all regulated dams, but most importantly to
the 9,281 dams determined by regulators to be high-hazard (category I),
meaning that their failure will likely cause loss of life and
significant property damage. Even more significant are the
approximately 1,800 dams which are considered to be unsafe. Many of
these are also in high-hazard locations. This means they have
deficiencies which leave them more susceptible to failure. Thirty-five
percent of the high-hazard dams have a last inspection date prior to
1990. A recent survey conducted by ASDSO showed thousands of other dams
are in need of rehabilitation to keep them from becoming unsafe.
Every member of this subcommittee has high-hazard dams impounding
water within their state. Nearly every member of the subcommittee has
at least one unsafe, high-hazard dam operating in their home state.
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas have over 500 high hazard dams
each in their states. North Carolina has the most high hazard dams for
a total of 874.
Other states with ``high hazard'' and ``unsafe'' dams include:
High hazard Unsafe
502 in Ohio....................................................... 450
394 in California.......................................................
372 in New York................................................... 57
366 in Georgia.................................................... 57
292 in Colorado................................................... 189
248 in West Virginia.............................................. 49
238 in Mississippi................................................ 10
184 in Alabama.................................................... 150
183 in New Jersey................................................. 32
A complete chart of states' dam inventory data is included at the
end of this written testimony.
cost of dam failures
I would like to give you a brief overview of the extent of dam
hazards. Millions of Americans rely on dams for water supply, power
generation, flood control, irrigation and recreation. High safety
standards for these dams can keep them from failing. But high dam
safety standards have not been the norm in the United States until the
past 20 years, and these standards have only been put in place in
response to several devastating failures.
It has been said that few man-made structures have the potential
for causing catastrophic devastation as dams do should they fail. When
we think of devastating dam failures and flooding, the highly-
publicized and significant events of the past come to mind such as the
South Fork Dam failure of 1889 which killed 2,209 people in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania. This infamous disaster has always been attributed to the
lack of dam safety technology and awareness.
In general, the costs of dam failures are overlooked. Several other
factors need to be considered when calculating the total costs
including fatalities and injuries, property damage, emergency
operations and clean up costs, loss of dam infrastructure and the
revenue it generates, and environmental and economic impacts on nearby
communities.
Dam failures affect thousands of lives and cost millions of
dollars. The 1976 failure of the Teton Dam resulted in damages of $900
million and 11 fatalities. The failure in July 1982 of the Lawn Lake
Dam, a small earth embankment, produced $35 million in damages and
three fatalities. More recently, the failure in 1996 of a small dam in
New Hampshire resulted in one death and $5.5 million in damages.
In 1997, the Ohio Cecil Hollow Dam failed and caused high velocity
flood waters to completely surround and devastate homes. Items
including family cars and household possessions were washed downstream.
The heavy rainfall and runoff overwhelmed the capacity of the dam and
caused it to overtop and breach, releasing the flood waters into the
steep and narrow valley below.
A dam at Camp Inawediwin owned by the Girl Scouts in Tabernacle
Township, New Jersey had a downstream slope failure which resulted in a
12-year old boy being critically injured. The boy was playing in the
area of the dam and was buried in the earth failure. In the past two
years, there have been 59 failures and 56 emergency incidents in about
30 states. Information on these and other dam failures is collected by
the National Performance of Dams Program which is located at Stanford
University.
cause of dam failures
Approximately two-thirds of all dam failures are caused by floods.
The second leading cause of dam failure is excessive leakage and
internal erosion, which accounts for 19 percent of all failures.
Additional causes include animal burrows, concrete deterioration,
deterioration and failure of structures and equipment items required to
provide outlet capability during flood emergencies, earthquakes,
embankment instability, foundation problems, ice pressure, settlement,
and structural failure.
conclusion
Dams are a critical part of our national infrastructure. They
provide benefits upon which our communities and industries depend.
However, along with the benefits is the need to maintain safe, reliable
structures.
The total economic and social damage of one dam failure, not to
mention the incalculable loss of life, easily exceeds the cost of the
dam safety program. In one incident alone, the cost of the damage from
the dam failure was $5.5 million which is nearly twice the cost of the
program.
Full funding of the National Dam Safety Program would provide the
needed tools to help state dam safety programs and would encourage
states to advance their safety programs, thereby enabling them to
prepare for disasters before they strike.
In closing, we strongly urge this subcommittee to recognize the
benefits of this modest investment in public safety by providing
additional funding of $2.4 million in order for FEMA to implement the
National Dam Safety Program.
ASDSO looks forward to working with the subcommittee and its staff
on this critical public safety issue.
1998 STATE DAM INVENTORY DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State national Total State State high- State reg. Government
inventory \1\ regulated \2\ hazard \3\ unsafe \4\ ownership \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................... 1,570 1,704 184 150 25
Alaska..................................... 99 87 18 .......... 55
Arizona.................................... 315 214 73 23 173
Arkansas................................... 927 427 98 25 363
California................................. 523 1,232 394 .......... 536
Colorado................................... 1,648 1,808 292 189 428
Connecticut................................ 707 3,230 236 NR 251
Delaware................................... 73 98 9 NR 75
Florida.................................... 572 NR NR NR 15
Georgia.................................... 4,853 3,311 366 57 634
Hawaii..................................... 129 129 56 .......... 29
Idaho...................................... 343 431 100 13 80
Illinois................................... 1,226 1,226 156 NR 387
Indiana.................................... 1,001 1,506 245 NR 316
Iowa....................................... 2,465 2,514 66 2 1,437
Kansas..................................... 6,077 9,899 200 51 1,363
Kentucky................................... 955 924 147 .......... NR
Louisiana.................................. 381 311 12 .......... 90
Maine...................................... 617 694 23 59 57
Maryland................................... 273 361 56 6 162
Massachusetts.............................. 1,528 2,921 333 21 685
Michigan................................... 909 1,191 83 NR 378
Minnesota.................................. 932 852 40 NR 532
Mississippi................................ 3,191 3,328 238 10 121
Missouri................................... 4,032 614 195 20 206
Montana.................................... 3,517 3,219 153 13 795
Nebraska................................... 2,029 2,029 92 .......... 1,027
Nevada..................................... 323 577 106 8 74
New Hampshire.............................. 613 3,106 87 .......... 364
New Jersey................................. 806 1,580 183 32 350
New Mexico................................. 501 522 160 3 152
New York................................... 1,633 5,645 372 57 676
North Carolina............................. 2,699 4,646 874 40 199
North Dakota............................... 770 1,308 26 5 191
Ohio....................................... 1,766 2,703 502 450 505
Oklahoma................................... 4,510 4,380 145 5 150
Oregon..................................... 833 3,733 122 .......... 186
Pennsylvania............................... 1,315 2,886 735 7 501
Puerto Rico................................ 36 36 33 .......... 31
Rhode Island............................... 185 506 17 .......... 80
South Carolina............................. 2,252 2,242 149 3 283
South Dakota............................... 2,392 2,252 48 4 140
Tennessee.................................. 1,044 593 136 28 382
Texas...................................... 6,838 7,247 818 403 2,734
Utah....................................... 654 1,948 214 41 198
Vermont.................................... 343 1,001 51 NR 141
Virginia................................... 1,581 482 103 50 360
Washington................................. 653 865 94 13 238
West Virginia.............................. 537 354 248 49 233
Wisconsin.................................. 1,291 1,080 192 NR 618
Wyoming.................................... 1,216 1,332 64 3 221
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 74,467 93,952 9,280 1,837 19,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes federal and non-federal dams over 25 ft. in height or 50 acre-feet in volume; or anything above 6
ft. in height with downstream damage potential should it fail.
\2\ Includes all dams under state regulatory control.
\3\ High-Hazard by state definition derived from state inventory in column 2.
\4\ Dams with identified deficiencies by state definition (varies state to state) derived from state inventory
in column 2.
\5\ Derived from national inventory in column 1.
Note: Inventory sizes vary from state-to-state because of number of dams, but also because state laws vary on
which dams are included under their jurisdiction.
NR--Not Reporting. Some states do not keep data on ``high-hazard'' and/or ``unsafe'' categories.
______
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Prepared Statement of Mayor Bruce Delaney, City of Gainesville, FL
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking $900,000 in federal funds in
the fiscal year 1999 VA/HUD Appropriations bill for a business
incubator project to promote economic development in East Gainesville
and to move people off of welfare into the workforce. Key components of
the Gainesville Enterprise Assistance Center are:
--Real Estate Acquisition.--The City of Gainesville expects to
receive the donation of a 75,000 square foot office warehouse
facility with a market value of about $1.2 million.
--The City requires $900,000 to renovate the facility as a business
incubator.
The City of Gainesville's Economic Development Department is
working in collaboration with the University of Florida, the North
Florida Technology Innovation Corporation, Santa Fe Community College,
the Small Business Development Center, the Gainesville Area Chamber of
Commerce, the Council for Economic Outreach, the Southern Technology
Application Center and other local organizations on this project.
Together, these organizations possess the staff and expertise to
provide services and administer, implement and market the project. If
the property and funding are obtained, project implementation will
begin on or before October 1, 1998. Gainesville needs to create greater
opportunities to support small business startups that can fuel job
creation and expand the tax base in our local area.
--It has been documented that the majority of new jobs in America are
generated by small companies.
--A survey has been done of local start up companies which indicates
that 60 percent of the respondents would have used and
benefited from a business incubator had one been available.
--Gainesville is a community rich in intellectual capital due to the
diversity of colleges and programs at the University of
Florida. Research at UF has resulted in an abundance of
technology that can be licensed by private entrepreneurs. In
addition, new business startups unrelated to the university are
emerging continuously in the north central Florida region.
--Much of UF's available technology leaves the community and is
developed in cities where programs exist to help new business
owners succeed. Many of the non-UF business ventures that start
in the area fail due to a lack of business assistance.
There will be direct and indirect economic development impacts from
this project.
--The incubator will be located in the City of Gainesville Enterprise
Zone. The area's residents live in some of the census tracts
with the City's highest unemployment and poverty rates.
According to the 1990 Census, census tract four where the
project is located has a 20.4 percent poverty rate and a 10
percent unemployment rate. Surrounding tracts (five, six and
seven) range from 36.6 percent to 46.82 percent poverty rate
and 4.1 percent to 15.8 percent unemployment rate. The building
targeted for use as the incubator is a former hardware and
lumber store which once employed 100 workers but closed two
years ago and is still vacant.
--One of the main goals of the City is the creation of jobs for the
unemployed and the welfare recipients that will be forced off
welfare as part of the President's welfare reform initiative.
--The proposed incubator will function to help grow companies that
can create needed jobs in the enterprise zone, add to the
city's tax revenue stream, and help diversify the employment
base. The incubator will provide valuable business development
services to client companies so as to maximize their chance for
survival. In addition, the City, in collaboration with other
organizations, will seek to identify entrepreneurs and small
business start-ups within the target area to create more
business and employment opportunities for residents.
--A recent study published in August 1997 entitled ``Business
Incubation Works'', funded by a grant from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration, gave the following findings on the
impacts of business incubators: (1) In 1996 incubator firms
created 468 direct and 702 total jobs, (2) Estimated public
subsidy: $1,109 per job, (3) 97 percent of graduating firms are
still in business, (4) 84 percent of graduating firms stay in
their community, (5) Incubation programs contribute to their
client companies' success, and (6) EDA funded incubators
performed better than or equal to non-EDA funded incubators.
In closing, Federal support is critical for the success of the
Gainesville Enterprise Assistance Center and it is our hope that the
Subcommittee will give our request every consideration throughout the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey (UMDNJ)
We respectfully present testimony of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences
university in the nation. The UMDNJ statewide system is located on five
academic campuses and consists of 3 medical schools and schools of
dentistry, nursing, health related professions and biomedical sciences.
It also comprises a University-owned acute care hospital designated as
the State's Level One Trauma Center, three core teaching hospitals, an
integrated behavioral health care delivery system, a University-owned
managed care network, and affiliations with more than 100 health care
and educational institutions statewide. No other institution in the
nation possesses resources which match our scope in higher education,
health care delivery, research and community service initiatives with
state, federal and local entities.
We appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention three of
the University's priority projects, which we believe are consistent
with the mission of this committee:
The first is an initiative to establish an International Center for
Public Health in Newark; the second is the development of the Dean and
Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center in New Brunswick; and the third is
the creation of a Child Health Institute of New Jersey, also located in
New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Following is an outline of each of these initiatives for your
consideration.
university heights science park and the creation of the international
center for public health
The International Center for Public Health is a strategic
development initiative that will create a world class, infectious
disease research and treatment complex in University Heights Science
Park, Newark, New Jersey. Science Park is located in a Federal
Enterprise Community neighborhood. The International Center will have
substantial local, regional, national and international impacts as it
addresses many critical social, economic, political and health related
issues. The International Center is a $78 million anchor project that
launches the second phase of a fifty-acre, $350 million mixed-use urban
redevelopment initiative, University Heights Science Park. The facility
will total 161,000 square feet and house three tenants: the Public
Health Research Institute (PHRI), the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey's (UMDNJ) National Tuberculosis Center, one of
three Federally funded TB centers, and the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical
School Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics. The
International Center for Public Health is a priority project for UMDNJ,
Rutgers University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Essex
County College and the City of Newark.
The core private tenant for the International Center is PHRI. PHRI
is an internationally prestigious, 57-year-old biomedical research
institute that conducts a broad range of infectious disease and public
health research. A major PHRI research focus is the study of antibiotic
resistance to life threatening bacterial organisms, and the development
of new antibiotics.
Among its many accomplishments over the years, PHRI has contributed
to the development of smallpox vaccine, developed a new diagnostic
assay for influenza, conducted early experiments on oncogenes, cloned
the gene responsible for toxic shock syndrome, and identified the
multi-drug resistant TB strain ``W''. PHRI's current research centers
on molecular pathogenicity, drug discovery, drug resistance, diagnostic
and vaccine development, and gene expression. Scientific disciplines
include virology, immunology, biochemistry, genetics, cell and
structural biology, and regulation of cell development. Presently, PHRI
supports a staff of 110, including 20 Principal Investigators. These
numbers will double in the move to the International Center.
UMDNJ will be the primary medical center linkage and academic
affiliation for the Public Health Research Institute. The New Jersey
Medical School National Tuberculosis Center at UMDNJ, one of only three
model Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Centers in the United States
funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), will add an important
clinical component to the International Center, since many TB patients
also manifest other infectious diseases. The TB Center was founded in
1993 as a response to the national resurgence of antibiotic resistant
tuberculosis strains. At the time, Newark had the nation's second
highest rate of TB cases for a major city.
Rounding out the International Center's initial tenants will be the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School's Department of Microbiology &
Molecular Genetics. The Department's relocation will add a staff of 100
to the Center's critical mass of microbiology research. Currently the
seventeen-member faculty conducts research in control of cell
proliferation; cellular aging; transcriptional, post-transcriptional,
and transcriptional regulation; mutagenis; DNA replication and
recombination; chromosome structure and segregation; human molecular
genetics; and molecular pathogenesis of viruses, bacteria and
parasites.
The fusion of PHRI, the National TB Center and the Department of
Microbiology & Molecular Genetics will create a world class research
and treatment complex having substantial local, regional, national and
international impacts.
Other collaborators in the development of the International Center
include the New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services (NJDHSS)
and the pharmaceutical industry. Responsible for overseeing all
statewide public health initiatives, NJDHSS will contract with the
International Center to have cutting edge molecular epidemiology
services provided to the State of New Jersey. Expanding the strategic
use of molecular epidemiology to direct public health activities will
facilitate prompt identification and containment of emerging and re-
emerging pathogens. New Jersey's major biomedical companies will also
participate in the International Center. An infectious disease
consortium will be developed to serve as a forum for disseminating
fundamental research on the underlying molecular processes of
infectious disease organisms. This research will contribute to
pharmaceutical industry development of new drug therapies for
antibiotic resistant microorganisms. Private industry R&D facilities
contiguous to the International Center are also being explored.
the anchor project for university heights science park
University Heights Science Park (UHSP) is a collaborative venture
of Newark's four higher education institutions, the City and Community
of Newark and private industry, designed to harness university science
and technology research as a force for urban and regional economic and
community development. The university sponsors, the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT), the University of Medicine & Dentistry
of New Jersey (UMDNJ) and Rutgers University at Newark, annually
conduct nearly $100 million of research in Newark, much of it federally
funded. Essex County College trains technicians in eleven science and
technology fields and prepares Newark residents for employment with
Science Park technology companies. The private industry Park sponsors
include the following Newark-based companies: Public Service Electric &
Gas, The Prudential Insurance Company, First Union National Bank and
Bell Atlantic of New Jersey.
UHSP is designed as a 50-acre, mixed-use, science and technology
park in Newark's Central Ward, adjacent to the Park's four higher
education sponsors. It is located in a Federal Enterprise Community
neighborhood. At buildout UHSP will include one (1) million square feet
of technology commercial space, 75,000 square feet of technology
incubator space, up to 20,000 square feet of retail support business
opportunities, an 800 student technology high school, two blocks of new
and rehabilitated housing and a community day care center. The $10
Million Science Park has been completed, and includes the NJIT
Enterprise Development Center 2 (a technology business incubator), a
100 child day care center and the CHEN Building (housing the industrial
liaison laboratories for the Center for Biomaterials and Medical
Devices). CHEN is the acronym for the Council for Higher Education in
Newark, the coalition of the four institutions of higher education who
founded University Heights Science Park. For almost two decades CHEN
has jointly sponsored educational, housing, and retail/commercial
projects in Newark's public schools and the neighborhoods of University
Heights. The NJIT technology incubator building was completed in Fall
1996 and is 100 percent leased. Nearly half of the 17 incubator tenants
are MBE/WBE companies. In addition, over half of the children in the
Science Park day care center are from the surrounding community, and
the majority of day care center staff are from Newark. The construction
of the International Center will anchor the second phase of Science
Park, and serve as a magnet to attract pharmaceutical, diagnostic and
other biomedical companies to Science Park. The Center will have the
same impact on the Park as an anchor store does in a retail shopping
mall.
how the international center for public health addresses va-hud
objectives
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).--VA sponsored research
includes investigation of drug-resistant HIV, aspects of Gulf War
Syndrome, and Sigma Factors in M.Tb. The International Center will
contribute to the achievement of these objectives in the following way:
PHRI is presently in discussions with the VA to explore the
epidemiology of tuberculosis in the VA system. No studies have yet been
performed to look at tuberculosis transmission on a national level with
molecular epidemiological techniques. Studies of tuberculosis
transmission have a particular value for the VA system, whose
collection represents the only geographically representative source of
TB strains in the nation. The project will type strains submitted and
alert VA medical centers to the presence of related strains, thus
providing warning of nosocomial or other local outbreaks.
PHRI and the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School are currently working
with an associated VA hospital in a pilot program to identify the
extent of methicillin resistant staph infections, and to develop
strategies to eliminate these from the hospital. If successful, this
program will provide a model for implementation at other VA hospitals
and additional hospitals outside the VA system.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).--A major HUD
objective is to effectively implement welfare reform as required by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. In addition, HUD is seeking to expand the economic and community
development roles of universities to assist in the revitalization of
distressed urban neighborhoods. The International Center will
contribute to the achievement of these objectives in the following
ways:
--Newark is a federally designated Enterprise Community (EC), and as
such is already part of a Federal strategy to attract and
support economic development activity that will create jobs in
the urban core. The 50-acre Science Park is located within the
boundaries of one of the EC neighborhoods. The development of
the $78 million International Center for Public Health will
generate 1,500 direct and indirect construction and permanent
jobs. The permanent jobs include custodial and clerical
positions, lab technicians, medical personnel, researchers and
administrators. Science Park will work directly with the Essex
County College (one of its sponsoring educational institutions)
and their Technology Training Project (TTP) to train Newark
residents as lab technicians for the International Center. TTP
is privately sponsored by New Jersey's biomedical industry and
has been in existence for nearly 30 years. TTP trains 50
technicians annually, all of whom are high school graduates or
adults looking for a new career.
It is one challenge to acquire necessary job skills, but it is
another for urban residents to have the means to travel to
where the jobs are. In the last 20 years Newark has lost 35,000
private sector jobs, a number of which have moved to New
Jersey's western suburbs. This project redevelops urban land,
preserves open green space, and utilizes existing public
transportation to the doorstep of the Park. The development of
Science Park is Newark's chance to reverse that job exodus by
utilizing existing university resources and providing City
residents with access to the technology jobs of the 21st
century. The International Center for Public Health serves as
the cornerstone to launch the 50-acre urban redevelopment
initiative. At buildout the Science Park will have generated
$350M of construction, 5,000 direct and indirect construction
jobs, and 6,600 direct and indirect permanent jobs with an
annual payroll of $275M. The International Center will serve as
a magnet to attract other biomedical and pharmaceutical
research and development companies into the Park. The
development costs for the International Center include the site
preparation of three additional adjacent building pads. These
sites will be simultaneously marketed to private biomedical
companies, and will generate $60M of additional construction,
and another 1,500 direct and indirect construction and
permanent jobs.
--The development of the International Center for Public Health in
University Heights Science Park accomplishes the objective of
HUD's Office of University Partnerships: the university
expansion of economic and community development roles to
revitalize distressed neighborhoods. Science Park is sponsored
by four institutions of higher education.
request for assistance
The University Heights Science Park Is requesting $5 Million from
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for VA-HUD & Independent
Agencies for Fiscal Year 1999 to support the Phase II development of
Science Park: the construction of the International Center for Public
Health. Such support will leverage Phase II development that totals
$130 Million and creates nearly 3,000 direct and indirect construction
and permanent technology jobs. These requested funds will be used
specifically for site acquisition, demolition and infrastructure in a
Federal Enterprise Community neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey.
On behalf of University Heights Science Park, the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and the Public Health Research
Institute, we want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
present this request.
dean and betty gallo prostate cancer center
Objective
Prostate cancer is a particularly devastating problem in New
Jersey. With the highest population density in the country, at 1,000
people per square mile, we are ranked 10th of all the states in
mortality prostate cancer. African Americans diagnosed with prostate
cancer are twice as likely to die from it, and New Jersey is ranked 8th
in the nation for this disease in this ethnic group. There is no
available curable treatment for prostate cancer once it recurs, and
when it does, it is uniformly fatal. The objectives of the Dean and
Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center are:
--Regionally, to provide the highest standard of care, including NCI-
approved trial therapies, to all residents of the area who
suffer from prostate cancer. In addition, we will provide
outreach and education in the community to generate early
detection of the disease.
--Nationally, to make significant contributions to the nation's war
on this disease through basic science discoveries on how
prostate cells become malignant, ways to prevent transformation
to cancer, how prostate cancer cells evade therapies, and the
development of novel treatments for advanced stages of the
disease.
Background
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ) is the only NCI-
designated Clinical Cancer Center in the state. It is affiliated with
the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), and is
located at that institution's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New
Brunswick, New Jersey. CINJ has over 200 members including 35 staff
physicians, physician/scientists, and basic science researchers.
Because of the devastating problem of prostate cancer in the state and
in the nation, CINJ has determined to make the development of a cure
for this disease one of its major goals. To accomplish this we have
initiated the development of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center.
The center is named after Congressman Dean Gallo, who was a
tireless supporter of the people of New Jersey. He believed in making
our state stronger by collaborating with his colleagues to secure
federal funding for initiatives that improve the quality of life for
all citizens. One such initiative was the creation of the CINJ.
Tragically, he died of prostate cancer in 1994 after being diagnosed in
an advanced stage of the disease. Our efforts to cure prostate cancer
are motivated in large part by our memory of his excellent service.
CINJ is physically located in New Brunswick but has statewide
presence through its hospital partners and affiliates. CINJ has grown
rapidly through the cooperative efforts of these partners and
affiliates, generous grant support from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, as well as many other New Jersey based
foundations and corporations.
cinj is uniquely poised to fulfill the two objectives of the dean and
betty gallo prostate cancer center
Treatment.--The Cancer Institute of New Jersey is the center of
excellence for cancer treatment in the state of New Jersey. It
currently sees approximately 6,000 prostate cancer patient visits per
year in all stages of the disease, and this number is increasing by
about 8 percent per month. Prostate cancer patients who are diagnosed
early in the progression of their disease have different treatment
options than those who are diagnosed with metastatic disease, and are
therefore treated by physicians with different specialties. At many
cancer centers, these patients are seen at different places and even at
different hospitals. At the Cancer Institute of New Jersey we have
developed an integrated approach, where all prostate cancer patients
are seen in the same clinical setting, and where all physicians who are
experts in prostate cancer review the cases together. Thus, each
patient is followed regardless of the stage of their disease by various
specialists, and each patient has the benefit of medical and surgical
experts continuously reviewing their progress. The central location of
CINJ and its network of affiliated hospitals make CINJ care accessible
to virtually all New Jersey residents. In addition to treatment, CINJ
offers patient support groups to assist patients and their families to
cope with this dreaded disease.
The team of physicians, researchers, and directors at CINJ have
long recognized the particular problem faced by Congressman Dean Gallo.
There is no curable treatment currently available for prostate cancer
when it recurs or when it is metastatic. We have, therefore,
concentrated our efforts on developing new ways to treat this
devastating disease. Virtually all of our patients for whom we
recognize there is currently no cure are enrolled into clinical trials
with the hope of possible success if they consent to enrollment. The
CINJ currently has five different clinical trials for advanced prostate
cancer. In addition, we are establishing an integrated working group of
nationally recognized leaders in basic science at The Cancer Institute
of New Jersey whose work can be applied to prostate cancer. Through a
series of focus groups, we are bringing together the basic scientists
and physician/researchers to educate each other, to work in
collaboration, and to develop new treatments.
To address the specific portion of our objective to make treatment
available to all area residents, the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate
Cancer Center will be incorporated into the statewide network of
affiliated hospitals and providers. This network allows CINJ to
facilitate treatments and research for prostate cancer. Patients with
advanced, incurable, prostate cancer may therefore be enrolled into
clinical trials at several locations throughout the state. This not
only allows us to treat more patients with novel therapies but also
increases our ability to rapidly evaluate these therapies. CINJ is also
working with local clinics and agencies to develop treatment plans for
uninsured sufferers of prostate cancer.
Research.--A requirement for the designation of ``Clinical Cancer
Center'' by the NCI is that the center establish a strong research
component that integrates the best available medical treatment of
cancer with nationally recognized basic researchers to find new cures.
The CINJ is the only center in New Jersey that has fulfilled this
requirement. CINJ is located in the heart of biomedical science and
technology in New Jersey, enjoying the affiliation with several
nationally recognized centers of research excellence. CINJ is
physically located on the New Brunswick campus of UMDNJ-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School (RWJMS). The medical school's nearby Piscataway
campus is adjacent to Rutgers University, another globally recognized
center of research. Two other nationally acclaimed research centers are
administered jointly by UMDNJ and Rutgers University and will play
critical roles in addressing this dreaded disease. The Center for
Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine (CABM) has leaders in molecular
biology, including several Howard Hughes investigators. The
Environmental and Occupation Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) includes
a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) center of
excellence for the study of environmental toxicology.
CINJ has successfully recruited investigators from the CABM and
EOHSI specifically to study prostate cancer. Dr. Cory Abate at the
CABM/RWJMS has isolated a novel gene that is likely to be involved in
the development of prostate cancer. Dr. George Rhodes at the EOHSI/
RWJMS has initiated a prospective epidemiological study to determine
the efficacy of PSA screening in African Americans. Drs. Chung S. Yang
and Robert E. Weiss at Rutgers University and RWJMS, respectively, have
initiated a study to determine whether compounds known to prevent the
development of other tumors are also preventive against prostate
cancer. Drs. Robert DiPaola and William N. Hait at CINJ have initiated
clinical trials for prostate cancer based on laboratory experiments
performed in collaboration with Dr. Eileen White at CABM/Rutgers
University. These experiments address how cancer cells develop
resistance and ways to make the cells sensitive to therapy.
Action Needed
With the establishment of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center, collaborative research like the projects just described will be
tremendously expanded. The Center will allow us to focus the strengths
of the CINJ on the devastating problem of prostate cancer in New
Jersey, its surrounding region, and in the nation through treatment and
research. Such a Center is imperative to provide the resources to
effectively recruit additional nationally recognized leaders in
research into the study of prostate cancer. In order to bring together
scientists of this caliber, all focused on prostate cancer, it is
imperative to have a strong focused center.
Since there is currently no effective curable treatment for
prostate cancer once it progresses beyond the prostate, a concerted
effort must be made to develop new treatments. This effort requires two
approaches. The first is a comprehensive study of the biological
characteristics of the disease at the basic science level. CINJ is
committed to joining national efforts on this front. We have obtained
the technology, for example, to examine the expression patterns of over
10,000 genes from a single tumor sample, using multigene arrays. This
will greatly facilitate collaborations between the basic scientists at
the various New Jersey academic institutions with the clinical
scientists at CINJ.
CINJ is uniquely suited to scientifically examine the difference in
mortality between African Americans and white Americans with the
disease, which is a major question in prostate cancer. New Jersey has a
large population of African Americans at all levels of income. We can
thus investigate how much of the disparity between the mortality of
both groups is due to genetic predisposition versus economic status or
other undetermined factors. Scientists at CINJ are more than capable of
answering this question, particularly with the additional
infrastructure support which will be available once the resources for
the Gallo Prostate Center are acquired.
To establish the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center, a
Director must be recruited. Although the exact description of the
qualifications of this individual will be defined by the board, we
envision that he/she will be a medical oncologist who has a strong
research program in prostate cancer. He or she must have a national
reputation. The Director must also be given the resources to hire two
additional researchers to firmly establish a productive research group.
The Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center will also need support
staff to facilitate treatment and research coordination.
The Request
The proposed budget for the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Center is $9.4 million to be spent over a 5 year period. We expect to
raise substantial funds through private, corporate, and other
resources. We therefore seek an allocation of $5 million to facilitate
the establishment of this important resource. These funds will not be
used for bricks and mortar, but to secure the resources necessary to
conquer this disease.
We are requesting this allocation from the Veterans Administration
(VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly
because prostate cancer is of particular interest to both organizations
for different reasons. A large percentage of the patients who are
treated by the VA are older, African American males, and this is the
population with the highest incidence of mortality due to prostate
cancer in the nation. The Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center
will focus its research and treatment on this population in the New
Jersey tri-state area. HUD is concerned largely with issues that deal
with urbanization and the differences between urban, suburban and rural
communities. New Jersey is the most populated state in the nation, with
its population divided among all three types of communities. Moreover,
New Jersey has a particularly difficult pollution problem, and the
impact of environmental toxins on the development of prostate cancer
will be a focus of research efforts. We will also seek to understand
how much of an impact economic status plays in the mortality of
prostate cancer among African Americans. Finally, the major research
goal will be to cure this disease even once it has spread beyond the
prostate.
We wish to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for your long-
term leadership in supporting nationally and internationally
critically-needed research and development initiatives. This
Subcommittee is to be commended for its staunch support of the
universities and research institutions of this country. Your particular
role in the support of many biomedical research initiatives must be
especially recognized.
child health institute of new jersey
The Problem
Disorders of health affecting infants and children exact a terrible
toll, in both human suffering and economic impact, on the child, family
and the community. Consequently, State and Federal public policy
prioritizes efforts to prevent or treat disorders of infancy and
childhood. The prevention of conditions such as mental retardation,
muscular dystrophy, sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis has nearly
incalculable benefits to society. Neither New Jersey nor New York hosts
a research center designed and developed specifically to address issues
of child health.
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey--Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School (UMDNJ-RWJMS) proposes to develop the Child
Health Institute of New Jersey (CHINJ), a comprehensive biomedical
research center focused on the health and wellness of children. In this
program, medical researchers will direct efforts towards the prevention
and cure of environmental, genetic and cellular diseases of infants and
children.
Overview
The Institute will be located in New Brunswick and linked
physically and programmatically with both UMDNJ-RWJMS and the
Children's Hospital at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (RWJUH).
This organization reinforces the relationship between essential
biomolecular research and the treatment, prevention and cure of
disorders of infancy and childhood. Locating the Child Health Institute
in New Brunswick promotes the development of new partnerships among the
Institute, the Medical School, the teaching hospitals affiliated with
UMDNJ-RWJMS, and with the multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology
and chemical interests throughout New Jersey.
The CHINJ will act as a magnet for additional growth in research
and healthcare program development in New Brunswick and New Jersey. New
Brunswick provides a central location in the state that offers ease of
access and proximity to major highway systems and mass transit; this is
essential, as no similar program exists in either New York or New
Jersey. The state of New Jersey, which has significant concerns in the
areas of infant mortality, neonatal HIV infection and pediatric cancer,
will benefit directly and enormously from the unique presence and
impact of the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
Program
The Institute will encompass some 83,000 gross square feet and will
house more than 40 research laboratories and associated support
facilities. Fourteen senior faculty will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D.
researchers, visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, graduate
students and technicians for a full complement of some 130 employees.
The Institute will focus research on the molecular and genetic
mechanisms which direct growth, wellness, and disease. Examples of the
Institute's research foci include: the identification and functional
analysis of genes contributing to developmental disabilities and
abnormal development; developmental pharmacology relating growth and
maturation to the processes that regulate drug metabolism,
developmental toxicity, and resistance or susceptibility to toxic
agents; genetic and environmental influences on developmental
immunology; the molecular mechanisms underlying brain growth and
development; and tissue degeneration and regeneration.
The Child Health Institute of New Jersey builds on existing
significant strengths in genetic, environmental, and neurosciences
research within the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and
associated joint UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-Rutgers
University research institutes. For example, the Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) is a National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recognized center of
excellence which investigates environmental influences on normal and
disordered functions; The Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ), a
National Cancer Institute-designated Clinical Cancer Center, studies
disordered cell growth; The Center for Advanced Biotechnology and
Medicine (CABM) characterizes gene structure and function.
The proposed Child Health Institute of New Jersey, which is
formally chartered with defining developmental mechanisms, will
complement and focus developmental programs within these Institutes and
other areas of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
Economic Impact
At maturity, the Institute is expected to attract $7 to $9 million
of new research funding annually. The Institute's total annual
operating budget is projected to be $10 to $12 million: applying a
standard economic multiplier of 5, the total impact on the New
Brunswick area is estimated to be $50 to $60 million per year.
Construction costs for the Institute are estimated to be approximately
$27 million; approximately half of this figure is generally associated
with local employment. Therefore, during the 2\1/2\-year period of
construction, the Institute will have an immediate economic impact of
at least $52 million on the local economy.
Partners
This effort is driven by several major partners who are committed
to the development of the CHINJ. The University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey is the largest public health sciences
university in the nation and the only one designated as a statewide
system for health care. UMDNJ comprises seven schools on five academic
campuses, including the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School with
campuses in New Brunswick, Piscataway and Camden.
The UMDNJ-RWJMS is one of the most dynamic schools of medicine in
the country, hosting centers of excellence in environmental health,
biotechnology and medicine (both joint programs with Rutgers
University) and more recently, cancer treatment and prevention.
Research funding has grown nearly 30 percent in the past four years, to
over $70 million in 1997.
Johnson and Johnson is the world's largest and most comprehensive
manufacturer of healthcare products serving consumer, pharmaceutical,
and professional markets.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of the largest
philanthropic foundations in the world, targeting issues of public
health and wellness, particularly as directed at maternal and child
health concerns.
The Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital is one of New Jersey's
premier academic medical centers and the core teaching hospital of
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. It includes the region's only
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Level 1 Trauma Center and has earned
state designation as a Specialty Acute Care Children's Hospital. A $42
million program is presently under way to consolidate all pediatric
services in a new, state-of-the-art facility designed expressly for
children and families.
As part of an initial planning grant, Johnson and Johnson and the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have already provided $850,000 to the
operational costs of the Institute. The UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School will provide an additional $350,000 per year in direct
funding for the Institute. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital will
provide support, real estate for the Institute and will construct a
bridge from the new Children's Hospital to the Institute.
Request for Assistance
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey seeks a $5
Million planning and capital grant for the Child Health Institute of
New Jersey. As indicated above, the program has already received
initial funding support from Johnson & Johnson and the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation in the amount of $850,000. Efforts to obtain
additional private support are underway and will be ongoing.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard A. Anthes, President, University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related support activities, I would like to submit this
letter for the record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a not-for-
profit Colorado corporation established in 1959 to support, enhance,
and extend the capabilities of the university community, nationally and
internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and
related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer
of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on earth. UCAR
is a consortium composed of 63 U.S. and Canadian universities that
grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric, oceanic, and related sciences. It is
best known for managing and operating the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR), one of the premier atmospheric science
research institutions in the world. NCAR's research activities focus on
better understanding climate (including global climate change), the
coupling of climate with other earth environmental systems, atmospheric
chemistry, mesoscale meteorology, aviation weather hazards, societal
impacts of weather and climate phenomena, and solar and solar-
terrestrial physics. UCAR is supported primarily by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in addition to other federal agencies
including National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department
of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).
The following observations are offered in regard to the President's
proposed fiscal year 1999 budget.
national science foundation
Overall NSF Budget.--NSF is a critical source of funding for the
activities of our community. We are extremely pleased with the $3.8
billion proposed for NSF (a ten percent increase) and believe that this
increase acknowledges the importance of scientific research and
education to the security and well-being of this country. Strengthening
NSF's advancement of scientific, mathematical and engineering research
and education in this country cannot help but provide the U.S. with a
better trained workforce, an increasingly effective research
enterprise, and a better educated general populace. If fully funded,
NSF's 1999 activities will involve more than 42,000 researchers, nearly
50,000 graduate and undergraduate students, and over 124,000 K-12
students and teachers. Our country's history in research and
development has demonstrated that this type of investment pays
taxpayers dividends well into the future in increased employment
opportunities, expanded intellectual capital, and applied technologies
that benefit society in many ways including significant contributions
to our economy, protecting our environment, and maintaining peace. We
urge the Committee to support the overall budget of $3.8 billion
proposed for NSF in fiscal year 1999.
Research and Related Account (RRA).--Within the overall proposed
NSF total, we support the proposed funding level for the RRA of $2,847
million (a 12 percent increase). The RRA increase will allow NSF to
address serious issues of grant size and duration that have placed
significant constraints on proposed multi-disciplinary and
collaborative activities. We urge the Committee to support the budget
of more than $2.8 billion proposed for the NSF RRA account.
Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate.--We support
proposed funding levels for EHR of $683 million (an eight percent
increase). This proposed increase includes training and professional
development activities for 22,000 additional teachers. Given
disappointing U.S. scores on recent international student tests in
science and mathematics, this increased activity will be most timely
and is critical to the future R&D competitiveness of our country. We
urge the Committee to support the proposed budget of $683 million for
the NSF EHR Directorate.
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).--The USGCRP involves
several of the NSF's Directorates and is proposed to increase by 12
percent to $187 million. This will allow the community to maintain and
enhance critical research focusing in particular on climate modeling.
As we deal with increasing climate change forces and the increasing
societal impacts of weather and climate phenomena such as El Nino, this
proposed increase is extremely timely. We have made tremendous research
advances in the climate arena, but we must do more as we deal with the
prospects of international climate treaties, growing coastal
populations, and mounting insurance losses due to severe weather
events. We urge the Committee to support the budget of $187 million for
the USGCRP proposed within the NSF budget.
Geosciences Directorate.--The budget proposes $507 million for the
Geoscience Directorate (11.5 percent increase). We strongly support
this proposed increase which could lead to a broad range of exciting
research opportunities, including the bulk of the funding mentioned
above for the USGCRP and that mentioned below for the U.S. Weather
Research Program. This budget also includes an increment of $1.76
million for the relatively new Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence
(KDI) initiative. We believe that this program has the potential to
advance linkages for multi-disciplinary communities, allowing the
sharing of observations, tools, and methods for analysis and
prediction. We support these efforts as well as those being undertaken
to create the Next Generation Internet (NGI) which could increase the
productivity of the atmospheric sciences and other communities
exponentially. We urge the Committee to support the proposed budget of
$507 million for NSF's Geosciences Directorate.
Atmospheric Science Research and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research.--The Geosciences budget also includes $102
million for Atmospheric Sciences Research Support (10.2 percent
increase), including $67.8 million (11.4 percent increase) for NCAR. If
realized, the NCAR increase would allow maintenance of extensive
support facilities and activities for the entire atmospheric sciences
university community, and increasingly sophisticated work in the areas
of climate system modeling, the understanding of weather phenomena
including extreme weather events, and the application of our scientific
research data to new technologies such as those serving the aviation
community. The proposed budget allows for ``at least'' $2 million for
the refurbishment of the Mesa Laboratory which is absolutely necessary
to maintain its function as one of the world's preeminent atmospheric
sciences laboratories. This request represents the first-year increment
of full refurbishment costs which we understand NSF plans to request
over the next several years. We urge the Committee to support the
proposed budget of $102 million for Atmospheric Research within NSF's
Geosciences Directorate as well as the proposed budget of $67.8 million
for the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP).--NSF is one of four agency
programs that have supported the USWRP and that have plans to enhance
significantly the research activities of the program in future years.
The community is ready to pursue an aggressive research agenda,
particularly in the area of hurricane landfall, that could save lives
and millions of dollars. Study plans include improved prediction of
hurricane track, wind force, improved intensity changes, precipitation
amounts, and societal impacts. The information would be of obvious use
to emergency managers. We urge the Committee to support the 18 percent
increase for fiscal year 1999 reflected in NSF's budget: $15.79 million
in the Natural Hazards category and $1.75 million in Urban Disaster
Reduction.
national aeronautics and space administration (nasa)
Solar Research.--In NASA's budget, we are particularly interested
in Solar B, part of NASA's Solar-Terrestrial Probe (STP) program. This
is a collaboration with Japan to carry out a highly focused satellite
mission to study the Sun's magnetic field as the source of space
weather events around the Earth and other planets. The data gathered
should help us understand events such as solar coronal mass ejections
which can hit Earth's atmosphere with enough force to cause expensive
and dangerous communications disruptions as well as the destruction of
satellites. We urge the Committee to support the proposed $5.3 million
funding for Solar B in fiscal year 1999 which we believe is appropriate
at this phase of the project.
Solid Earth and Natural Hazards (SENH).--The U.S. military has
invested more than $10 billion in the Global Positioning System (GPS).
Twenty-four high-earth orbit GPS satellite beacons now orbit the earth.
GPS provides powerful tools for atmospheric research and operational
weather forecasting. These GPS applications have been demonstrated
through funding from NSF and NASA. The Solid Earth and Natural Hazards
(SENH) program in NASA's Office of Earth Science (under Research and
Analysis account) has been a leader in funding the basic and applied
research that has realized GPS applications in science.
Funding through SENH for GPS applications in science are highly
leveraged because of the existing GPS infrastructure. For example, $3
million in government funding, including SENH funds, led to the
demonstration of GPS/Meteorology (GPS/MET), a revolutionary new global
sensing system for weather, space weather, and climate prediction and
research. It appears likely that the successful demonstration will now
result in an internationally-supported operational phase. However, the
valuable SENH funded research that makes phenomenally successful
programs such as GPS/MET possibly is grossly under-funded and many
similar opportunities may be lost. Of nearly 200 proposals submitted to
SENH, a majority of which are likely to spawn further highly-leveraged
science applications for GPS, less than 10 percent will be funded. The
President's budget requests a total of $23.2 million for SENH; we urge
that this be increased to $25 million to accommodate additional highly-
leveraged, peer-reviewed scientific research.
Chemistry and Climate Change Research.--The new measurement
capabilities of the High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS)
instrument, scheduled for flight on the Chemistry Platform of the Earth
Observing System (EOS), will add greatly to our understanding of the
upper atmosphere dynamics of global climate change. HIRDLS is being
jointly developed with the United Kingdom and with extensive
participation by the U.S. academic community. It will return
observations with unprecedented detail, notably on the transition
region between the troposphere and stratosphere. These data will enable
detailed studies of chemical and dynamical processes that are
fundamental to improved understanding of global change.
The current HIRDLS request within the President's proposed budget
is $16.4 million for instrumentation funded through the Earth Observing
System's Chemistry Mission of NASA's Office of Earth Science. This is
$1.6 million short of the $18 million needed for U.S. collaboration in
this program. The current HIRDLS request for scientific research and
computing (as distinguished from instrumentation) is $1.1 million
within NASA's Research and Analysis Account. This is $1.4 million short
of the $2.5 million ($2.25 million for scientific research and $250,000
for scientific computing) needed to continue development of the data
reduction software, and provide scientific oversight to the instrument
testing and calibration. In order to maintain our international
partnership commitments, stay aligned with British project progress,
and realize the extraordinary promise which this program holds, we urge
the Committee to increase the fiscal year 1999 proposed total budget
for HIRDLS by $3 million from the currently proposed $17.5 million
total to $20.5 million.
Overall Research Funding.--It is very likely that NASA's scarce
resources will be taxed during the Space Station assembly and early
operations. While the importance of the Space Station is obvious, it is
critical that the research budgets for earth and space sciences be
preserved during this period. We urge the Committee to ensure that
proper protections for NASA research funding are put in place.
On behalf of the atmospheric sciences community, I want to thank
you for the important work you do for U.S. scientific research,
training and education. We appreciate your attention to the
recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 1999
budget. In particular, I want to acknowledge in advance support you may
provide for proposed NSF funding levels. If passed, this fiscal year
1999 budget will send the message that the U.S. will continue to extend
the frontiers of science and engineering and stay at the leading edge
of research and technological development as we enter the next century
and a new millennium.
______
Prepared Statement of Kathye Gorosh, Project Director, The Core Center,
Chicago, IL
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony for the record on behalf of the ``Enhanced Provider and
Patient Education Initiative'' proposed at the CORE Center in Chicago,
Illinois. To address the national need for a model of ``real time''
education and training for HIV care providers at all levels and for
patients, the CORE Center is proposing the establishment of the
``Enhanced Provider and Patient Education Initiative.''
This initiative will create a model technology-based system for the
education of specialty and community-based providers and the education
and treatment of patients. It will address an existing national need
for the effective integration of educational programs to enhance
provider performance and, importantly, to incorporate patients into the
decision making process. It will create a system of education and care
which takes advantage of the new scientific landscape and is centered
around an information system. It will demonstrate the ability of
computerized networks, with real time performance feedback, to improve
the quality of and access to care, to increase compliance and to
control cost.
As you know, the development of new and more effective drugs has
allowed people to remain healthier longer and to delay the progression
from HIV to AIDS. Nevertheless, it remains critical that we stop the
spread of HIV as well as provide early and comprehensive care to those
already infected. Effective education and compliance management
programs are the only way to prevent the behaviors that lead to the
spread of resistant strains of HIV. As a result, quality care will be
provided in a cost-effective manner providing thousands of HIV infected
individuals with an improved quality of life and enabling them to
remain productive members of society.
While there have been dramatic new developments in HIV care due to
new and more powerful medications, including a 13 percent decrease in
the death rate from AIDS reported by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), these therapies have not been as effective in the
indigent inner-city urban population. For example, according to the
Department of Medicine at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde
Park, New York, in 1996 increased cases of AIDS related opportunistic
illnesses were reported for heterosexual African American and Hispanic
men and women. This disparity in opportunistic infection trends between
population groups most likely reflects differences in access to the
full range of new therapies now available and a lack of targeted
outreach, education and compliance enforcement efforts aimed at high
risk populations and at those lifestyles which contribute significantly
to the transmission of HIV.
In contrast to the general decline in the number of AIDS related
illnesses and deaths, the CDC has reported a continuing increase in new
cases of HIV/AIDS among people of color.
In November 1997, medical experts at the United Nations reported
that new infections are occurring worldwide twice as fast as just one
year ago at 16,000 per day, up from 8,200 per day, with 30.6 million
living with HIV throughout the world. For children under age 15, the UN
estimates that 1,600 children are infected each day, up from last
year's estimate of 1,000 per day. In addition, it is estimated that
1,200 children die of AIDS each year, up from the prior estimate of
1,000.
In the United States, the numbers are equally as chilling. Research
is showing that the epidemic continues to shift to people of color,
women and children. Since 1993, there has been a 3 percent increase
annually in the national prevalence of AIDS. Recent data have shown
that:
--One in 250 people in the United States is infected with HIV;
--One in four of all new HIV infections in the U.S. are estimated to
occur in young people between the ages of 13 and 20;
--Every hour 2 to 4 Americans under the age of 20 become infected
with HIV;
--27 to 54 adolescents are infected with HIV every day;
--2,354 adolescents ages 13-19 have been diagnosed with AIDS as of
December, 1995;
--Among adolescent women with AIDS, 80 percent are African American
or Hispanic; and,
--AIDS is the leading cause of death of people between the ages of 25
and 44 in African Americans and Hispanics.
In addition to the growing numbers of individuals being infected
with HIV, continuing trends show that the rate of increase is greatest
among injection drug users and through heterosexual transmission.
Recent research has shown that the disproportionate incidence of
HIV/AIDS among inner-city, minority populations is due in large part to
low rates of compliance and lack of effective community-based,
comprehensive, health education systems and programs for providers and
patients.
Low rates of compliance can most often be attributed to the
following:
Cost.--The costs for HAART therapy is enormous, as much as $10,000-
$15,000 per patient per year. This figure does not include other costs
for care or daily medications. There is great concern among people
living with AIDS that access to care for all people be assured.
Although the federal program, AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP),
is designed to provide financial assistance for uninsured or
underinsured HIV/AIDS patients in purchasing required medications, it
has been unable to keep up with the increasing demands;
Testing.--Many individuals are hesitant to be tested for HIV and go
undetected. As a result, patients go without care until the symptoms
become evident and they are in need of immediate services;
Compliance.--Many HIV infected patients are unwilling or unable to
get timely clinical care or to adhere to complex and difficult drug
regimens. Often patients have little or no understanding of newer
therapies and their potential benefit, resulting in low levels of
compliance.
While many piecemeal health education systems for HIV/AIDS exist
throughout the United States, there are none that are taking full
advantage of today's cutting-edge scientific landscape. It is well
known that the adoption of computerized clinical information systems in
health care lags behind the use of computers in most other sectors of
the economy. There is no HIV educational system that provides care,
clinical assistance and interactive education, while integrating the
patients and community-based providers into the care giving and
decision-making process. Especially given today's technological
advances, this is a striking deficiency in health education systems for
HIV/AIDS.
At this critical time in the evolution of the long-term treatment
of HIV/AIDS, it is important that we focus on the creation and
implementation of comprehensive educational systems of care for
individuals affected by HIV/AIDS. This focus will improve treatment and
prevention efforts, increase the rate of the early detection of HIV,
increase the rate of treatment compliance and ultimately decrease the
spread of HIV.
It is critical that the federal government focuses its resources on
creating comprehensive HIV education systems that fully integrate
specialists, community-based providers and patients and evaluate the
outcomes of those systems.
The CORE Center believes that the most effective educational system
is one which uses today's state-of-the-art technology and creates
interactive systems of education that provide real-time feedback and
enables providers to optimize care for HIV/AIDS patients. That is why
the Center is proposing to establish the ``Enhanced Provider and
Patient Education Initiative'' a model technology-based system for the
education of specialty and community-based providers and the education
and treatment of patients.
We are at a critical point in the care of patients with HIV/AIDS.
We have achieved major goals in our basic science understanding of the
course of HIV disease and have applied this understanding to the care
of patients.
Successes in the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS have led to
increased numbers of AIDS patients surviving longer and once again
becoming productive members of society. Hospital admissions for AIDS
care are down, and clinics are experiencing dramatic increases in the
demand for out-patient services. Although science has taken big steps
toward making AIDS a long-term manageable disease, by no means do we
have a cure for the largest public health crisis of the century.
Additionally, given the frequently changing scientific landscape
and related improvements to available therapies and care protocols, it
is difficult for specialty-care providers, and more so for community-
based care providers, to keep abreast of the most recent advances in
care and medication usage. Lack of access to up-to-date information
also hinders compliance of patients in their therapy and clinic
schedules.
There is no successful system in place that provides caregivers and
patients the education and scientific tools needed to ensure that they
make the most of the advances in care.
Patients need to be educated regarding their drug therapies and
other care options available to them. Because many inner-city patients
are unable or unwilling to routinely access the local primary health
care system, this education and compliance is very difficult.
Moreover, the treatment of patients with HIV/AIDS in Chicago and
other urban areas is made more difficult by the large number of
patients receiving care and the large number of potential patients
whose infections have not been recognized who will ultimately need
care.
Compliance for patients in lower socioeconomic populations has been
more difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, incomplete compliance with
medication regimens greatly increases the risk of the emergence of
strains that are resistant to the newest therapies thus increasing the
likelihood of the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Specialists alone are not able to provide primary care for all
affected patients, especially those in underserved communities. This
means that other providers need to be trained in the complicated care
of patients with HIV/AIDS to insure that the new HIV medications are
used appropriately and to the greatest benefit for all patients.
To be effective, these community providers must have current
medical data and protocols at their fingertips. They must be able to
access immediate expertise to ensure the most accurate interventions
and care for patients. Today, due to weaknesses in the HIV/AIDS care
infrastructure, they are often unable to access this type of critical
information or feedback in a timely and effective fashion.
The Enhanced Provider and Patient Education Initiative will focus
primarily on methods of optimizing the delivery of care through the
real time education of specialists, nurse practitioners, physician's
assistants, and community-based providers caring for people with HIV/
AIDS. The secondary goal is to screen patients with other sexually
transmitted diseases for infection with HIV and to initiate therapy at
an early stage of HIV disease.
The CORE Center's proposed initiative will be composed of four
elements:
education
There is growing evidence that use of practice guidelines and
disease management systems can help direct and improve care given to
patients. In the complicated arena of HIV care, where multiple
antiretroviral regimens are available and where interactions with other
medications are common, the use of such protocols is particularly
important.
The CORE Center's Enhanced Provider and Patient Education
Initiative will disseminate expert consensus-derived protocols for the
care of patients in the CORE Center and in the community. It will use a
comprehensive technology-based education system to implement a program
for health care providers, including specialists, generalists, nurse
practitioners, and physicians assistants, to optimize care of HIV/AIDS.
This system will provide education services both in the CORE Center and
to the community clinics associated with the Cook County Bureau of
Health Services.
Through the use of current state-of-the-art, interactive computer
technology, this initiative will allow providers to order medications
and laboratory tests through an interactive computer system which will
direct therapy by computerized educational screens that appear
sequentially during the ordering process. These educational screens
will assist providers in prescribing the most effective, economical and
comfortable therapies for patients.
Computer facilitated review of patient care will be performed daily
by using computer flagging systems to ensure that care conforms to
guidelines and by expert review of computerized records that will be
transmitted to the CORE Center from affiliated clinics on a daily
basis.
Feedback will be provided for caregivers based on the reviews
described above. This will create a continuous improvement loop.
Guidelines and additional education efforts will be redesigned on a
continual basis using the results of computer facilitated reviews of
patient care. The process will be used for educating patients at each
visit, teaching patients about HIV disease and related issues and
integrating patients into the decision making process. It will improve
compliance with the use of social service interventions for the CORE
Center's indigent population.
Computer kiosks stationed throughout the CORE Center will allow
patients to review information on AIDS treatment, to formulate
questions, and to interact with other patients.
early intervention
The CORE Center will evaluate early intervention programs in terms
of their effectiveness and successful coordination with the full
continuum of care. This program element will target HIV screening of
inner-city populations with sexually transmitted diseases so that
advances in HIV care can be made available as early as possible in the
course of HIV infection and help to stop the increase in the numbers of
HIV cases reported daily.
The CORE Center will include a screening clinic for patients with
sexually transmitted diseases. Currently, only 10 percent of the more
than 10,000 patients seen yearly at Cook County Hospital with STD's
undergo screening for HIV infection. The CORE Center will provide HIV
testing and counseling of all patients who are seen for treatment of
STD's.
The CORE Center will assess the impact of early intervention
programs on the stage of illness at which patients enter into care in
the CORE Center. Specifically, patients will be seen earlier in the
course of HIV infection which will improve their chance of responding
to therapy. In addition, the CORE Center will provide HIV testing and
counseling for all patients who are seen for treatment of STD's.
compliance
The Center will implement an aggressive compliance program to
insure application of sound treatment principles and protocols,
medication compliance and clinical follow-up.
Provider compliance with treatment guidelines will be measured,
corrected, and reinforced through innovative use of provider order
entry systems, as noted above in the education program. Patient
compliance will be reinforced through participation in the development
of treatment plans, through clinical pharmacy teaching sessions, and
through the use of medication reminder devices. The CORE Center is
currently developing a variety of compliance programs and believes that
patient will be an important source of patient empowerment and ``buy-
in'' to care.
outcomes measurement
The Center will implement an aggressive and comprehensive outcomes
measurement program that will measure patient outcomes and cost of care
by different community provider groups in the CORE Center and the
community. This HIV/AIDS cost and outcomes data, which does not
currently exist for any AIDS treatment program, will be extremely
useful. Importantly, this initiative will also measure improvement
rates in provider compliance with recommended guidelines and measure
the cost for achieving improved compliance with treatment protocols.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the CORE Center believes that this
technology-based education initiative is a prototype for national
efforts to meet the educational challenges presented by infectious
diseases, especially, HIV/AIDS. As such, the CORE Center is seeking
$6.9 million over five years for the establishment of the Enhanced
Provider and Patient Education Initiative.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record and to share with you and the other members of the subcommittee
the details of this unique initiative. We look forward to continuing to
work with you and your subcommittee as well as the Administration in
support of this initiative.
______
Prepared Statement of Glen A. Grant, Esq., Business Administrator, City
of Newark, NJ
Thank you for the opportunity to present information to you about
economic development opportunities in Newark, New Jersey, which are
designed to involve all of our residents in the City's renaissance.
Newark is at the heart of the vast metropolis that extends from Boston
to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Fully one-quarter of the
population of the country either lives within, or is easily accessible
to, this area. We are only 8 miles west of New York City, within 100
miles of Philadelphia, and only a 4-hour drive or 1 hour flight away
from Boston and Washington, D.C. Our location is enhanced by ready
access to transportation connections, via rail, sea, air, and nine
major interstates and state highways. Port Newark/Port Elizabeth has
become the largest container port on the east coast because of the
ability to move goods quickly and economically to and from the area.
Newark International Airport, the ninth largest airport in the U.S., is
one of the fastest growing in the country.
Despite our active port and airport facilities, fully-occupied new
office buildings, success New Jersey Performing Arts Center, and
complex of institutions of higher education and hospitals, our
unemployment rate continues to hover around a staggering 15 percent. We
are the fifth most densely populated city in the nation, where the mean
family income is only barely above the poverty line. Our population is
poor: the 1990 census showed an aggregate poverty rate of 26 percent,
and an incredible 37 percent of our children live below the poverty
line. A full 50 percent of the children in our public schools are from
families receiving AFDC. Jobs for the parents of these children will
positively affect this population more than any other factor.
We have lost many of the jobs that match the skills and work
experience of a large segment of our population. We know, however, that
the jobs created through the transportation industry cross the whole
spectrum of employment opportunities. With the decline of our
manufacturing base, shipping, warehousing and related blue-collar
employment are essentially the only good paying jobs left in the area
which do not require higher education. Further, the thousands of white-
collar jobs in such varied industries as insurance, law, customs
brokerage, and related transportation and hospitality industries fuel
the economy of the City, both directly and through the secondary
support industries they, in turn, sustain. The growth of the hotel and
hospitality industry is another key segment in the production of job
opportunities for Newark residents.
It is a goal of the administration of Mayor Sharpe James to create
jobs to meet the range of needs of Newark's residents, and we ask for
the Federal government's partnership in continuing to expand the number
of these vital employment and investment opportunities. Newark has been
designated a Federal Enterprise Community, and the projects which
Newark is presenting to you for funding consideration all lie within
this zone, and are designed to provide employment for its residents.
The City of Newark is proposing projects at important sites in
close proximity to Newark International Airport. Directly across U.S.
Route 1 from the airport, is an underutilized abandoned rail yard of
slightly over 100 acres known as Waverly Yards. The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey operates the first phase of an airport
monorail, and has begun construction of the second phase, which will
cross U.S. Route 1 and connect to a new stop on the Northeast Corridor
rail line within Waverly Yards. The completion of the monorail will
provide a direct, fast rail linkage with downtown Newark, and all of
its rail and bus connections. The City of Newark now owns much of this
property, and wishes to promote development of it to its full
potential. To do so, several critical infrastructure improvements must
be accomplished.
First, there is currently only one road leading into the site.
Right-of-way acquisition through property owned by existing businesses
and roadway construction are necessary for appropriate accessibility.
Second, some of the area will require environmental remediation before
facility construction can take place. In addition, basic site services,
such as power, water, and communication lines, need to be brought into
the location. Site clearance and acquisition of several parcels from
private owners will complete a building site of unparalleled
attractiveness.
The City proposes to make the site available for the development of
facilities that would make the best use of the proximity to the airport
and the direct rail link, such as a hotel, conference center, and
office park. Private developers will have the opportunity to purchase
or lease a portion of the property for construction of primary or
complementary facilities. It has been estimated that activity on this
site will ultimately generate hundreds of jobs in the trade,
hospitality, convention and transportation industries. Further, the
City of Newark is pursuing the establishment of an International Trade
Center, which is currently in a study and preliminary design phase. The
site for this facility has not yet been determined, but it is projected
to be in a location which will also take advantage of the
transportation links described. We are requesting that this committee
make an appropriation of $6,000,000 to help us reach our long range
goals for the Waverly Yards; to enable the generation of job and
economic development opportunities for Newark's residents, and create
needed enhancements to a regional transportation center.
In close proximity to Waverly Yards and the airport/seaport
complex, there are other areas in need of redevelopment which could
have a tremendous impact on the economic well-being of our City.
Thousands of manufacturing and shipping jobs have been lost in the
nearby Frelinghuysen Avenue industrial corridor and other nearby
locations. Yet Port Newark and the airport generate millions of dollars
in the businesses of processing, packing and distribution. Conversely,
Newark is home to a large exporting community, which make use of our
key position on the transportation network.
There is an inventory of dozens of factory, warehouse buildings,
and vacant properties which have been underutilized, even abandoned.
Some of them are city-owned as a result of tax foreclosures, many
others have simply been closed by their owners. Many of these sites
have been determined to be contaminated, and remediation of them would
enable the City to sell them for development or put them back on the
tax rolls. As a designated Brownfields pilot project, Newark is
utilizing this funding to develop new technologies for site
remediation, work with the State and Federal agencies to improve
interagency cooperation and streamline the permitting process, and
implement innovative financing systems, such as our Environmental
Opportunity Zone tax abatement process. In addition to the $200,000
federal pilot grant, the State of New Jersey has been providing funding
for preliminary assessments and site evaluation. However, in order to
reclaim these properties for productive use, the City of Newark is
seeking funds to implement remediation on City-owned properties.
An appropriation of $3 million to launch a pilot remediation
program of City-owned brownfields sites so they can be sold and
converted back to productive uses would allow us to begin a process of
returning these facilities to the tax rolls, and returning our
population to work. The additional jobs that would be generated in the
distribution industry and other transportation-related industries will
serve to create family incomes, which will in turn create retail and
housing demand in Newark. The plentiful and competitively priced labor
force within the City in general, and our Enterprise Community in
particular, will provide a ready supply of employees for operations in
the types of industries we need to keep and expand.
Newark is also home to five institutions of higher learning,
ranging from a fine community college to two law schools and a medical
school. This complex also is a part of our Enterprise Community. Along
with a public/private partnership of government and business, they are
developing University Heights Science Park, with a high-tech business
incubator, day care center, and lab space already operational. A
federal allocation of $9 million would be utilized to leverage
approximately $130 million in private and non-federal public sector
funds to begin and complete the next project phase; an International
Center for Public Health. This Center would be a world-class infectious
disease research and treatment complex comprised of the Public Health
Research Institute and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey's National Tuberculosis Center. Funding allocated by this
committee would be applied toward construction-related costs, which
will create approximately 300 direct and indirect construction and
technology jobs, and ultimately several hundred permanent employment
opportunities for office workers, technicians, computer operators and
scientists.
We are asking for your help in changing the situation in Newark.
Through the allocation of funding for the projects I have described,
you will create long-term economic opportunity for people who currently
have none. Through these economic development initiatives, you will
help some of Newark's currently unemployed population to earn a decent
salary and support their families.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond E. Bye, Jr., Associate Vice President
for Research, Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
capital of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1947; prior to
that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
women's college. While widely-known for our athletics teams, we have a
rapidly-emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
University several years ago, Florida State University currently
exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
agricultural or medical school, few institutions can boast of that kind
of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We have
high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and
universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists and
engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with industry to
commercialize those results. Florida State ranks seventh this year
among all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its patents and
licenses. In short, Florida State University is an exciting and
rapidly-changing institution.
Mr. Chairman, let me describe three projects that Florida State
University is pursuing this year. The first is a joint economic
development project with the City of Tallahassee. The project, entitled
the Frenchtown Arts and Cultural Entertainment District Economic
Development Initiative, will link the development of a new performing
arts facility on the FSU campus with an urban redevelopment project to
revitalize a blighted area and create employment opportunities for
community residents.
The project, located on the FSU campus but adjacent to the City's
Frenchtown area, seeks to use the development of a new performing arts
center as the catalyst for development of an arts and culture complex
which would house hotel, retail, entertainment and residential uses.
Frenchtown was once a thriving area and center of the African-American
community. However, years of neglect and lack of private sector
investment have reduced Frenchtown to a distressed area with
deteriorated buildings, vacant properties and with an overall image of
crime and decay. The Center will create a ``destination'' which will
attract sufficient patrons to support collateral retail and
entertainment development. The proximity of the University site to the
downtown area will provide the market demand to support residential and
hotel development. The proposed arts and culture complex would also
house a museum of African-American Arts and Science that would also
help support the site as a destination and link the project to the
greater Frenchtown community. The City and University are requesting $3
million in fiscal year 1999 from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development under its Economic Development Initiative for this
economic development project. Funds for the total project will be
leveraged at a ratio of about 20 to 1 from other funding. The project
is located in a low-income census tract, will remove blight, will
create employment opportunities for low-income persons, and satisfies
the requirements associated with the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
The next project is a new Institute for Upper Ocean Predictive
Studies (IUOPS). Housed at Florida State University, it will include
scientists from half a dozen institutions around the United States.
There is a critical need to better understand the upper ocean carbon
cycle both for global change studies and for fisheries. This could
result in major improvements in our understanding and anticipating
climate changes that affect many facets of our daily lives. New NASA
satellites measuring winds, ocean currents, and sea level provide
excellent remote sensing data to be assimilated into ocean models. This
new Institute will serve a major analytical role in analyzing and
interpreting these new data. FSU has the computing capabilities
available to handle the large data sets flowing from these satellites.
We will seek $4 million for fiscal year 1999 from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for establishing this Institute.
Finally, FSU is establishing an FSU Institute for Molecular
Environmental Science and Ecology. This Institute has the objective of
developing predictive understanding of the behavior and cycling of
elements and compounds in aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries,
lakes, rivers, etc.) at the molecular level. The Institute will develop
chemical indicators of the biological functioning and the health of
aquatic ecosystems; develop species-specific sensors that monitor
chemical changes in the environment; and develop new aquatic
environmental models based on the results of the work. The results of
this work will contribute substantially to the restoration and
rehabilitation of the damaged Kissimmee River ecosystem, and have a
major positive effect on understanding and predicting environmental
changes. This Institute, working closely with the National High
Magnetic Field Laboratory on the FSU campus, will employ state-of-the-
art equipment from that facility to do much of the monitoring of these
environmental changes. Many of these instruments are one-of-a-kind and
provide this Institute with unparalleled capabilities to assess various
impacts on these aquatic ecosystems. We are seeking $2 million from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in fiscal year 1999 for this
effort. State resources will be sought to complement the EPA funding.
Mr. Chairman, these activities discussed will make important
contributions to solving some key problem and concerns we face today.
Your support would be appreciated. Thank you again for this opportunity
to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Henry Cagey, Chairman, Lummi Indian Nation
My name is Henry Cagey, Chairman of the Lummi Indian Nation. The
Lummi Indian Nation, located on the northwest coastline of Washington
State, is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a
population of over 5,200. On behalf of the Lummi Indian 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 Office
of Public and Indian Housing, Indian Housing appropriations. The
following document presents the Lummi Indian Nation's funding
priorities, as well as regional and national concerns and
recommendations for your consideration.
I had the honor of being the Tribal Co-Chair for the Negotiated
Rule Making Committee which worked with HUD officials to develop the
regulations for The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA). While these regulations need further
attention in some areas, I believe that they present a reasonable
regulatory framework in which Tribes can continue the development of
their Housing programs, services, functions and activities.
1999 appropriation priorities
--+$800 million Indian Housing Assistance under NAHSDA Funding.--
While the Lummi Indian Nation supports the Administration's
request of $600 million, the housing need among American
Indians and Alaskan Natives demand a more vigorous financial
response than the amount proposed by the Administration. We
request that at least $800 million be provided annually to
address the current backlog of housing needs, a backlog that
continues to increase at an alarming rate.
--+$80 million To Support Community Development Block Grants.--The
Lummi Indian Nation supports the Administration's request of
$60 million. However, in view of the extreme development needs
among American Indians and Alaskan Natives, additional funding
is justified.
--Support for the Technical Amendments Proposed by the National
Indian Housing Council.
appropriation summaries, justification and recommendations
+$800 million Indian Housing Assistance under NAHASDA Funding
The need for significant increases in the amount of funds available
to Tribal Housing Programs is the basis for Indian Country's support
for the NAHASDA Program. The amount proposed by the Administration for
1999 already represents an important increase over the funding for past
years, yet, it does not address the cost of the substantial backlog of
housing and development need in Indian and Native Alaskan Nations,
Tribes and Communities.
The following discussion of Lummi Indian Nation Housing needs
indicate that the cost of addressing the housing shortage for the Lummi
Indian Nation would be in excess of $100 million. Therefore, the amount
requested by the Administration is not sufficient. If this amount is
not increased, the Lummi Indian Nation will not be able to address is
substantial backlog of Housing Needs and its deficit will continue to
grow, however at a substantially slower rate.
At the $600 million level, the Lummi Indian Nation Housing backlog
will continue to grow at the rate of $1.5 million annually. This is a
significant improvement over previous years during which the deficit
grew at the rate of $4 million annually.
However with a National appropriation of $800 million, the Lummi
Indian Nation Housing needs deficit would stop growing. This level of
appropriations would enable the Lummi Indian Nation to fully fund its
annual increase in housing needs and slowly address its substantial
backlog. This level of funding would provide the basis for hope while
lesser funding levels offer only a reduction of despair.
lummi indian nation housing needs
Rental and Homeownership Waiting List
Currently, the Lummi Indian Nation Housing Waiting List contains
the names of 859 families eligible to participate in HUD Housing
Programs. The Housing Waiting List includes the most needy members of
the Lummi Indian Nation. Almost half of the families on this list have
incomes which would enable them to enter a subsidized home ownership
program. The total costs of meeting the housing needs of moderate and
low income members of the Lummi Indian Nation is estimated to be $77
million.
Specialized Support Housing Needs
In anticipation of NAHASDA, the Lummi Indian Nation has completed
the planning, development and will soon start construction of an
Seniors Assisted Living Facility on the Reservation. The Lummi Indian
Nation still needs to address the specialized supported housing needs
of its disabled membership and its ``out of family'' youth through a
group home setting. The programmatic flexibility and the financial
support provided through NAHASDA will enable the Lummi Indian Nation to
meet this continuing need. The estimated total costs for meeting the
specialized and supported housing needs of the Lummi Indian Nation is
$25 million.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Based on the foregoing estimates of current total housing needs,
the Lummi Indian Nation must finance a significant increase in its
water and sewer infrastructure. The extensions of sewer and water lines
needed to accommodate housing needs is $13 million. Another $1.8
million is needed to overhaul the existing sewage line pump stations.
An additional $10 million is needed to expand the existing sewage
treatment facilities to meet the demands of development.
Access to Private Mortgage Financing Markets
Those Lummi Indian Nation members who are financially capable of
securing financing from private mortgage resources have not been able
to access this funding due the trust status of reservation lands, the
lack of foreclosure procedures in Tribal Legal Systems and the lack of
knowledge of the financing assistance program from HUD on the part of
Tribal members and local bankers. Our Housing Program staff will work
with our Tribal members and local bankers to ensure access to this
assistance. The ability to access private financing is key to our
overall effort to address the housing needs of all Tribal members.
lummi indian nation housing plan
Priority of Need Rental Housing and Homeownership Programs
We anticipate the Lummi Indian Nation Housing Plan and the majority
of Tribal Housing Plans developed under NAHASDA, will continue to place
the highest priority on the need of the applicant family for both
rental and homeownership housing assistance. Most if not all of the
current indicators of need required by HUD will remain. Additional
criteria will be developed and used to assist the tribes to tailor
housing service to the housing needs and the traditional values and
customs of their people. One example of additional criteria would be
the priority for extended family groups both in cluster sites and in
scattered site plans. Family proximity increases the value of family
pride in the long term maintenance of houses and neighborhoods.
Range of Services and Range of Incomes
The Lummi Indian Nation Housing Plan under NAHASDA includes housing
services appropriate for all levels of income, beginning with the most
destitute to those whose income would have precluded them from
participating. This does not mean the same services, e.g., subsidized
and rental housing for low and moderate income families versus private
financing for members who have higher income levels, allowing for a
broad range of housing assistance enjoyed by non-Indians in all other
non-reservation communities as commented on further in the foregoing
item.
Accessing Private Mortgage Financing Resources
Those who are financially capable of participating in private
mortgage financing markets will be provided with assistance to secure
the credit they need to meet their own housing needs through the loan
guarantee programs, similar to the services now provided by HUD to
millions of Americans who are able to access the private mortgage
finance markets.
Emergency Shelter Housing Services
The members of the Lummi Indian Nation do not have access to an
Emergency Housing Shelter. Incredibly, those members who have no income
and no shelter are not currently served by Housing Programs develop by
the Lummi Indian Nation under the guidance of HUD. Under NAHASDA, the
Tribe will be able to finally address these very basic needs.
Supported and Specialized Housing Needs
The Lummi Indian Nation plans complete construction of the Seniors
Assisted Living Facility this year and will begin plans for phase II of
this facility. Plans are under development for a total of 58 units.
Planning will also begin for youth group home facilities.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
The Lummi Indian Nation NAHASDA Plan will include extensive funding
for water and sewer infrastructure development.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to state to the Committee that
they are a part of an historic process of restoring to Tribes the
ability to control the present and shape the future in a manner that
has not been possible for at least a century. NAHASDA is a critical
part of the process of the restoration of Tribal governments which
started under the Self-Governance Initiative, an initiative that began
over ten (10) years ago in the Department of the Interior.
Tribal governments, not HUD bureaucrats are the elected
representative of Indian people. These duly elected representatives
have taken a back seat to the bureaucrats for far too long. This
resulted in housing programs which failed to fully meet the need of the
people, because the needs of the federal government have come first in
the minds of the bureaucrats. For far too long, HUD has been able to
bypass elected officials who had authority and responsibility over the
reservation based development process, except where the HUD Housing
Programs were involved. Under NAHASDA, the Tribe for the first time is
empowered to create comprehensive reservation based plans for housing
management and development.
During your deliberations on these funding matters, please remember
the overwhelming majority of Tribal members have not always been
included in the American dream of safe, sanitary and affordable home
ownership. Their poverty, the trust status of their lands and the lack
of credit programs designed to meet the unique legal and social
environment of the Reservation have combined to create third world
housing conditions on many Indian reservations. Under NAHASDA, we have
a combination of financial, regulatory and social tools to address
these problems. Through the coordinated efforts of Tribes and HUD, we
will see a reduction and with the provision of adequate resources, we
will see the elimination of these problems. In order to fully fund
annual housing needs of the Lummi Indian Nation, it needs annual
funding of $6.550 million. Under the Administration's proposed funding
level, it would receive $4.3 million. The administration's proposed
funding level is a significant step forward but does not go far enough.
LUMMI INDIAN NATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current estimated Current
---------------------------------------- annual Estimated
Housing needs Total growth annual
units Cost/unit Total current percentage increase cost
needed costs factor \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental and Homeownership Waiting List....... 859 $90,000 $77,000,000 5 $3,800,000
Total Need.................................. ...... .............. 77,000,000 .......... 80,800,000
Specialized Support Housing Needs........... 598 .............. .............. 5 1,150,000
Seniors................................. 200 80,000 16,000,000 .......... ..............
Disabled................................ 120 150,000 5,400,000 .......... ..............
Youth Group Home........................ ( \2\ 150,000 2,100,000 .......... ..............
)
Total Need.................................. ...... .............. 23,000,000 5 24,150,000
Water and Sewer Infrastructure.............. ...... .............. .............. 5 1,580,000
Water and Sewer Lines Extensions........ ( \3\ 100,000,000 18,000,000 .......... ..............
)
Sewer Line Pump Stations Upgrade........ 18 \4\ 200,000 3,600,000 .......... ..............
Sewer Treatment Facility Upgrade........ 2 5,000,000 10,000,000 .......... ..............
Total Infrastructure Development Needs...... ...... .............. 31,600,000 .......... 33,180,000
Total Housing and Development............... ...... .............. 131,000,000 5 6,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on Annual Live Birth Rate of 112 for the years 1990 through 1997, 30 percent births first birth to
teen mother, 30 percent of births, first birth to non-teens. First live birth signals household formation.
Estimated Annual Rate of Household formation 50.
\2\ 78 persons per 14 units.
\3\ 1 million per 5 million of development.
\4\ Per pump station.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York University
a center for cognition, learning, emotion and memory (clem)
New York University respectfully seeks the Subcommittee's support
for a project of scientific research which is not only an important
priority for the University, but which we believe will advance national
interests through enhanced scientific understanding of normal brain
development as well as the many disabilities, disorders and diseases
that erode our ability to think and learn.
The University proposes to establish a Center for Cognition,
Learning, Emotion and Memory. This Center will draw on the University's
strengths in the fields of neural science, biology, chemistry,
psychology, computer science, and linguistics to push the frontiers of
our understanding of how the brain develops, function malfunctions,
matures, and ages. In addition, as a major training institute, the
Center will help prepare the next generation of interdisciplinary brain
scientists.
Our project addresses the research and programmatic priorities of
this subcommittee and the Congress. We thank the Congress for taking
the time to consider and give its support to the important research
being conducted in this area. We at New York University firmly believe
that in the coming decades, a federal investment in mind and brain
studies will repay itself many times over.
To establish this Center, New York University is seeking $10.5
million over five years to support and expand the research programs of
existing faculty, attract additional faculty and graduate and
postgraduate trainees, and provide the technical resources and
personnel support that will allow us to create a premier, world class
scientific enterprise. Individual researchers in the science programs
at NYU compete for investigational support through traditional routes,
quite effectively. However, these traditional funding sources do not
address the specific need for establishment of a new cross-disciplinary
area of scientific study, particularly one that transcends biomedicine,
psychology, education, computer science, cognitive science, and
linguistics. Nor do they provide the extensive funding necessary for
faculty and student support and personnel and technical resources.
Exploration into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms of the
nervous system can help educators, scientists, health care providers,
policy makers, work force managers, and the general public by enhancing
our understanding of normal brain development and function in both
children and adults, thereby helping us to detect and correct
impediments that affect our ability to learn, to think, and remember,
and to mature as productive members of family and society. Research in
this area will ultimately contribute to a better understanding of how
children learn at different stages; how childhood and adult learning is
shaped by different cognitive styles; how aging affects memory; and how
diseases alter memory.
New York University is well poised to make important contributions
in this area. Founded in 1831, the University today is the largest
private university in the United States, with over 49,000 students
representing a broad range of backgrounds and coming from every state
and over 120 foreign countries. NYU comprises thirteen schools,
colleges, and divisions and is known for the excellence of its schools
of law, medicine, film, and business; the Institute of Fine Arts; the
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; and departments in the
Faculty of Arts and Science, notably neural science, chemistry,
biology, psychology, French, English, philosophy, anthropology and
economics. Located in the heart of the world's most cosmopolitan and
diverse city, New York University is a leading national--and in many
fields, international--center of scholarship, teaching and research. It
is one of twenty-nine private institutions constituting the
distinguished Association of American Universities, and is consistently
among the top U.S. universities in funds received from federal sources
and from private foundations.
The Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory will be an
interschool, interdisciplinary unit linking faculty, students, programs
and resources from several schools of New York University. These are
the Faculty of Arts and Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical
Sciences, School of Medicine, School of Education, and Center for
Digital Multimedia. CLEM, to be housed at the University's Washington
Square campus within the Faculty of Arts and Science, will be the locus
for laboratory research and training in fundamental neurobiological,
psychological and computational studies of the nervous system. In
addition, CLEM will be a point of convergence for faculty and students
seeking to incorporate these research perspectives into their own work
in education, medicine, and technology, and seeking as well to enrich
laboratory research with interdisciplinary collaboration and conceptual
bridges.
The new Center will be administratively housed within the NYU
Department of Neural Science. This department includes affiliated
investigators from biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer
science, medicine, and mathematics. It is a national center of research
and teaching, encompassing a pre-eminent faculty, and generating
substantial external funding from federal and state agencies as well as
the private sector. The department holds world-class stature in the
study of the nervous system as a sensory communications system, as a
controller of motor activity and as a neural network that generates the
emotional foundation of voluntary behavior. The neural sciences at NYU
have attracted millions of dollars in generous support from, for
example, the NIH, NSF, and EPA, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
the W.M. Keck Foundation, and the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation. Its
faculty have won prestigious awards, being named National Institutes of
Health (NIH) Merit Awardee, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Investigator, National Science Foundation (NSF) Presidential Faculty
Fellow, McKnight Foundation Scholar in Neuroscience, and MacArthur
``Genius'' Fellow. The department cultivates productive linkages with
investigators from other disciplines, educational institutions, and
research sectors. Thus, linkages between neural scientists, and
educators in the NYU School of Education, clinicians in the NYU School
of Medicine, and software designers, computer scientists, and graphic
artists in the NYU Center for Digital Multimedia facilitate the
application of scientific discoveries in the classroom, in the clinic,
and in new technologies.
The new Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory Studies
will bring the University's many strengths in these areas more fully to
bear on the challenges and opportunities that multi disciplinary
studies present. The Center will provide an organizational identity,
core resources, and common focus for the university's efforts. For
students, it will provide an educational forum to apply knowledge
gained in one discipline to problems in other disciplines. For
researchers, the Center's synergistic linkages between basic science
departments, biomedical departments, and mathematical and computational
units will encourage intellectual cross fertilization and will permit
the consolidation of individual efforts in multi disciplinary but in
conceptually coordinated efforts. For colleagues in the fields of
education, medicine, and technology, the Center will facilitate
connections with laboratory scientists and enhance the translation of
research knowledge into health care, educational, and commercial
applications. The enhanced research and training that will be possible
at the Center will attract public and private funding above and beyond
the substantial funds, honors and recognition already awarded to the
University's researchers, and will support the Center's continued
growth and development.
the case for the new center at new york university
New York University has the resources necessary for the successful
creation and operation of a major multi disciplinary research and
training center. There is top-level administrative leadership, a
commitment to science, intellectual and administrative resources,
established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
collaboration, strengths in neuro-biological, psychological and
computational sciences, and standing in the international scientific
community. The Faculty of Arts and Science, which encompasses the
College and the Graduate School, has a preeminent faculty of 560, an
annual operating budget of $197 million, a student population of
approximately 9,200, and over 450,000 square feet of dedicated space
apart from shared University facilities, making it a vital center of
teaching and research. The science enterprise is especially vigorous,
the result of a decade-long multi-million dollar development plan to
renovate research and teaching laboratories and recruit distinguished
junior and senior faculty, a pioneering science curriculum for
undergraduate non-science majors, extensive research experiences for
undergraduate science students, and an enhanced graduate student
training program of supervised research and teaching assistantships.
New York University has, as part of its multi-year science development
plan, created a world-class and widely recognized neuroscience program.
Neural science at NYU is particularly well known for research in visual
processing and perception, theoretical neurobiology, molecular and
developmental neurobiology, and cognitive neuroscience. It has
outstanding researchers and well-established strengths in visual
neuroscience, auditory neuroscience, cognitive science, neuromagnetism,
neurochemistry, neurobiology, behavioral neuroscience, mathematical
modeling, and computer simulation. Recently, these faculty have begun
to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition, learning and
memory. As an example, NYU scientists have made important contributions
to visual processing, deriving the most successful methods available
for studying nonlinear interactions in neuronal information processing;
emotion, giving the first real glimpse into the neuroanatomy of fear;
neural development, with landmark work on the vision system; and the
neural bases for auditory function, including neural sensitivity to
auditory motion stimuli.
With these strengths, New York University is strategically placed
to create a new and distinctive center that will produce a new
understanding of the brain, and new ways of using that knowledge for
improving human health and welfare. The Center for Cognition, Learning,
Emotion, and Memory will capitalize on our expertise in physiology,
neuroanatomy, and behavioral studies, and will build on active studies
that range from the molecular foundations of development and learning
to the mental coding and representations of memory. The Center will
encompass diverse research approaches, including mathematical and
computational modeling, human subject psychological testing, use of
experimental models, and electrophysiological, histological, and
neuroanatomical techniques. Examples of the kinds of research that will
be conducted are taken from our current research efforts, which are now
dispersed in the departments of biology, chemistry, neural science,
psychology, and computer science: Neural scientists are investigating
the anatomical and physiological pathways by which memory can be
enhanced; the conditions that facilitate long-term and short-term
memory; and the brain sites where all these memories are processed and
stored.
Neural scientists, working with computational scientists, are using
digital imaging to characterize normal and pathological mental
processes in humans. Developmental biologists are studying the
molecular basis of development and learning. Vision scientists are
studying form, color and depth perception; visual identification; the
varieties of visual memory; and the relationship of vision and
perception to decision and action. Neural scientists are studying the
neuroanatomy and physiology of emotion. Physicists are taking magnetic
measurements of brain function that trace the decay of memories.
Behavioral scientists are studying learning and motivation, acquisition
of language, memory and aging Neurobiologist and psychiatrists are
conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous system disorders,
especially memory disorders. These existing researchers are well
recognized by their peers and have a solid track record of sustained
research funding from federal agencies and private foundations.
As we move through the last years of the ``Decade of the Brain,''
NYU, through this new Center, is strategically positioned to lead and
contribute to accomplishment of the goals of this important initiative.
Establishment of this Center requires support to bring together
investigators in the different disciplines that address cognition,
learning, and memory. Centralized core resources are required to
facilitate collaboration and add efficiency to the research and
training functions. New faculty who specifically bridge the disparate
areas of knowledge and expertise need to be hired and ``set up.''
Support must be provided to attract students to this new area and to
promote work in this area, especially for those from groups
traditionally under represented in the sciences.
While other academic institution are also conducting research into
brain studies, New York University has special strengths in important
emerging research directions that are central to this Subcommittee's
priority areas. To elaborate, vision studies at NYU follow an
integrated systems approach that has been shown to be the only
successful approach to unraveling this complex system, and that has
established NYU as an internationally known center for neuroscience
studies in vision. The interest in vision, a key input to learning, is
associated with focused studies on the learning process, particularly,
the interaction with memory and behavior. These researchers are
exploring hard and exciting questions: How does vision develop in
infancy and childhood? How does the brain encode and analyze visual
scenes? What are the neural mechanisms that lead to the visual
perception of objects and patterns? How do we recognize letters and
numbers? How do perceive spaces, depth, and color? How does the brain
move from vision and perception to planning and action? How does the
brain process what we see?
Advances in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.--Research conducted
in our Center will by its nature address the loss of memory through
aging or disease (including Alzheimer's), as well as disorders of
emotional systems that commonly characterize psychiatric disorders.
Many of the most common psychiatric disorders that afflict humans are
emotional disorders--malfunctions in the way emotional systems learn
and remember--and many of these are related to the brain's fear system.
Neurobiological studies of emotion and emotional memory in the brain
will generate important information about the brain systems that
malfunction in, for example, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, and post-
traumatic stress disorders. Research into the brain mechanisms of fear
will help us understand where our emotions come from, why these
emotional conditions are so hard to control, and what goes wrong in
emotional disorders. Ultimately, the research will generate clues for
prevention and treatment of emotional disorders, focusing perhaps on
the ways in which unconscious neural circuitry can in effect, be
altered or inhibited.
Accordingly, we believe that the work of this Center is an
appropriate focus for the Environmental Protection Agency. The focus of
the Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory is entirely
consistent with the Department's commitment to the environmental
sciences. We believe the Center will help enhance the Department's
commitment to education, and especially science. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of Lorne M. Mendell, Ph.D., Society for Neuroscience
I am testifying on behalf of the Society for Neuroscience, the
largest scientific organization in the world dedicated to the study of
the brain and spinal cord. Our organization consists of more than
28,000 basic and clinical neuroscience researchers affiliated with
universities, hospitals and scientific institutions. We are very
grateful for this opportunity to present our testimony and for all that
the Subcommittee has done to support neuroscience research.
I present this testimony to advocate for increased research funding
for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Veterans
Affairs to facilitate the progress of research already being conducted
at these institutions and to aid in the funding of future projects and
grants. NSF and VA have faced serious limitations on their research
programs, but last year this Subcommittee showed its support with an
increase given to both NSF and VA. The president's request for fiscal
year 1999 is much higher than what was recommended last year. We hope
that this Subcommittee will do all in its power to recommend an
increase in the appropriation at least equal to that proposed by the
President to provide sufficient funding for NSF and VA for fiscal year
1999.
The field of neuroscience, only a quarter of a century old, has
already made major contributions to the welfare of our nation's
citizens. New insights and effective treatments have been developed for
previously hopeless diseases. Without adequate funding at NSF and VA,
our fight against neurological diseases and disorders such as
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, mental retardation, stroke, severe
depression, schizophrenia, and spinal cord injury, to name just a few,
would suffer serious setbacks.
national science foundation
For fiscal year 1999, the administration's budget request is almost
$3.8 billion for NSF, a ten-percent increase over fiscal year 1998 and
the largest increase ever recommended by a president. The
administration requested $2.8 billion for Research and Related
Activities, an 11.8-percent increase over fiscal year 1998. This
includes $417.8 million for Biological Sciences, a 12.7-percent
increase over fiscal year 1998, and $150.3 million for Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, a 15-percent increase over fiscal
year 1998.
As one of the most broad-based federal funding agencies, NSF is
able to maintain a strong representation of scientists covering diverse
disciplines. This strength allows the agency to fund the best and
brightest researchers, whose discoveries may cross into other
scientific fields. NSF funds researchers at more than 2,000 colleges,
universities, and other institutions in the United States, funds merit-
reviewed research in all 50 states and receives more than 50,000
requests for funds annually, including 30,000 new proposals. The
researchers at NSF have aided the advancement of scientific knowledge
while furthering technological developments around the world. In fact,
five out of the eight Nobel Laureates in the natural sciences in 1996
received NSF funding at some point in their career.
Some of the most exciting and challenging scientific research
opportunities address the mapping of function onto the structure of the
brain. NSF plays the pivotal role in the development and support of
this multidisciplinary research area through activities that provide
unique opportunities for neuroscientists to collaborate with
investigators in mathematical, computer and information sciences and
engineering. Teaming modern brain scientists employing molecular
biology, neurogenetic, neurophysiological, psychological and
computational techniques with investigators in these other scientific
disciplines provides a broad essential scientific infrastructure. This
will ultimately lead to the development of novel solutions to problems
in neuroscience research. A wide spectrum of model systems, ranging
from single-cell organisms to the human brain, are included in the
research portfolio of NSF and hold real promise in unlocking the
mysteries of brain diseases and disorders.
Basic research is the key to understanding neurological and mental
disorders, and medical breakthroughs cannot be achieved without a
significant increase in funding. NSF funds projects that investigate
basic and fundamental questions about brain structure and function, and
NSF funds hundreds of studies on the fundamental properties of the
central nervous system. Much of what we know about complex higher
nervous and cortical function has been the result of basic brain
research. NSF also supports basic research in molecular genetics, which
is highly important to understanding the brain. Much of basic
neuroscience research is at the cellular and molecular level, and these
studies are playing an ever-increasing role in our understanding of
brain function as well as our ability to design therapies to treat the
damaged brain and spinal cord.
A few examples of the important research conducted at NSF:
--NSF-sponsored research supports a great deal of this country's
research in developmental neurobiology, a field dedicated to
how the brain evolves, develops and changes.
--NSF-sponsored research programs have pioneered the development of
cognitive neuroscience, which combines the study of behavior,
cognition and artificial intelligence systems with basic
neurobiological studies.
--NSF-sponsored research studies the physiological and psychological
processes involved in the production and perception of speech
and on the biological basis of language in the central nervous
system.
The Society for Neuroscience is deeply and firmly committed to the
basic science approach and strategy represented by NSF and supports the
Coalition for National Science Funding's request, as well as the
president's request, for a 10-percent increase for NSF for fiscal year
1999. CNSF is an ad-hoc advocacy group that supports enhanced funding
for NSF and is made up of groups with representatives from the physical
and natural sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, mathematics,
engineering, higher education, and the industrial world. We all believe
that research conducted at NSF serves as the very foundation that
scientists build upon.
department of veterans affairs
For fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested $300 million
for the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Program, a ten-percent
increase over fiscal year 1998. We are grateful that this Subcommittee
increased the budget for the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Program
last year, and hope that it will be able to provide an increase to
match at least that of the president for fiscal year 1999. This program
deserves strong support from this Subcommittee since it has failed to
keep pace with inflation during the last decade. It has been a great
concern to many that Congress and the administration, who have been so
dedicated to the continued funding of research and who have seen the
benefits research has to offer, would undervalue the growth of VA
Medical and Prosthetic Research. The level of research funding will, in
a very direct sense, compromise the health of tens of millions of our
veterans and society at large. Advances in research conducted at VA
have a profound and long-lasting impact all over the world.
One of the greatest aspects of VA-sponsored research is that it not
only aids our nation's veterans, it also integrates clinical and basic
research, and assures the rapid transfer of new knowledge from bench to
bedside. Following decreases in funding over the past years, VA has
been able to fund only 15 to 20 percent of approved health research
projects. In 1986, VA funded 2,434 investigator-initiated research
projects. Because of decreasing resources, VA was only able to fund
approximately 1,414 programs in 1997. VA-sponsored research has led to
many discoveries in the neurological arena and promises to bring more
with adequate funding. A few examples of the important research
conducted at the VA:
--VA-sponsored research has developed an Alzheimer's disease
assessment scale that helps diagnose the condition early while
enhancing the quality of life for sufferers of Alzheimer's
disease by producing memory therapy, a non-pharmacological
technique.
--VA-sponsored researchers are developing treatments for
schizophrenia after finding that the severity of schizophrenic
symptoms is associated with the level of dopamine breakdown in
the spinal fluid and blood.
--The VA hopes to expand its Cooperative Research Agreement with the
National Institutes of Health. This collaboration will leverage
VA, NIH and private sector funding to promote investigation in
designated research areas such as spinal cord injury,
rehabilitation and mental health. This cross-agency partnership
will aid in the promise of research not only for our nation's
veterans, but for every American.
In the past, more than half of the nation's physicians received
some part of their medical training through the VA. The VA medical
system provides an excellent opportunity to conduct large clinical
trials, and veterans receive highly skilled medical care through
various affiliation arrangements. However, inadequate funding has
inhibited VA's ability to recruit high-quality researchers as it had
done in the past. As a result, VA has had to reduce its staff,
consolidate hospitals and clinics, and lower a number of existing
services at medical centers. Because of the continuing shortfall of
research funding within VA, the status and the very integrity of the
entire VA research program is in serious jeopardy. This is tragic for
the nation's millions of veterans as VA loses valuable research
opportunities and America's veterans lose experienced clinicians.
After the increase in funding last year, VA researchers were able
to take advantage of their large patient population and coordinated
study programs and continue to have the highest percentage of
physician-researchers in any federal agency. For every dollar
appropriated for research, the VA attracts an additional $1.22 in
extramural, outside funding. This funding comes from federal agencies
supporting VA clinicians, from the private sector, corporations,
pharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit health organizations looking
for unique VA research opportunities.
The Society for Neuroscience recommends $314 million for the VA
Medical and Prosthetic Research Fund for fiscal year 1999, $42 million
over fiscal year 1998. This recommendation is based on the Independent
Budget for the Veteran's Administration which is also supported by more
than 50 groups dedicated to research funding at VA. The Society has
also endorsed the Friends of the VA Medical Care and Health Research's
proposal, which recommends a VA medical care appropriation of at least
$18.1 billion and a VA health research appropriation of at least $300
million. FOVA consists of more than 60 national academic, medical,
scientific, research, voluntary health and patient advocacy
associations. The group advocates appropriate funding for health
programs that serve the nation's veterans.
In conclusion, the Society for Neuroscience recognizes the
constraints that the drive for deficit reduction has placed on all
discretionary programs for fiscal year 1999. We are also fully aware of
the many critical programs this Subcommittee must fund. However, we
strongly believe that the research programs we advocate are investments
for the future, and we urge you to place NSF and VA research among the
Subcommittee's highest priorities.
We are grateful for this opportunity to present testimony to this
distinguished Subcommittee. We encourage members of the public and the
Subcommittee to visit Brain Briefings, our monthly newsletter, on our
Web site (http://www.sfn.org/briefings/) to learn how basic
neuroscience discoveries lead to clinical applications. This testimony
is also available on our Web site (http://www.sfn.org/legislative/
index.html).
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Catherine Baker Stetson, Stetson Law Offices,
P.C., Albuquerque, NM
Our purpose in writing is to provide you with public witness
testimony on the need for increased funding for Indian Housing programs
in fiscal year 1999.
The current budget request submitted by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for programs under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is simply
unacceptable. The no-increase $600 million request addresses neither
the actual need for housing in Indian Country, nor the costs of
transition to a new program.
To illustrate the need of housing in Indian Country, we need look
no further than the Pueblo of Zuni in northern New Mexico. Three years
ago, the Zuni Housing Authority compiled a waiting list of over 200
families seeking housing assistance. The survey found that, on Zuni
lands, two to three families are living together in each home. In many
cases, the houses are not equipped with electricity or running water.
In one case, a family of five was found to be living in a one-room cook
house no bigger than many people's backyard toolsheds.
In southern New Mexico, the Mescalero Housing Authority also has
compiled a waiting list of over 200 families. Overcrowding is even
worse here, with four families living together per house. In addition
to the obvious lack of available housing, Mescalero has also a severe
problem with its 30-year-old water delivery and sanitation systems.
These problems range from low water pressure to poor water quality,
both of which are resulting in increased health risks. Estimates to
repair the system range from $10 to $20 million.
Another example of the housing problems faced by Indian tribes
comes from the Pueblo of Tesuque. A recent survey found that the
majority of available housing stock on Tesuque lands was over fifteen
years old and in poor condition. Respondents listed a range of problems
including overcrowding, erosion, poor plumbing, lack of heating, leaky
roofs, drafty windows, and even a lack of doors.
In Arizona, the Yavapai-Apache Nation has a current waiting list
for housing with over 100 names on it; however, construction is at a
standstill due to a lack of funds. To make matters worse, most current
housing units are over twenty years old and in desperate need of
repair. A large number of survey respondents cited the urgent need for
roof, electrical, and plumbing repairs. Overcrowding is another huge
concern, with as many as four to six families living together under the
same roof.
NAHASDA was passed last year to streamline Indian housing programs
and provide Indian tribes with greater flexibility and autonomy to
address their particular needs. It replaced a number of programs dating
back to the 1960's with the new Indian Housing Block Grant program.
Under the previous programs, tribes were prevented by HUD from
administering their own housing programs. Instead HUD placed this
responsibility with Indian Housing Authorities, which it insisted be
created as separate entities. Now, NAHASDA returns the responsibility
for housing to tribes, which usually have no experience in
administering housing programs, developing and maintaining projects,
collecting rents, handling evictions, and so on.
To assume the responsibility without the benefits of expertise or
experience is devastating. Without sufficient training or transition
funding, it is near impossible. To make matters even worse, tribes must
familiarize themselves with a whole new set of rules by July 1, 1998,
when their Indian Housing Plans are due. Indian tribes are being forced
to make the transition to a new program, with new people, and a brand
new set of rules, all without adequate training or assistance and under
a fast-approaching deadline. This scenario is not designed to bring
success, only more heartburn, struggles, and failures.
The Administration's request does not acknowledge the time and cost
it will take many tribes to integrate their new housing
responsibilities into their community master plans. Nor does it account
for the cost of developing new comprehensive plans, writing reports,
and conducting impact analyses. Nor does it provide sufficient money
for tribes to conduct environmental reviews required now by the
regulations. Tribes are being forced to make a major transition without
adequate funds to pull it off. It is unfair, it is unreasonable, and it
is a recipe for disaster.
Given this situation, we believe it is of paramount importance that
you provide the full authorization of $850 million for the Indian
Housing Block Grant in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Such a level
is critical to the success of the new program and to the confidence of
Indian tribes as they begin this new test in self-governing.
To facilitate the transition and maximize the chance of success, we
also request that the Title VI and Section 184 loan guarantee programs
be funded at $10 million each. These programs complement the Indian
Housing Block Grant and provide tribes with the leverage needed to
encourage private sector participation.
Most tribal leaders are extremely grateful for the autonomy that
NAHASDA will bring in the future. All they are asking is that the new
authority be backed up with the resources necessary to carry it out.
______
Prepared Statement of Theodore Paskinski, President, St. Joseph's
Hospital Health Center
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony. I am Theodore Pasinski,
President of St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center in downtown Syracuse,
New York. St. Joseph's is a non-profit 431-bed hospital and health care
network providing services to Onandaga County and to patients from 15
surrounding counties. St. Joseph's is best known for its ranking as the
# 1 hospital in New York State for open heart surgery in terms of
lowest overall mortality rate. We are very proud of this ranking, which
we have held for two consecutive years. What many people do not know is
that we are also the largest hemodialysis center outside metropolitan
New York. My statement today is focused on these two areas of expertise
at St. Joseph's and how we plan to initiate a chronic disease
management model that will benefit our current patients with heart and
kidney disease and enhance the quality of life for at-risk patients in
the region. We see this initiative as one with not only health
enhancement benefits but also with significant positive economic
implications for the community and the region. I will explain this
dynamic in general terms for the Subcommittee.
St. Joseph's provides over $7 million in bad debt and charity care
to our service region. This comes to about 4 percent of our operating
budget. This number has steadily risen over the years and we feel it
will continue to do so unless some dramatic steps are taken. In order
to increase access to patients who are underserved and at-risk for
disease, we have implemented a program of ``patient-centered care.'' We
believe we achieved our # 1 ranking for cardiac care through this
process, which employs a secondary prevention model for disease
management. By applying a multidisciplinary team approach to heart
disease and preparing patients before surgery and rehabilitating them
after, we have reduced mortality rates as well as the number of second
hospitalizations. We have done this to improve the overall health of an
underserved and underinsured patient base, but also for practical
financial reasons. While our rehabilitation and education programs for
our cardiac patients are largely unreimbursed, we are rewarded by
having to perform less expensive charity care on patients who would
typically end up back in the hospital without disease management.
Recognizing that early assessment is important to reducing the
number of expensive treatments required later in life, St. Joseph's
instituted a Wellness Place at a local mall so that people could stop
in at their convenience. The Wellness Place provides free, general
health screenings such as blood pressure readings, cardiac and diabetes
risk assessment, counseling and patient education and seminars. Last
year, approximately 15,000 people used the Wellness Place. Nearly 1,000
of these people were determined to be at risk for heart disease,
diabetes, or vascular problems. These individuals were offered follow-
up services intended to change lifestyle, such as nutritional
counseling, smoking cessation, exercise programs and other similar
regimens. They were also offered a choice of primary care physician if
none was identified. This is all done at considerable unreimbursed
expense to St. Joseph's but with the knowledge that a great deal of
money will be saved in the long run--for the patient, the Medicare
system and the hospital. The most dramatic economic implications I
mentioned are encompassed within this concept--but not all. At risk
patients are working people who may lose jobs if their disease
progresses. It is important to realize, however, that patients with
diagnosed diseases or who have congestive heart failure, may still work
and lead productive lives if an effective disease management program is
initiated at the earliest stage possible. The other economic benefits
come in the form of the support required for this program. I will
detail those later in this statement.
Assessment is the first line of defense in chronic disease
management; but, there are many other factors involved after this step
is taken. A program for management of disease must adequately educate
patients and then foster a sense of individual responsibility for the
importance of following prescribed regimens. This takes a great deal of
initial monitoring and time spent with patients by telephone, at
community health centers, and in the home. This also requires
coordinated community participation by physicians, nurses, pharmacists,
physical therapists, educators, behavioral specialists and even
employers.
Diabetes, leading to kidney disease and kidney failure, is the most
expensive disease in the country. The second most expensive, and # 1
admitting diagnosis for Medicare, is congestive heart failure. The U.S.
spends more than $7 billion annually in Medicare dollars for these
diseases. The clinical relationship between chronic kidney failure and
heart disease (e.g., high blood pressure) requires similar early
intervention techniques as well as later management, treatment, and
rehabilitation. Utilizing resources already developed and in place for
our cardiac rehabilitation program, St. Joseph's is proposing to
further develop a chronic disease management program focused on
hemodialysis. Combining resources in this way will be cost effective
and has the potential to radically change the management of kidney
disease.
The specific objectives of the program will begin with early
identification. Timely referrals to a nephrologist can be improved so
that more aggressive treatment can be initiated to prolong kidney
function and allow better preparation of the patient for dialysis.
Second, we will identify, investigate, evaluate, and implement
technology that will promote in-center self care and home hemodialysis
modalities. The Aksys Corporation has developed a product that has the
potential of achieving this objective. Third, we will utilize the St.
Joseph's Cardiac Rehabilitation Model for the renal patient. This model
will emphasize education and exercise with the goal of improving the
percentage of patients that stay employed, reduce frequency and length
of hospitalizations, and improve patient acceptance of and control over
disease processes. Finally, we will apply our disease management
techniques to our overall goal of reducing the percentage of candidates
for kidney transplantation. The ultimate goal of the renal patient and
the health care industry is to have renal patients lead a ``normal''
life. Currently, kidney transplantation is the modality that is most
associated with that goal.
Our history of service and specialization in the areas of cardiac
and kidney disease has proven that there is a demonstrable need for a
chronic disease demonstration in these areas for the Central New York
region. The demonstration will involve relationships and initiatives in
Dialysis, Cardiac Care, Home Care, and Wellness. What we lack at this
point, is a facility that can be shared by both cardiac and dialysis
patients. Our current dialysis facility, the largest outside the New
York Metropolitan area, is woefully inadequate in every way. The
facility was originally built as a modular, temporary, unit over 20
years ago. We now treat our overload of patients in the hallways and
have legitimate safety concerns that come with overcrowding and
questions as to the future structural integrity of the plant itself. We
have not replaced this facility for financial reasons but, fortunately,
have been able to treat patients satisfactorily. We have three
satellite clinics in the region that are also operating at capacity.
Our goal is to implement our demonstration program in an on-campus
facility that will provide the space needed for dialysis, exercise
facilities, classrooms, meeting rooms, examination rooms, and nurse and
allied professional training space. Training of personnel is an
important aspect of implementing an innovative chronic disease model.
In terms of economic development for the region, we believe that
keeping our patients healthy and productive will have the most dramatic
impact on the economy albeit in the long term. For the shorter term, we
believe the training programs that we currently provide and will expand
in areas such as home care, nursing, rehabilitation specialists, and
counseling, to name a few, will bring employment opportunities to
people in and around Syracuse. As we expand our efforts, we will likely
train people outside the immediate area to be able to serve the
outlying areas where our satellite clinics are and in homes in more
remote locations. The facility we envision will also provide many
construction jobs over the next couple of years. The two story
facility, equipment and program operation will cost approximately $12.5
million. St. Joseph's is requesting Federal partnership grant funding
of $5.1 million that will also cover start-up operating costs. We
estimate, based on our current services, that our operating budget will
exceed $5.5 million per year. St. Joseph's will provide, through
private sources, the remainder of the estimated total.
We recognize the magnitude of this request but believe
wholeheartedly that this facility, and the implementation of our
chronic disease management model will repay this initial investment
many times over in terms of Medicare savings and in terms of providing
a national model for replication across the country.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Rev. Aloysius Kelley, S.J., President, Fairfield
University
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning an important initiative Fairfield University is
undertaking to ensure the progress of information technology education
and training in several educationally underserved cities in the State
of Connecticut. The need has never been greater for technology
resources and training to be accessible to broad audiences in local
communities, school districts, and the workforce in Connecticut. The
acquisition of current technological skills is essential to ensure that
Americans are equipped to compete in a global marketplace. School
children require as broad a foundation in the uses of technology for
research and learning as do adults attempting to re-enter the workforce
or retrain for new positions. A centralized Information Technology
Center at Fairfield University with state-of-the-art equipment, trained
personnel, and a broad range of technological resources and services
can meet the needs of this wide audience. The potential for this Center
to have a significant impact on the State of Connecticut is further
enhanced by the extensive educational expertise of the faculty. The
three distinct audiences that are faced with the challenges associated
with constant advances in technology are: Business and industry;
primary and secondary education; and higher education.
Technology advances have resulted in an ever-changing workplace
environment. As Connecticut seeks to address the educational needs of
its citizens and meet the workforce needs of employers, it must develop
strategies for capitalizing on the resources and strengths of its
higher education system. Some of the challenges facing business and
industry include:
--Increases in Information Technology Careers.--The Labor Department
estimates that an average of 95,000 new computer scientists,
systems analysts, and programmers will be needed every year
from now until 2005. The Department of Commerce estimates that
technology represents 50 percent of the nation's future
economic growth.
--Changes in the Workplace.--Recent State cutbacks in banking,
insurance, and manufacturing have produced alarming
unemployment rates among highly trained workers. Lower paying
jobs in other industries sectors have replaced these work
opportunities.
--Advanced Technology Skills Requirements.--Connecticut's workforce
training needs center around adult students who must modernize
their skills in order to be competitive in the contemporary
workplace.
Partnerships between higher education and primary/secondary
education can expand resources, create needed experiences and exposure
for students, and help increase academic motivation and commitment.
Some of the challenges facing primary and secondary education include:
--Improving Performance Standards.--A recent study published by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress indicated that more
than half of urban public school students, many from areas
similar to those surrounding Fairfield, scored far below
national averages in reading, math, and, science.
--Increasing Career Development Services.--Federally funded movements
like School-to-Work were founded to help all students improve
and excel in basic and advanced educational areas, while
simultaneously preparing them to enter the modern-day
workforce.
--Providing Advanced Technology Skills Training.--The computer
industry has initiated outreach efforts, putting equipment and
software into schools to train students in information
technology, helping to increase skills and combat the shortage
of high tech employees.
Post-secondary education must research and develop technology based
training modules for students and faculty, design curriculum that
capitalizes on the use of technology in the learning process, and
develop productivity assessment tools to measure results. Some of the
challenges facing higher education include:
--Assessing the Impact of Technology.--A widespread awareness exists
throughout the educational community that technology requires a
thoughtful and systemic assessment so that its full potential
can be realized within the learning experience.
--Training Students and Faculty in the New Technology.--Developing
technology-based training modules for students and faculty that
ensure maximum productivity.
--Designing Technology-Based Curriculum.--The need to develop
instructional innovations that capitalize on the use of
multimedia technology and the World Wide Web.
A Proposed Response to the Challenge: An Information Technology Center
at Fairfield
Telecommunications technology is the vehicle through which
institutions of higher education can provide broader educational access
to the community. Students, teachers, and the unemployed are the
principal potential beneficiaries of on-line training sites throughout
the community. Connecticut's Fairfield University possesses a singular,
award-winning resource that positions it well to make an important
contribution in this regard. An already established state-of-the-art
telecommunications infrastructure consists of a fiber optic network
that links every computer in every classroom, faculty office and
student dorm room to the information super highway. In total, 23 campus
buildings share voice, video, and data services. The backbone portion
of this system was recently upgraded to 155 Mbits from 10 Mbits. In
addition, the University operates satellite dishes for program
downlinking and teleconferencing and a campus television network with
50 channels, eight of which are programmed exclusively by the
University. The University won a national award for its technology
infrastructure.
Fairfield University has recently committed to a major expansion
and renovation of its Library with the express purpose of establishing
an Information Technology Center for the 21st century. This facility
will support both the traditional functions of the University Library
as well as serve as the center for the digital library of the future.
In the same vein, the University has recently made commitments to an
expanded role for Academic Computing on campus, particularly in the
areas of training and support. The convergence of computing, library,
and information technology resources has been occurring with more and
more frequency across the country. On university campuses, this trend,
along with that of collaborative teaching and learning, is proceeding
at a rapid pace. Recently, Fairfield University combined the Library
and Academic Computing under a single administrative unit. The
continued interaction of technology with media, libraries, and
instruction suggests that the centralization of these resources can
provide benefits both to the University and to the community.
Building upon the existing telecommunications infrastructure,
Fairfield University can provide expanded services to the community.
Utilizing a distance learning model, training opportunities can be
developed serving the school systems, State agencies, and businesses.
Proposed new training opportunities can be designed to increase skills
thereby improving workforce readiness for emerging employment in the
State.
The Center will offer:
A Facility With: Satellite up-link and redistribution; Electronic
classrooms; Multimedia rooms; An auditorium; and Computing and
projection equipment.
Technology Resources: Electronic information databases; and A
digital library collection for community and business use.
Technology Services: Training and Retraining; and Distance
Education.
Technology Research and Development: Research in collaborative
teaching and learning; and Technology based curriculum design
consulting.
Fairfield University's telecommunications capability is currently
one of the best in the United States and can, with minimum
reprogramming, be upgraded to provide comprehensive educational
resources to nearby Bridgeport, Norwalk, Stamford, and other
communities. The construction of the Information Technology Center, as
part of an expanded library and information center, is needed in order
to provide a centrally located facility to coordinate current outreach
efforts, and to develop new ones which maximize the use of technology
and available resources. The proposed Information Technology Center
will become a hub for collaboration with all facets of the community.
A wide variety of partnerships will be forged within the University
and with the community in an effort to capitalize on the resources
available in the Information Technology Center. A Technology Learning
Team will be created at Fairfield comprised of a broad range of
partners including University administrators, faculty, businesses,
primary and secondary education representatives, community agencies,
etc. The expertise of this team will be utilized to build new
partnerships and expand existing ones.
Fairfield's Technology Learning Team will initially pursue the
following projects to benefit the students and faculty at Fairfield.
The Team will:
--Design and develop a productivity assessment model that will
measure the impact of technology uses in the classroom and the
learning process.
--Create and test a technology-training module that instructs faculty
in the potential uses of various information technologies for
teaching and learning.
--Create and test a student technology training module designed to
enrich the students' knowledge about the uses of technology and
to enhance their skills in the identification, evaluation, and
effective retrieval of information from a wide range of print
and electronic resources.
--Assist faculty in the development of technology-assisted curriculum
that supports all aspects of their coursework.
--Train a broad range of faculty and students, creating a cadre of
trainers that will expand the University's technology-
knowledgeable human resources.
Fairfield's Technology Learning Team will build partnerships with
the corporate community in an effort to meet a variety of training and
education needs identified by the industry partners. These
collaborations will:
--Develop instructional models that are tailored for corporate
training and retraining programs.
--Provide support for Fairfield University's Center for Global
Competitiveness by teaching corporate clients about knowledge
management and competitive intelligence.
--Train corporate managers and graduate students in the evaluation
and retrieval of electronic information resources.
Fairfield's Technology Learning Team will work with representatives
from primary and secondary education and the existing outreach programs
in the various Schools within the University. Collaborations will be
designed that address the emerging needs at the primary and secondary
level as they relate to technology and career development. The
Information Technology Center at Fairfield will:
--Provide a state-of-the-art facility that will be open to the
community for ``train-the-trainer'' sessions in various aspects
of technology utilization.
--Introduce primary and secondary educators and administrators to the
cost-effective utilization of the latest information
technologies.
--Provide a forum for direct consultation with teachers and
administrators in the effective design of technology-based
curriculum models.
Fairfield University's telecommunication capability is one of the
best in the country. The construction of an Information Technology
Center will help to coordinate and expand existing outreach efforts as
well as provide the foundation for new collaborations. Using expanded
technology resources, faculty will be able to design and develop new
curricula. The current technology resources at Fairfield, combined with
the existing expertise of faculty and administrators, represents a
strong foundation upon which this Information Technology Center will
build. This proposal seeks a federal partnership grant in the amount of
$5,525,000 to assist in the establishment of the Center at Fairfield
University. A Federal partnership demonstration at Fairfield University
has the potential of meeting the economic development needs of
Connecticut's schools and businesses as well as the broader community
throughout the State.
This request for $5,525,000 will provide part of the financial
resources to upgrade, expand, and renovate a large portion of the
library structure and establish the proposed Information Technology
Center for the State of Connecticut. The total project budget is
$18,504,785 and will construct and equip 14,000 square feet of new
space. The estimated cost for the entire Library expansion is
$18,504,785. Fairfield University will provide the balance of this
project through University resources and gifts.
We believe a Federal partnership demonstration at Fairfield
University has the potential to meet the economic development needs of
Connecticut's schools and businesses as well as the broader community
throughout the State. We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention and
consideration of our proposal for such a partnership opportunity.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter M.P. Norris, President, SPIN-2
Mr. Chairman, SPIN-2 appreciates the opportunity to submit this
statement for the hearing record of outside witness views on issues
concerning the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act for VA/HUD and
Independent Agencies.
SPIN-2 is a joint venture between Aerial Images, Inc., of Raleigh,
North Carolina and SOVINFORMSPUTNIK, the commercial division of the
Russian Space Agency. The goal is to commercialize high resolution, 2-
meter remote sensing imaging from Russian mapping satellites. After a
successful launch and recovery within the past three weeks, the data is
expected to become available within the next several weeks. At two
meter resolution, SPIN-2 data is 250 percent higher resolution than
previously available through remote sensing channels. Ten meter
resolution stereographic SPIN-2 data is used to produce the most
accurate digital elevation models in the world made from satellite
data.
The focus of my remarks concerns NASA's purchase of available
remote sensing imagery to support the commercial industry. The NASA
Justifications discuss the planned launch of LANDSAT-7 for December,
1998. A recent NASA press release indicates that the launch has been
delayed. The data from that satellite will not be available until
sometime next year. SPIN-2 will have data earlier and at a higher
resolution than that of LANDSAT-7.
In the commercialization of remote sensing data, the archives of
USGS will be structured to accommodate and reconcile data from a number
of sources. SPIN-2 desires that our data be among that collection.
A number of government agencies are already purchasing our data,
and we have a sizable order list for the new data becoming available
shortly. We are on the screen for the industry, and would favor the
NASA purchase of a diverse data set for its commercial acquisition
exercise this and next fiscal years.
SPIN-2 data is currently being utilized by the private sector,
international development organizations, and U.S. federal, state and
local agencies for:
(1) Analyses of environmentally polluted areas by comparing old and
new 2-meter resolution data (Historical 2-meter resolution data is
compared with current photography to understand the past and present
appearance of a number of polluted sites around the U.S.);
(2) Detailed mapping of government facilities (A number of
locations of US. government facilities at foreign locations and in the
U.S. are being mapped by U.S. government agencies using 2-meter
resolution data.);
(3) Preparation of detailed digital elevation models (These digital
elevation models are composed of height measurements at 10 meter
intervals allowing for production of topographic maps with contour
lines at 10 meter intervals. The elevation information is also being
used by the cellular telephone industry to assist in radio frequency
modeling by identifying locations that obstruct radio transmissions.);
(4) Preparation of detailed GIS databases for E-911 activities (2-
meter resolution, ortho-rectified data allows for precise location of
individual dwellings for assignment of discrete addresses utilized by
the enhance emergency dispatching system.);
(5) Urban planning (The center lines of roads and the outlines of
city structures are easily delineated using 2-meter data. These
features are essential components of GIS systems used by urban
planners.);
(6) Monitoring of crop cultivation (Field boundaries of cultivated
areas are easily, and accurately delineated using 2-meter data. This
information is used for increasing the accuracy of crop yield
estimation.);
(7) Cadastral map planning (2-meter resolution data issued for
production of preliminary land ownership maps in areas of the world
where cadastral map technology is just being introduced. These
preliminary maps serve as an interim database until refined, and more
accurate maps can be compiled.);
(8) Serving as a base for delineation of utilities information such
as electrical grid layout for cities; and
(9) Production of 1:50,000 scale topographic maps (The satellite
system that acquires 2-meter resolution and 10-meter resolution imagery
was originally designed specifically for the production of 1:50,000
scale maps.).
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present this
statement for inclusion in the outside witness hearing volume. We would
be pleased to answer any questions you or the staff might have.
______
Prepared Statement of Mary Ann Kleine, Director of Administration, Gold
Gate University
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of Golden Gate
University and its Agriculture Business Resource Center located in
Monterey, California. The Agriculture Business Resource Center is part
of the Monterey campus of Golden Gate University, and has been in
existence for twenty-six years.
Although degree programs are, and have been, the traditional focus
of Golden Gate, the Monterey campus has significantly broadened its
focus to include training programs which are targeted at specific
industries. Most notable among these programs is one oriented toward
the agriculture industry, created in response to the demands of various
growers, processors and shippers which are part of California's $22
billion per year agriculture industry.
Unlike many industries, the agriculture industry has traditionally
been under-represented in training programs except for ad-hoc
workshops. In addition, the industry has an unusually inflexible
schedule which necessitates innovative program design and delivery. For
example, many Salinas Valley growers and processors move their
operations and employees to Yuma, Arizona in the winter to ensure year-
round production. Golden Gate has responded by transporting instructors
to the Yuma sites so that employees can be trained without interruption
to production cycles.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee is exceedingly familiar with the
importance of the agriculture industry to the U.S. economy, and the
positive trade balances the industry has produced over the years.
California has played a key role within the industry, leading all
states in the production of more than 75 crop and livestock
commodities. In fact, California's agriculture industry produces a
total of 250 different crop and livestock commodities which generate
some $22 billion in direct production, and another $70 billion in
related activity. In 1994, the state produced exports of $12 billion
which represented 15 percent of all U.S. agriculture exports. That
trend continues today as exports are holding to record proportions.
The response to the Golden Gate Agriculture Business Resource
Center has been overwhelming. In large part, this response is driven by
the export potential for expanding the sales of California agriculture
products into existing and developing markets overseas. For example,
the Pacific rim countries continue to provide expanding market
opportunities for California agriculture products. Additionally, the
traditional European markets have further opened to U.S. products, as
have the components of the former Soviet bloc. In the case of these
``new republics,'' shipments of fresh products and seeds are increasing
at a dramatic pace.
In the domestic U.S. market, consumer tastes have changed as people
have become more health-conscious and demanded more fresh vegetables
and fruits in their diets. In addition, so-called ``convenience'' items
continue to be produced on a broader scale to accommodate the needs of
middle class families where two-earner households are prevalent.
Each of these market demands--rising market expectations in other
countries, domestic expectations of more fresh vegetables and more
convenience foods--are welcomed in the grower, processing and shipper
communities in California. But those demands which come to the growing
regions force changes and new needs within the industry.
Perhaps the greatest general need which accompanies these growing
market demands is the requirement for companies to have a skilled,
permanent, year-round workforce so as to increase job retention. This
way, all growers, processors and shippers will be better able to meet
growing domestic and export demands. At the same time, from the
employee perspective, training provides employees with enhanced skills
and knowledge levels which, in turn, allow them to advance within their
companies.
The need for a skilled, permanent and year-round workforce is very
important for companies to remain competitive in an industry which is
being driven in many new directions. As you know, for example, foreign
competition is always a threat due, in large part, to lower operating
costs. Nevertheless, Monterey County, California, as an example, has
been able to compete with Mexico and Latin America in the fresh fruit
and vegetable markets as these countries have not been able to
distribute fresh value-added products effectively in the U.S. Rather,
the value-added products exported to the U.S. from these areas remain
canned and frozen.
A large part of the success in the case noted above is rooted in
the development and adoption of new technologies which allow for light
processing and packaging of vegetables. This facilitates the ability of
the Monterey County growers and processors to better compete with lower
cost rivals. To remain competitive, however, the various technologies
must be continually updated and adapted so that cost-saving production
processes are enhanced.
An excellent example of the value of enhanced production can be
found in the value-added sector of the agriculture industry. This
sector, which came into existence in the 1960's, is now one of the
strongest segments in California's agriculture industry in general, and
that of Monterey County in particular. Over the years, since its
inception, this sector has been enhanced in great leaps.
The highly specialized, value-added sector requires in-house
company laboratories, research and development staff and equipment, the
latest automated packaging equipment, sophisticated and modern
facilities and a highly skilled workforce. This means that agriculture
companies must train and retrain employees to meet the challenges of
new and expanding technology bases.
It is the need for increased skill levels which has motivated the
various companies in the Monterey County agriculture industry to seek
ways to develop employee skills on a continuing basis. As mentioned
earlier, the companies need a skilled, year-round and permanent
workforce to meet market demands. In providing opportunities for
employees to enhance their skills, the company ensures continuity of
its workforce because employees can be promoted from within.
The Golden Gate Agriculture Business Resource Center has designed
and is carrying out a broad-scope program which addresses the needs of
the agriculture companies and employees in the Monterey County growing
regions. With its high-quality, flexible approach, the Center's
programs cover all levels of employees in a way which does not
interfere with production schedules of the individual companies.
Golden Gate implements its program through various customized
curricula designed to address the training needs of individual
companies. Companies benefit from employees who are trained in the
latest production techniques, product distribution methods, computer
technology, refrigeration engineering and a range of other subject
areas which are important to the agriculture industry. The employees
benefit from programs carried out at work sites which eliminates their
having to take time off to enroll in traditional academic programs.
The range of the Agriculture Center program crosses all skill
levels, allowing for workers with low levels of education to be trained
in ways which facilitate advancement. It is not uncommon to see lesser-
educated workers who have moved to supervisory positions from jobs in
the growing fields. The program also allows for the identification of
people coming out of the welfare system who are potentially suited for
agriculture industry employment. If, for example, a company has a need
for entry-level workers, the Golden Gate Center will design a regimen
to identify and train such personnel so that they are in a position to
fit into the company system.
A large portion of the success of the Golden Gate program is based
on a clearing-house system which monitors the educational and training
needs of the agriculture industry, particularly in the Monterey County
area. Those needs are translated into high quality training programs
which utilize state-of-the-art methods and technology for delivery. In
this sense, the Agriculture Business Resource Center is part of a long-
range, comprehensive vision to provide skills necessary for employees
seeking job advancement, displaced workers who need marketable skills
and young people looking for alternatives to traditional college
degrees. In each case, the very important agriculture sector of
California's economy will benefit, particularly that portion of the
industry in the Monterey County growing regions.
Mr. Chairman, as the demands for diversified training on the part
of the Central Valley agriculture industry have grown, Golden Gate has
adapted and expanded its programs accordingly. As part of the
evolution, Golden Gate has dedicated two buildings, located at Fort
Ord, California, which were acquired through base closure and re-use
development activities.
The buildings and the surrounding area are in relatively good
condition though in need of renovation. Golden Gate's plan is to locate
the Agriculture Business Resource Center in these two buildings, given
their proximity to the Central Valley California growing regions. From
this headquarters site, the entire area can be serviced through mobile
classrooms, distance learning and on-site training. Further, the site
will allow for additional program development in the future. The total
cost of the entire project is $2 million which includes building
renovation and internal resource development. Golden Gate will operate
the Center with its own resources.
Mr. Chairman, California is the world's sixth largest exporter of
agricultural products. For each $1 billion in export sales, nearly
30,000 jobs are created. Monterey County is the top vegetable producing
county in the nation, with the agriculture industry employing 25
percent of the county labor force. All of this is to say that there is
significant opportunity for the California agriculture industry to
expand and further enhance its role in the U.S. economy.
The Golden Gate Agriculture Business Resource Center, based on
existing industry needs and demands, can be a catalyst to move this
growth forward. In so doing, we will strengthen the state and local tax
and employment bases many times over the level of this modest grant
assistance request. I ask that you consider this request as one that is
good for the U.S. agriculture industry, and can be a model for other
states in the future.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Sunia Zaterman, Executive Director, Council of
Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA)
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities (CLPHA), thank you for inviting us to testify before the
subcommittee. As you know, CLPHA's membership manages over 40 percent
of the country's 1.3 million public housing units, has assets ranging
from 1,250 to 160,000 units, and administers a significant share of the
section 8 tenant-based assistance program.
We greatly appreciated your presence and stirring comments at a
recent CLPHA members' meeting. Unfortunately, your prediction that 1998
would be ``the year of public housing'' is having trouble
materializing. Instead, we seem headed for the ``year of roads and lots
of them'' and more tax cuts. Having listened to ``balanced budget''
speeches for some years as our funds decreased, we are indeed now
confused as to how the budget caps, the ISTEA bill, and tax cuts can
all be honored with anything left for domestic discretionary programs,
such as public housing. Assisted housing seems headed downhill fast:
First, housing for poor people has again been asked to pay for
military and weather emergencies--in vast disproportion to other
accounts--with the House's rescission of a whopping $2.2 billion slated
for tenant-based assistance, heretofore very broadly supported housing
aid. And this comes at a time when, according to Secretary Cuomo's
testimony before this subcommittee, the country has an unprecedented
net loss of affordable housing.
Second, Congress has failed to adopt the deregulatory changes that
have been pending, in various forms, since the end of the 104th
Congress. We are grateful for the help that you and Senator Bond have
given us on a year-to-year basis with the ``extenders'', but many PHA's
are hesitant to gamble on the permanence of the more far-reaching and
sensitive changes, such as replacing the federal preferences. The
public housing program remains much the same over-regulated program
that we all lament--several decades of HUD regulations and
Congressional amendments piled sky-high.
Third, HUD's request for operating subsidy is short $338 million
and the requested level for modernization funds virtually leaves the
backlogged needs untouched. As things are going, our initial estimate
shows that losses in the operating support will approach $5 billion
between fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 2001. For rehabilitation, we
have lost $1.2 billion each year since fiscal year 1995, when our funds
were rescinded to pay for the weather disasters and terrorism of the
time. It appears that Congress is repealing sub silencio its sixty-year
promise of decent shelter for all Americans.
Who are these Americans that have provoked such fiscal punishment?
Mainly the 3.4 million poor households in public housing: the old (44
percent of our units), the disabled (15 percent of admitted
households), and the hundreds of thousands of children and their
parents who make up the balance. In addition, there are 5.3 million
families in HUD's category of worst-case housing: overpaying for rent
or living in substandard housing or both. Perhaps representative of it
all is the Secretary's comment at your hearing that we are making
history by not replacing as many affordable housing units as we are
losing.
Our good news: (1) HOPE VI, although complicated, is moving forward
successfully on many fronts: rejuvenating inner city neighborhoods,
creating more socially viable communities, forging PHA partnerships
with nonprofits like the Enterprise Foundation and LISC, and with
entrepreneurial developers and architects. Just around the corner from
where we now sit, the Ellen Wilson Redevelopment will show what can be
done. Not too many miles from Mr. Neuman's district, Milwaukee's
Hillside has transformed a pariah project into a neighborhood
centerpiece. In Mr. Freylinghausen's State of New Jersey, Newark has
replaced unmanageable family highrises with attractive modest
townhouses. Mr. Chairman, we appreciated the visit by subcommittee
staff to the Park du Valle development in Louisville, Kentucky and hope
their report was reassuring. (2) Of CLPHA's 60+ large housing authority
members, only two remain ``troubled'': Chicago and St. Louis, both
recovering with experienced executive directors.
Congress asked us to house the poorest and we are--the average PHA
household income is $6,500 per year--but now we are enduring
debilitating cuts. We gave the quid: serving the poorest, but are not
receiving the quo: financial support. Public housing has become a major
unfunded mandate and the residents and those on waiting lists are the
sufferers. In fiscal year 1999, we seek the following, which we believe
to be reasonable requests, especially since we lost so much in the
deficit era: Operating Subsidies: $3.156 billion; Modernization/
Capital: $3.7 billion; HOPE VI Revitalization: $550 million; Drug
Elimination Grants: $350 million; Supportive Services: $75 million.
Operating subsidies.--HUD incorrectly claims that it is fully
funding the Performance Funding System (PFS). Its request for $2.8
billion is over $300 million shy of the correct figure of $3.156; its
claim of an additional $113 million in carryovers is an unfulfilled
assumption. Each year, HUD operating subsidy requests understate PFS
requirements by relying on annual rosy scenarios which are never
corrected when the scenario turns un-rosy.\1\ This time the Department
and OMB have overestimated the number of units being demolished, thus
reducing subsidy needs. After a thorough review with our members, who
are busily removing obsolete projects, we are convinced that HUD has
overestimated demolitions by at least 10,000 units this year, thus
understating subsidy by more than $20 million for that alone. Second,
HUD has assumed a 7 percent increase in tenant income over the next two
years--an extraordinary leap unsubstantiated by any experience the
PHA's are having. HUD banks on the current good times, but the current
economy does not affect: (1) the 44 percent of our households who are
elderly; (2) nor our many welfare families struggling with welfare
reform--some dropping out of welfare-to-work and others dropped out by
sanctions who now look to minimum rent. These are hardly the bases for
a jump in rental revenue. Our estimate is a 3 percent increase. In
dollars, the difference between our estimate and HUD's is $80+ million
in needed subsidy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ So bad has been this practice that the Housing Act was
temporarily amended to make HUD calculate PFS ``without adjustments for
estimated or unrealized savings'' (see section 9(c)(2)). In the
deliberations over H.R. 2, amendments were sponsored by Messrs. Joseph
Kennedy and Barney Frank to bar this practice. We urge the Committee to
reinstate the cited Housing Act language, which--unlike HUD's
practice--expired in fiscal year 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernization/capital.--HUD's own studies, the National Commission
on Severely Distressed Public Housing, and now OMB agree that $2.1
billion is needed annually just to meet normal wear and tear costs in
the public housing stock. HUD's request of $2.5 billion is barely above
these ongoing maintenance needs, and in the words of the OMB Passback,
``will allow the Department to tackle [only] a small part of the
enormous capital needs backlog.'' Need I say more? The objective
analyses conclude that an annual level of $4 billion to $4.5 billion is
needed to bring the stock up to standard within a decade. We were on
track to that goal before the fiscal year 1995 rescissions. The pre-cut
appropriation of $3.7 billion, coupled with the $550 million for
revitalization of our HOPE VI sites, had us headed to decent shelter
for all our tenants within the foreseeable future. We understood budget
constraints in a deficit situation, although we never knew why poor
people's needs had to be forgone so disproportionately. But the needs
for modernization didn't change after the rescission. We hope that you
will put us back on the right track by raising our modernization level
at least to $3 billion, if not more.
The funds appear to be in the subcommittee's hands. The Secretary
testified to $690 million recoverable from the section 8 mod rehab
program; other sources say that figure may top a billion dollars. This
is surely enough to handle the elderly housing shortfall and to step up
modernization efforts. PHA's look forward to the reforms that will
enable them to seek a broader social and economic mix and to become
more self-sustaining, but it can't market a substandard housing stock.
Modernization is a program that also effectively and efficiently
addresses the Secretary's aim to enhance employment in the inner
cities. Nothing is more effective than construction in providing jobs
to persons of very low and modest incomes. The multiplier effect in the
market place is that $1 billion in construction creates at least 18,000
jobs in direct construction and production of the broad range of
materials, appliances and equipment that comprehensive rehabilitation
entails. Under section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, as amended, low income families are to be hired in carrying out
such HUD grants. Moreover, the construction-related unions are reaching
out to public housing and other inner city persons to bring them into
the work force. Unlike the new, vaguely-described programs proposed by
HUD, modernization is a sure thing and the PHA's can, in most cases,
deploy the money quickly to private contractors. It is a ``win'' all
around: better housing, a protected property investment, and jobs where
they are needed most.
We also request that your bill once again allow PHA's to use up to
10 percent of any year's modernization funds for operating purposes.
Such flexibility is very helpful.
HOPE VI.--We believe that this program is fulfilling its goals and
we greatly appreciate the Chairman's support. This is a complicated,
bold effort and you have been patient as HUD and the PHA's have
ventured forward. Dreadfully overbuilt, obsolete projects are being
removed across the country--these well-documented caricatures of public
housing are being replaced with sensible apartments and townhouses.
Newark is a gleaming example--13 highrise buildings have come down in
the last two years and hundreds of townhouses will be built in their
place. We are also increasing tenant satisfaction and income diversity:
Milwaukee's Hillside has become a prized development with the number of
working households increasing from 15 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in
1997; DC's Ellen Wilson redevelopment is a neighborhood nonprofit/
entrepreneur joint venture, combining for-sale housing with a limited
equity cooperative, a broad range of incomes, private management, and
supportive services for the residents. These stories are duplicated in
Atlanta, Baltimore, Louisville, and elsewhere. PHA's have made many
partnerships with private developers and managers and, according to
Deputy Assistant Secretary Bacon of HUD's HOPE VI office, have
leveraged private investments in 90 percent of these undertakings
through use of low income housing tax credits.
Beyond removing blight and improving housing opportunities, HOPE VI
will be the catalyst for neighborhood renewal in many areas. It is an
investment that will turn liabilities into assets. However, HUD's
emerging total development cost policy flirts with ending this
prospect--it is a pennywise pound foolish approach. CLPHA has given
your staff an elaboration of our concerns and recommendations, which
aim to carry out this subcommittee's history of pushing HUD to
revitalize housing and neighborhoods, right up to last year's
neighborhood initiative.
We support HUD's request for $550 million, but ask that you bar the
use of these vital capital and social support funds for tenant-based
relocations. Section 8 funds necessary for HOPE VI relocations were
taken from the Department's allotment for various forms of relocation
or FHA project support, until several years ago when Congress first
allowed use of HOPE VI for relocation certificates, because HUD claimed
it had mistakenly failed to request the section 8 setasides. HUD has
converted that temporary relief into a permanent, sizeable, annual bite
out of HOPE VI; it totaled $70 million in fiscal year 1997. This
diversion undermines the result Congress seeks in transforming obsolete
public housing and, in the process, will allow a backdoor creation of
long-term section 8 obligations.
Section 8.--We are devastated that Congress would once again turn
to housing assistance for the poor, to the tune of $2.2 billion, to pay
for military operations, this time in Bosnia and Iraq, and for weather
calamities. Patriotism and equity would say that if offsets are to be
made, and we are among those that think them unnecessary, all should
share. Please reconsider this action. Housing has given at both home
and the office. In addition, please discontinue the 3-month delay for
the reissuance of vouchers and certificates. The ``savings'' from a
delay are no longer necessary, families are being denied needed
shelter, and the scheme has high bureaucratic costs.
With respect to HUD's request for 100,000 vouchers, it is premature
to comment until the issue of ending or replacing the $2.2 billion
rescission is resolved. In all events, we recommend that the Committee
first address the need to conserve what subsidized housing that exists:
a proper operating subsidy and restored modernization funds. Of course,
we all want to serve as many poor persons as funds permit.
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.--No public housing-related
program has been better received by PHA's and residents alike than
PHDEP. PHA's are using drug elimination grants to successfully enhance
police protection and address crime prevention in innovative ways
through cooperation with residents and local officials, but more
assistance is needed to build on these successes. PHDEP has not
received a general funding increase in several years; CLPHA recommends
$350 million for fiscal year 1999.
We also recommend that PHDEP funds, at least for large housing
authorities, be distributed by formula to enable PHA's to plan long-
range crime prevention strategies, recruit more effectively, and
provide assurances of continued security. Large PHA's would accept a
reduced per unit dollar grant in exchange for the predictability of a
formula; the present competitive structure undermines sustained,
effective program performance. As with modernization funding, use of a
formula would therefore be more efficient than a competitive grant and
would reduce staff burdens on HUD. It would also avoid the inexplicable
failure of HUD to distribute the entire fiscal year 1998 appropriation,
and we appreciated your questioning of HUD about that occurrence during
these hearings.
Supportive services.--The supportive services earmark in CDBG has
been a small program with significant positive results for the elderly
and the disabled, particularly in ``mixed population'' settings, that
is, where the elderly and nonelderly disabled share the same building.
As this subcommittee recognized in both fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998, service coordinators provide ``tested and proven benefits''
and are ``an essential management tool in elderly housing'' (see H.
Rpt. 105-175 and H. Rpt. 104-628, respectively). Last year's setaside
of $7 million for service coordinators and congregate housing services
was an important first step in meeting the needs of our elderly
population, which occupy more than 40 percent of the nation's public
housing units, but more is needed. CLPHA urges that overall supportive
services funding be increased to $75 million and that a proportionate
40 percent of that sum ($30 million) be directed exclusively for
service coordinators for the elderly and mixed population buildings,
and congregate housing services for the elderly. As the supportive
services monies have also been helpful in training residents for moving
to work, the balance of the overall earmark should go to welfare-to-
work programs for public housing families.
Deregulatory reforms.--As stated earlier, we continue to await the
enactment of permanent, comprehensive deregulatory reforms; it has now
been almost six years since the last major public housing bill. Despite
the brevity of this year's legislative calendar, CLPHA remains
cautiously optimistic that your colleagues on the authorizing
committees will soon conference the pending reform bills, H.R. 2 and S.
462, because we cannot afford another year of disappointment. While we
are very grateful for the reforms provided by the appropriations
committees on an annual basis--the so-called ``extenders''--most PHA's
are unwilling to implement significant changes on a one-year lease.
Given the proven uncertainty of the authorization process, we urge you
to make permanent the essential reform provisions already contained in
past appropriations bills, specifically: repeal of federal preferences
and one-for-one replacements, the ability of PHA's to establish ceiling
rents, minimum rents of up to $50 per month, and flexible modernization
with the ability to use up to 10 percent of any year's modernization
funds for operating purposes. We understand your discomfort in making
permanent changes through an appropriations act, but the precedent
exists with last year's market-to-market legislation. Furthermore, none
of the ``extender'' provisions conflicts with the pending authorization
bills, and all are desperately needed. Please help.
conclusion
CLPHA believes that its foregoing recommendations are the minimum
funding levels necessary for PHA's to fulfill their statutory
obligations and to serve many of America's most vulnerable citizens.
With adequate financial support and permanent programmatic reforms, we
can still make 1998 ``the year of public housing.'' Again, thank you
for the opportunity to testify and your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Homes and Services
for the Aging
The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
(AAHSA) is pleased to have this opportunity to present our comments on
the fiscal year 1999 Administration budget request for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AAHSA is the largest
organization representing nonprofit sponsors of senior housing who own
and manage over 300,000 units of market rate and federally assisted
housing--including the largest number of sponsors of HUD Section 202
elderly housing facilities. We are especially interested in the
affordable housing needs of older persons and the budget proposals
regarding federally assisted housing that affect this special
population. This committee has shown particular interest in ensuring
that increasing numbers of elderly persons are appropriately housed in
suitable, affordable, decent and safe housing.
Unlike many other private housing sponsors, as nonprofit sponsors
of elderly housing, we respond to entirely different motivations in
developing housing for the poor, the needy, and the frail elderly. Our
motivation is born of mission not profit. As stated in our testimony to
this committee last year, ours is a mission of helping those whose
needs are the greatest and of striving to provide housing to all low-
income elderly who need it. However, despite the best of intentions, it
is still not enough. HUD's 1996 study on worst case housing needs shows
that 1.2 million households are headed by an elderly person who spends
more than 50 percent of their income on rent or lives in severely
substandard housing. And, the recently released 1997 HUD study
continues to show over 1.5 million poor elderly persons with unmet
housing needs.
Because the Administration has proposed such sweeping changes in
the Section 202 program this year, our testimony will predominantly
focus on that program. But, in addition, AAHSA is concerned with
funding for service coordinators, Section 202 conversion, and
modernization and retrofit. The Section 202 Supportive Housing for the
Elderly program is near and dear to us because it works, and it works
well. However, we are faced with a triple threat from the Clinton
Administration proposal that recommends a fundamental change in the
program. We are pleased that during Secretary Cuomo's testimony before
the committee, several committee members expressed their strong concern
with, and opposition to these program changes.
However, the Administration proposal does serve the purpose of
opening the debate over the program's future and structure. But, before
we seriously consider changing the program: changing its funding
structure, changing its delivery mechanism, changing its
administration, changing the type of housing it provides, we need to be
cognizant of what those changes will entail. We need to take care that
they are the changes we desire, and we need to keep foremost in mind
how they may ultimately affect the residents they are designed to
serve.
overview
The Section 202 program has served the national interest for almost
forty years. It has evolved from a loan program to a capital advance
program; from housing for the low- to moderate-income elderly to
housing the very-low income elderly; from an unsubsidized program to
being coupled with Section 8 rental assistance to project rental
assistance contracts. And as the program has evolved, it has kept pace
with the changing needs of the residents being served. The elderly are
the fastest growing segment of our nation's population, and the aging
of the baby boomers will only accelerate that trend. There are some
330,000 residents in 6,200 Section 202 facilities. But, as stated,
despite the success of the program, we are not nearly meeting the need
and demand for new housing.
Since 1994, only thirty to forty percent of the applications
eligible for Section 202 awards have been funded. There simply are not
enough available funds for the other sixty to seventy percent of
applications. In a recent national survey sampling of our members, we
discovered that in some 470 projects, there are over 52,000 persons on
the waiting list and the average wait is over two years.
hud fiscal year 1999 funding request
The first Administration threat to Section 202 concerns its funding
level. Funding for the development of new Section 202 units has dropped
significantly since the late 1970's when over 20,000 units a year were
funded. Congress appropriated $645 million to build close to 7,000
units in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the
President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget would cut Section 202
funding to $159 million with a third of the funds earmarked for
vouchers. That means only $109 million would be available to expand the
supply of affordable elderly housing. That amount would only develop
1,500 units, representing a funding cut of over 83 percent compared to
current levels.
HUD has characterized this budget as the smartest and largest HUD
budget in a decade. However, when it comes to Section 202, this budget
is neither smart nor large. The Administration funding request is
troubling and puzzling. Troubling because it slashes funding for the
Section 202 program when federal policymakers are speaking of budget
surpluses, and when the Administration proposes the largest funding
increase for other HUD programs in a decade. Puzzling because while the
Administration praises Section 202, it proposes legislative changes
that would destroy the fundamental nature of this special, unique and
successful program. From our perspective, the Administration's proposal
amounts to little more than trying to save the program from its
success.
There is also a jaded cynicism at work that says if the
Administration proposes no, or low funding for Section 202 in their
budget, due to the popularity of the program, Congress will add the
funding back. The Administration would then apply the budget authority
it would have requested for Section 202 to other programs.
Unfortunately, if the budget authority is added back by Congress,
elderly housing providers are perceived as having ``robbed Peter'' the
other housing programs, to ``pay Paul'' the Section 202 program. This
is an alienating, no-win, zero-sum game that is divisive and
destructive. What makes this scenario all the more insidious in fiscal
year 1999 are the generous increases proposed in most other areas of
the HUD budget. The latest revelations by Secretary Cuomo of some $691
million in excess Section 8 moderate rehabilitation funds found by GAO
in their recent audit of HUD accounts, would provide a respite in
fiscal year 1999 from this Administration budget chicanery, provided
these funds are applied to the Section 202 program as suggested by
Cuomo during his testimony before this committee. We oppose the
inadequate funding request and would encourage Congress to restore
Section 202 funding to the fiscal year 1996 level of $830 million by
using the excess funds identified by HUD Sec. Cuomo during his
testimony before the appropriations committees as being available for
that purpose.
consolidation of section 202 into home
The second threat to Section 202 concerns block granting. In
addition to funding cuts, the Administration recommends consolidating
the Section 202 program with the HOME Program. We are obviously
disturbed by this proposal. If the objective is to subsume Section 202
into HOME, Section 202 loses its distinctiveness as a program for the
elderly. If the objective is to maintain Section 202 as a separate
program under HOME, it simply becomes another set-aside program whose
funding level and administration at the state and local level are
problematic. If the objective is to give states and localities greater
control over decisionmaking for local housing needs, then a more
appropriate funding level should have been proposed, one that would
ensure more than four elderly housing units to be constructed in each
congressional district. If the objective is to reduce HUD's
administrative burden because of staff capacity and downsizing, then
there are other avenues that should first be explored, including
consolidated processing. However, if the objective is to eliminate the
Section 202 program, then HUD's proposal has merit.
We are somewhat mystified that HUD has chosen to propose shifting
Section 202 into HOME in light of the recent findings from the GAO
study comparing HOME and Section 202. As pointed out in the study, from
1992-1995 the Section 202 Program funded 1,400 elderly housing
projects, with nearly 52,000 new units for the elderly, while HOME
funded only 30 elderly housing projects with less than 700 new units.
Section 202 and the HOME program are both successful and valuable
programs; but the two programs are designed to meet fundamentally
different housing needs.
HOME has not been used as a major producer of new, affordable
housing units for low-income elderly persons. Historically, that has
been Section 202's role. Section 202 has been the primary government
program responding to the special housing needs of low-income elderly
Americans. Section 202 elderly housing delivers high quality housing
and appropriate supportive services at affordable rents to low-income
seniors. It is recognized as the nation's best and largest producer of
affordable housing for low-income seniors, and has built a major
portion of the nation's supply of quality, affordable elderly housing.
In this light, it does not make sense to shove a square peg into a
round hole. Section 202 should not be shoved into HOME to satisfy
questionable objectives. We oppose the consolidation of Section 202
into HOME.
tenant-based vouchers vs. project-based assistance
The third Administration threat to Section 202 concerns vouchers.
We believe it is important to place into context what makes elderly
housing unique. As we see it, elderly housing has special design
features unique to older persons. Features such as grab bars, pull-
cords, elevators, increased lighting, and the like. Elderly housing
provides a sense of physical and emotional security, which is
particularly crucial for vulnerable older persons. It prevents a sense
of isolation. It provides a cost effective means to link supportive
services with housing for older persons, particularly critical in
promoting independence and delaying more costly institutional care.
And, elderly housing promotes community volunteerism. It provides and/
or links community services, both formal and informal, through public
and private institutions, neighbors, families and friends. Housing for
the elderly is more than a unit, it's home and it's a community.
However, vouchers are ideally intended to address short-term and/or
transitional affordable housing needs, while older persons seek
suitable and affordable long-term housing. The older resident seeking
elderly housing wants a place to age-in-place and prevent or delay
placement in other institutional care settings. Vouchers make it more
difficult for older persons, particularly more frail elderly and
persons who need the service enriched environment of elderly housing,
to find available and suitable housing in the community. Vouchering out
part of the Section 202 program would assume that the critical need is
simply affordability, discounting the other benefits of elderly
housing. Vouchers assume that suitable housing for the elderly already
exists in the community. Vouchers do not expand the supply of
affordable housing for the elderly.
The short-sighted Administration proposal to reduce funding for
Section 202 and ``do more with less'' by substituting vouchers for new
units, at best, diverts attention from the real issue which is to
address the inadequate supply of suitable and affordable housing for
the elderly. At worst, it is a cynical attempt to boost the
Administration's budget numbers on paper by claiming a greater number
of elderly will be served, however inappropriately. We oppose the
Administration's proposal to turn Section 202 into a tenant-based
rental assistance program using vouchers.
service coordinators
In our facilities we have witnessed the very real phenomenon of
``aging in place.'' Residents who moved into Section 202 projects
twenty years ago when they were 65 are now 85 years of age. The profile
of an average resident in elderly housing is a very-low income eighty
year old woman receiving Social Security, and approximately 90 percent
of these women are living alone. Our Section 202 facilities have come
to reflect the vast support systems that are necessary for this frail,
elderly woman to live independently with dignity and respect. We have
long viewed Section 202 facilities as a part of the continuum of care
with the benefits from economies of scale that accompany groups of
older persons living together. Under the continuum of care concept, we
now have a conglomerate of services in our Section 202 facilities to
help make life easier for the elderly we serve, and the use of service
coordinators in elderly housing facilities is an integral part of the
continuum of care.
In fiscal year 1999, the Administration once again proposes to fund
service coordinators as an eligible activity in a new $55 million
Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services (ROSS) program under the
Community Development Block Grant program, with $7 million earmarked
for service coordinators and congregate housing. Similar to last year,
this amount is expected to be applied towards expiring contracts. It is
our understanding the $7 million amount requested by the Administration
is woefully inadequate, as some $15 million is needed to renew service
coordinator and Congregate Housing Services contracts in fiscal year
1999. While we are aware of the committee's reluctance to create new
set-asides, we would prefer that service coordinators be a part of
routine operating expenses funded through the Section 8 amendment
account. We urge Congress to provide at least $25 million in funding
through the Section 8 amendments account to renew expiring service
coordinator and congregate housing contracts and for new service
coordinator contracts in fiscal year 1999.
modernization and retrofit
A missing factor in the continuum of care equation for existing
Section 202 and other elderly housing facilities is a funding mechanism
for modernization and retrofit. Just as our residents are aging-in-
place, our housing is aging, and is in need of modernization and
retrofit. Some of this housing is over thirty years old, and many
facilities need retrofitting to accommodate their aging residents,
including adapting facilities for the delivery of supportive services.
Many facilities are simply obsolete in terms of design and building
materials; yet, these facilities generally lack the reserves for
adapting their units to meet the needs of aging residents. Since the
demise of the Flexible Subsidy program at HUD, there has not been a
federal program to provide funds for modernization of federally
assisted housing facilities. This should be corrected and we believe
Congress should provide funding for modernization and retrofit to meet
the long term physical plant needs of elderly housing facilities.
conversion of section 202 loan portfolio and section 8 rental
assistance
Over 4,500 Section 202 facilities containing approximately 215,000
units were financed using direct government loans to nonprofit sponsors
from 1976 through 1988. Between 2001 and 2015, virtually all of these
projects will have expiring section 8 contracts. Like the FHA
multifamily portfolio, a primary issue facing this housing is the need
for renewal of the Section 8 contracts. Current HUD policy calls for
the renewals for one year only. In 2001, approximately 300 projects
will require renewal. The number will climb each year until it reaches
4,500 projects in 2013. The estimated annual cost of renewal will be
approximately $250 million in 2001 and will increase to $2.9 billion in
2021.
Congressman Rick Lazio recently led 17 bi-partisan co-sponsors in
introducing H.R. 3635, the Senior Citizen's Housing Financial
Restructuring Act of 1998. The legislation would allow sponsors of Sec.
202 facilities having outstanding loan balances and receiving Sec. 8
rental assistance to convert to the capital advance program with an
accompanying project rental assistance contract. In its simplest form,
conversion could have no or little financial impact on Section 202
facilities, but would budget the subsidy in a different way. By
forgiving the principal and interest of the loan, the need for Section
8 subsidy is reduced by the amount of principal and interest payment.
The forgiveness of outstanding Section 202 loans would initially have a
one-time mandatory budget cost. However, the up-front costs of
conversion would, over time, be more than offset by ongoing
discretionary savings and lasting benefits to the HUD budget, elderly
housing sponsors, and elderly residents.
We believe that Congress has a unique opportunity to address these
issues because of the much-anticipated budget surplus, and unlike much
of the rest of the Section 8 inventory, the contract renewal problem
does not become significant for Section 202 until after the year 2000.
Unfortunately, the forgiveness of debt on the Section 202 portfolio
cannot be achieved under current budget scoring conventions. While we
know this does not directly fall under the purview of this committee,
we would encourage Congress to pursue the feasibility of changing
existing budget rules to permit debt conversion to be carried out in
ways to minimize the budgetary impact and reflect the real, long-term
costs, savings, and other benefits of converting this inventory.
conclusion
In a final note on Section 202, despite our strong support for the
Section 202 program, we are not willing to allow the program to rest on
its laurels. Section 202 is a good program, but we believe it can be
made better. As HUD looks for ways to relieve its administrative
burdens, we think Section 202 can also contribute to streamlining and
administrative reform, especially through consolidated processing with
a small, experienced staff in its funding availability application and
award process; and paperwork reduction in its funding reservation
process. Former Secretary Cisneros once called Section 202 the crown
jewel among HUD programs, and we agree. It has served this nation well,
and we believe that with the appropriate attention, reform and
resources it can continue to deliver high quality housing and
appropriate supportive services at affordable rents to low-income
seniors. We stand ready to work with this Subcommittee and the Congress
to make these things happen.
______
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Prepared Statement of Chuck Burns, National Service Director, AMVETS
AMVETS has not been the recipient of any federal grants or
contracts during fiscal year 1998 or the previous two fiscal years.
Our testimony today will address primarily the National Cemetery
System (NCS). Since its establishment, the NCS has provided the highest
standards of compassionate service to each eligible veteran and family
member eligible for interment in the system's 115 cemeteries. The
National Cemetery System, its monuments, its land and the historical
interments contained within are indeed national treasures which must be
maintained, nurtured and, most of all, protected.
Despite NCS's continuing high standard of service and the
Administration's proposal for an $8 million increase in budget
authority for fiscal year 1999, we feel the system has been and
continues to be under-funded. Since 1973, the annual burial rate within
the NCS has almost doubled to 73,000. Most WWII veterans are in their
mid-70's and the overall projected veteran death rate is expected to
peak in the year 2008 with more than 620,000 deaths. Already, the
average monthly death rate of WWII veterans is 36,000.
Even with the projected completion of new cemetery projects in
Chicago, Cleveland, Albany, Seattle and Dallas-Fort Worth in calendar
year 1999 and projected expansion of six other existing cemeteries, NCS
will be hard pressed to meet the growing demand for space. We join with
this Committee in encouraging the Administration to consider adding
even more cemeteries to meet the growing demand for burial in a
National Cemetery.
Historically, only about 10 percent of eligible veterans opt for
interment in an NCS facility. Despite this seemingly low demand rate,
if funding is not forthcoming for new acquisitions and development of
existing land, the legal entitlement will be an empty promise, as
veterans are denied access based on non-availability. Of the 115
National Cemeteries, 22 are closed to new burials and 36 are only open
to cremated remains. Within the next two years, the number of National
Cemeteries open to first interments of casketed remains will be further
reduced by 50 percent.
Donations of space have helped ease the crunch somewhat, although
in a piecemeal fashion. A truly national system must have the
unqualified budgetary support of both the Executive and Legislative
branches to ensure that all eligible veterans who so choose have the
right to interment in a National Cemetery. We repeat our call for a
National Cemetery or state-supported cemetery within 75 miles of 75
percent of the veteran population. We remain steadfast in our support
for fiscal responsibility, but it must not come at the expense of
denying an eligible veteran the most enduring benefit--burial in a
National Cemetery.
The members of the Independent Budget acknowledge the ability of
the dedicated staff of the NCS who continue to ably perform their
mission despite budgetary shortfalls, inadequate staff, aging equipment
and increased workload. The NCS is a labor intensive workplace, which,
in the foreseeable future, cannot be supplanted by machinery. The
unique maintenance needs of the NCS can only be met through adequate
staffing. Currently, the NCS is deficient 275 FTEE's (full time
employee equivalents) that need to be funded to ensure the adequacy of
cemetery operations.
The National Cemetery System is faced with a number of serious
challenges. Chronic underfunding remains the most serious and presents
the greatest challenge to accomplishing its mission of compassionate
service to each veteran and family eligible for burial. We have
identified other major areas of concerns and recommendations that are
crucial to ensuring the integrity of the NCS.
Inadequate Burial Space.--Presently, NCS has approximately 330,000
gravesites available with the capacity for adding 1.5 million sites on
undeveloped land, if resources become available. The State Grant
Program, operated by VA, provides an reasonable and accessible
alternative to those who desire burial in a national cemetery, but
because of distance must forgo the use of the burial benefit. Recent
state budget surpluses in many states have made it possible for more
states to participate in this program.
Recommendation
Congress must ensure that adequate burial space is available for
all eligible veterans and their families who desire burial in a
national or state veterans cemetery. Funding for the State Grant
Program must be adequate to cover all state funding requests.
Dignified Burials for Deceased Veterans.--Citing budgetary
constraints, the military services have not been providing honor guards
for veterans funerals, beyond a single representative of the Department
of Defense who presents a flag to the deceased veterans's family on
behalf of the Government. This denial of appropriate honors is
particularly shameful during this time when so many WWII veterans are
being buried in national cemeteries.
Recommendation
Congress should enact legislation guaranteeing that all veterans
being buried in national cemeteries receive appropriate military
honors; further Congress should direct a transfer of funding from DOD
to VA that would be sufficient for VA to contract for these appropriate
services.
Quantico National Cemetery.--Opened in 1983, Quantico was viewed as
the alternative site for burial for Arlington National Cemetery. Less
than six percent of Quantico's 790 acres have developed for burials.
Because of its large inventory of available, yet undeveloped land,
Quantico holds the potential of becoming the largest of all the
national cemeteries.
Recommendation
VA should develop and Congress should support an aggressive
marketing strategy and major construction plan to make Quantico
National Cemetery a desirable and well-utilized alternative to burial
in Arlington.
Recently, national attention has focused on possible abuses
regarding eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery. Burial
in Arlington for casketed interments is reserved for military personnel
who died on active duty, career military retirees and holders of our
Nation's highest military valor awards, such as the Medal of Honor,
Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal and Purple Heart, among
others. Under the rarest of circumstances waivers are granted to
individuals for compassionate reasons or other reasons related to high
government service.
During the last few years, requests for waivers have grown from a
handful during previous Administrations to more than 69 during the
Clinton presidency. The veterans community is duly concerned about the
perceived arbitrariness of the waiver process in this Administration.
Inequities in the application of the process demeans the honor of
burial in a national cemetery. We urge the Congress to enact
legislation that would require all waivers for burial be subject to an
apolitical, uniform process that ensures objectivity and guarantees the
integrity of current regulations regarding burial in Arlington National
Cemetery.
Our recommendations to ensure the integrity of the National
Cemetery System for fiscal year 1999 cost out at approximately
$99,919,000 an increase of $13 million in budget authority over fiscal
year 1998 and includes the costs for our recommendation of an
additional 275 FTEE's to meet current and future staffing needs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Heart Association
you are a target
Chances are heart attack or stroke will be the death or disabler of
you or someone you love. Heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular
diseases are America's No. 1 cause of death and a main cause of
disability. Cardiovascular diseases account for nearly 1 of every 2
American deaths.
The American Heart Association is pleased to provide
recommendations on fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Department
of Veterans Affairs' Medical and Prosthetic Research program. This
program consists of four components: Cooperative Studies Program,
Health Services Research and Development Service, Medical Research
Service; and Rehabilitation Research and Development Service.
you can make a difference
The AHA, dedicated to reducing death and disability from heart
attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases commends this
Committee's support of the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program.
AHA applauds the President for proposing a 10.3 percent increase over
the fiscal year 1998 budget, but we believe that this amount would not
provide sufficient funds for this important program. The AHA is
concerned that insufficient money is being devoted to America's No. 1
cause of death--heart disease--and our No. 3 cause of death and the
leading cause of permanent disability--stroke.
how you can make a difference
The AHA recommends a fiscal year 1999 appropriation of at least
$325 million for the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program. Our
recommendation, consistent with that of the Friends of VA Medical Care
and Health Research, will allow maintenance of fiscal year 1998
initiatives and full implementation of new initiatives for fiscal year
1999. The AHA challenges our government to significantly increase funds
for heart and stroke research through the VA Medical and Prosthetic
Research program. We strongly urge the VA to establish heart and stroke
centers to advance the battle against heart attack, stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases--America's No. 1 killer and a leading cause of
disability. Our government's response to this challenge will help
define the health and well-being of citizens in the next century.
still number one
Heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases have been
the leading cause of death since 1919. More than 58 million Americans--
1 in 5--suffer from one or more of these diseases. Millions of
Americans have risk factors for cardiovascular diseases--about 50
million have high blood pressure, 38 million have high blood
cholesterol and 50 million smoke. Over the last 20 years there has been
a dramatic increase in the indicators of prevalence of heart disease
and stroke.
While heart disease and stroke occur at all ages, they are most
common in Americans over age 65--an age group that is now about 13
percent of the U.S. population and will be 20 percent by year 2010. By
the year 2010, the percentage of veterans over 65 years of age will be
about three times that of the general population or 42.5 percent of the
veteran population. The VA's planning models recognize that its aging
patient population demands more care. More than 4.49 million or 16.4
percent of the veteran population reported suffering from ``heart
trouble'' in the 1993 National Survey of Veterans. More than 990,000 or
3.6 percent of the veteran population are stroke survivors. As the
veteran population ages, the number of veterans afflicted by heart
disease and stroke will increase substantially.
Cardiovascular diseases put an enormous burden on our economy.
Americans will pay an estimated $274 billion for cardiovascular-related
medical costs and lost productivity in 1998. No other disease costs
this nation so much money and that amount is expected to increase
dramatically with the growth of the senior citizen population.
insufficient va resources devoted to heart and stroke research
The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Prosthetic Research
program plays an important role in heart and stroke research and
deserves the strong support of Congress. In fiscal year 1997, VA
support for research on heart disease was $16.1 million (a 23.6 percent
reduction from fiscal year 1996), accounting for 6 percent of the
fiscal year 1997 VA's Medical and Prosthetic Research budget. In fiscal
year 1997, VA-supported stroke research represented $3.1 million or 1.2
percent of the VA's Medical and Prosthetic fiscal year 1997 budget. In
addition to its own program, the VA investigators spent an additional
$33.8 million on heart research and $7.7 million on stroke research
from outside sources.
va heart and stroke research benefits all americians
The mission of the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program is to
``discover knowledge and create innovations to advance the health and
care of veterans and the nation.'' While the primary purpose of the VA
health care system is the provision of quality health care to eligible
veterans, VA-supported research contributes to the quality of care by
bringing talented and dedicated physicians into the VA system.
Discoveries from VA-supported research benefit veterans, science and
the world's health.
VA cardiovascular research represents an integral part of the
overall scientific effort in this field. VA researchers include many
nationally recognized, distinguished scientists and several Nobel
Laureates. Several VA investigators have been acknowledged for their
work in cardiovascular research. Also, VA investigators provide core
faculty support at major medical schools affiliated with VA
institutions.
The Medical Research component of the VA Medical and Prosthetic
Research program supports both basic and clinical research, primarily
investigator-initiated peer reviewed studies. This component provides
funds for support of VA-based faculty members (M.D's or Ph.D's) at
various stages in their careers, multicenter cooperative studies--a
large portion of which are cardiovascular studies--and research
equipment. The presence of a VA research program aids the VA. This
small, but internationally recognized, highly competitive research
program in fiscal year 1998 supports 2,123 investigators at 115 VA
facilities nationwide.
VA cardiovascular research is largely clinical in nature. The VA is
a major contributor to this nation's clinical research, playing a
unique role in the research community because of its ability to
immediately translate research findings into clinical practice.
VA-supported research has produced landmark results and
revolutionized treatment in the cardiovascular area. You and your
family have benefited directly for VA heart and stroke research.
Several cutting-edge examples follow.
Inflammed Arteries.--Many heart attacks and strokes are the end
result of atherosclerosis, the disease process that causes obstructed
blood vessels. VA-supported research has shown a major way inflammation
causes atherosclerosis or hardening of the arteries. Scientists found
large numbers of a certain receptor on inflammatory cells in heart
blood vessels. If researchers can create a way to stop the receptor,
atherosclerosis could be prevented.
Prediction of Heart Bypass Surgery Success.--In 1995, an estimated
573,000 heart bypass surgery procedures were performed on 363,000
patients in the United States at an average cost of $44,820 per
procedure. Generally, one year after surgery, 10 to 15 percent of the
vein grafts used in these procedures become blocked. VA research has
found that reducing the temperature of the solution used to harvest the
vein grafts may stop heart arteries from becoming clogged with
atherosclerosis. The study also discovered that while a daily aspirin
stops artery vein blockage for a year after surgery, long-term survival
depends on the extent of underlying disease before the procedure and
the length of time of the procedure.
Gene Therapy May Help Heart Failure.--About 4.9 million people in
the United States suffer from congestive heart failure, the leading
cause of hospitalization for Americans age 65 and older. VA researchers
have found in non-human studies that inserting a gene in heart cells
affected by heart failure started an active increase in the chemical
that triggers the cells to beat stronger. Additional research in this
area could provide a new lease on life for millions of Americans.
Stroke Risk Reduction.--About 9 percent of older Americans suffer
from the most common type of an irregular heartbeat, atrial
fibrillation, a risk factor for stroke. Research has shown that low
doses of the blood thinner warfarin can lower the risk of stroke by
about 80 percent in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation.
Stroke Survivor Improvements.--Stroke is the leading cause of
permanent disability in the United States and the No. 3 killer. VA
studies have produced therapies to enhance quality of life for
survivors. VA researchers have created a software program to assess and
correct stroke-related speech disorders and have developed a
rehabilitation procedure to restore arm movement. Researchers have
identified seven pathways associated with motor recovery from stroke.
Medication vs. Bypass Surgery.--An estimated 573,000 coronary
artery bypass surgery procedures were performed on 363,000 patients in
the United States in 1995. In a landmark study, VA researchers found
that heart medication works just as effectively as coronary artery
bypass surgery for most patients with blocked arteries.
Aspirin and Angina.--About 7.2 million Americans suffer from angina
(chest pain) due to insufficient blood supply to the heart. In another
landmark study, VA research found that aspirin cuts deaths and heart
attacks by 50 percent in patients suffering from unstable angina.
Angioplasty Benefits.--In 1995, an estimated 434,000 angioplasty
procedures were performed on 408,000 patients in the United States to
restore blood flow to the heart by widening narrowed arteries. VA
research was the first to evaluate this procedure. Results showed that
after undergoing angioplasty, patients suffered less pain and can
exercise longer than those taking only medication. Another study showed
that clot-busting drugs produced comparable results to those of
angioplasty at cost savings of $3,000 per patient.
Heart Failure Drugs.--About 4.9 million Americans suffer from
congestive heart failure, the often disabling inability of the heart to
pump sufficient blood throughout the body. A VA study showed that heart
medications can enhance the heart's pumping ability and keep sufferers
of congestive heart failure alive. These study results have
revolutionized heart failure treatment.
Non-Q-Wave Heart Attack.--Of the estimated 1.1 million Americans
who will suffer a heart attack this year, an estimated 750,000 will
experience the non-Q-wave--EKG classification--version. VA research
showed that noninvasive treatment of non-Q-wave heart attack survivors
is just as effective or in some cases better than invasive procedures
such as bypass surgery and angioplasty. Higher death rates for victims
were associated with invasive procedures.
heart and stroke research challenges and opportunities for va
The research advances highlighted above and other progress have
been made possible by congressional support of the VA Medical and
Prosthetic Research program. Thanks to research, no longer does a heart
attack or a stroke necessarily mean immediate death. Now that more
people are surviving, heart attack and stroke can mean permanent
disability, costly medical attention, and loss of productivity and
quality of life.
Challenges and research opportunities to advance the battle against
heart disease and stroke abound. Examples of on-going VA research are
highlighted below.
Heart Failure Studies.--The growing number of patients suffering
from congestive heart failure has earned this disease the title of
``the new epidemic.'' VA research is examining whether the addition of
beta-blockers to standard treatment reduces deaths and enhances health
and quality of life of patients with heart failure. Another study is
creating a large DNA bank of sufferers to examine the genetic basis of
heart failure. The first large scale, international, randomized
clinical trial is assessing the role of digitalis in the modern
treatment of congestive heart failure. It is evaluating the effects of
this 200-year old treatment in preventing deaths from heart failure,
the leading cause of hospitalization of Americans age 65 and older.
Heart failure represented more than 22,000 VA hospitalizations in 1990
at a cost of about $100 million. Research results will improve
treatment of heart failure.
Heart Attack Research.--An estimated 1.1 million Americans will
suffer a heart attack this year. VA research is assessing the most
cost-effective way to diagnose and treat suspected heart attack victims
without the use of costly invasive procedures. One such procedure being
examined is a computer analysis of the heart's electrical signals
during exercise. Findings from this study could save money, improve
health care and reduce the number of surgical procedures.
Warfarin and Aspirin Study.--Heart attack remains the single
largest cause of death in the United States. A VA-sponsored study is
analyzing the effects of warfarin, a blood thinner, plus aspirin versus
aspirin alone in reducing deaths from heart attacks. Research results
could save 20,000 lives each year.
Atherosclerosis and Iron Research.--Atherosclerosis or hardening of
the arteries is a major risk factor for heart attack and stroke. VA
research is evaluating the concept that too much iron in the blood
stream causes atherosclerosis. Results of this research could
revolutionize the treatment of heart attack and stroke.
Cholesterol Drugs.--About 37.7 million American adults have
elevated blood cholesterol levels, a major risk factor for heart attack
and stroke. An estimated 11 million veterans are at increased risk of
heart disease due to high cholesterol levels. A clinical trial is
comparing the use of the drug gemfibrozil versus a placebo in reducing
cholesterol levels. Results could provide cost savings if the drug
gemfibrozil can replace the more expensive statin drugs.
Irregular Heart Beat and Stroke Drug Trial.--An estimated 1.5
million Americans suffer from atrial fibrillation, the most common
irregular heart beat, which causes more than 75,000 strokes a year. A
VA study is evaluating the efficacy of two promising drugs in
maintaining normal heart beat. Research results will enhance treatment
for atrial fibrillation and reduce stroke risk.
Stroke Rehabilitation.--Stroke will strike about 600,000 Americans
this year; most survivors will remain permanently disabled. Studies to
enhance functional capacity and capabilities of stroke survivors are
underway.
The number of VA research applications has grown slightly over the
last five years, but funding cuts and/or inflationary increases
severely restrict support for approved applications. For the programs,
which were reviewed for fiscal year 1998 funding, more than 30 percent
of approved applications were funded. Ten years ago, 50 percent of the
approved applications were funded.
Through fiscal year 1998, total dollars appropriated for the
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Prosthetic Research program
have decreased $79.3 million since 1985 at an average annual rate of
about 3 percent. However, there has been a decrease in terms of
constant ``1985 dollars'' of $60 million.
The Medical Research programs highlighted below are of interest to
the AHA.
Investigator-Initiated Studies.--During fiscal year 1998 this
program will constitute 56 percent of the Medical and Prosthetic
Research appropriated budget and will support an estimated 1,431
investigators. Under the President's 1999 budget, this program would be
level funded from the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level. These
investigators comprise the core of all VA research and provide the
preceptorship for career development awardees.
Cooperative Studies.--In fiscal year 1998 this program supports 48
clinical trials. The VA offers a unique opportunity for cooperative
studies due to close linkage among hospitals. These studies provide a
mechanism by which research on the effectiveness of diagnostic or
therapeutic techniques can achieve statistically significant results by
pooling data on patients from a number of VA hospitals. The Cooperative
Studies Evaluation Committee evaluates proposals developed by teams of
VA clinicians and biostatisticians. The VA under this mechanism has
supported many landmark clinical trials in the cardiovascular field
(e.g., studies in high blood pressure treatment and coronary artery
bypass surgery). Under the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, this
program would receive a $4 million increase from the fiscal year 1998
appropriation.
Career Development Awards.--Applications for these awards are
reviewed both locally and by the VA Central Office. This program has
experienced a decrease in the number of awards by 58 percent from a
high in 1991 of 212 awards to a low of 88 awards in fiscal year 1997.
In response to the Research Realignment Advisory Committee suggested
rejuvenation of this program, a review began in fiscal year 1997 for
the VA's Medical Research Service, Health Services Research and
Development Service and, for the first time, Rehabilitation Research
and Development Service. This will result in an anticipated 135 Career
Development Awards in fiscal year 1998.
action needed
Today's investment in biomedical research will lead to future
returns. These returns include continued decreases in death rates from
heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases, reduced federal
outlays for hospital and long-term care expenses, a well-trained cadre
of biomedical researchers and a more healthy and productive society.
The American Heart Association recommends a fiscal year 1999
appropriation of at least $325 million for the VA Medical and
Prosthetic Research program. Our recommendation is consistent with that
of the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research. An appropriation
of this amount will allow maintenance of fiscal year 1998 initiatives
and full implementation of new initiatives for fiscal year 1999. A
fiscal year 1999 appropriation of at least $325 million for this
program would continue current research momentum in cardiovascular
diseases within the VA and help to maintain the VA's vital role in the
overall scientific effort in this field. We strongly urge the VA to
establish heart and stroke centers to advance the battle against heart
attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases--American No. 1 killer
and a leading cause of disability.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Roy A. Church, President, Lorain County
community College
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present a statement regarding an important career
training and economic development initiative being undertaken in Ohio
by the Lorain County Community College.
This initiative involves the creation of a One-Stop Job Training
and Employment Skills Resource Center at an abandoned hospital in the
City of Lorain. This effort received $800,000 in start-up funds last
year, and the $2 million sought for the Resource Center should complete
the linkage between the converted hospital and the Community College.
The community leaders believe this is an important first step
toward attracting and educating the large population of adults lacking
access to job training and higher education opportunities. The Center,
which is in the heart of a declining urban city, is part of the
solution for regional economic development. I will attempt to describe
in general terms for the Subcommittee the elements of this effort.
The economic opportunities brought about by technology have
bypassed Northeast Ohio and similar areas across the nation. In many
urban school districts, a majority of high school graduates (especially
among special populations) do not complete a rigorous course of study
that prepares them for completing a college degree or for entering
high-skill, high-wage careers.
The Center is designed to serve adults, who often lack a sufficient
mastery of basic information technology skills. This Center will
provide the training, services and resources to help them function
effectively in a technologically-advanced workplace. Included in this
group are dislocated workers who are unlikely to return to a previous
industry or occupation.
Lorain County Community College (LCCC) has leased space in a
converted 400,000 square foot facility in downtown Lorain, which will
serve as a satellite hub for a comprehensive distance learning program
made available at a new one-stop training center providing counseling,
adult and child daycare, applied training and job search opportunities.
Through distance learning, adults attending LCCC classes at the Center
will have access to such campus curricula as information technology
certification, allied health training, pre-med and/or physician
training.
The One-Stop Job Training and Employment Skills Resource Center is
an integral component of LCCC's ``21st Century Connected Learning
Community.'' LCCC will join with other agencies and organizations to
serve the unique needs of the urban area. I will describe the various
components to be included in this Center.
The Department of Veterans Affairs operates a community outpatient
center providing primary care access for veterans. This clinic can
provide opportunities for health training, which may have a
telemedicine component providing links to medical universities and
Veterans Hospitals and clinics in Ohio.
The Lorain County Community Actions Agency (LCCAA) is a private
non-profit social service organization serving low- and moderate-income
individuals and families of Lorain County. LCCAA currently provides a
wide range of programs and services, including Head Start, Home
Weatherization Assistance, Senior employment, nutrition and
transportation services, congregate living, Emergency Home Energy
Assistance Program and other emergency services. LCCAA believes that
family support, combined with education, training and employment
services is most effective in developing long-term self-sufficiency.
LCCAA is prepared to address welfare-to-work needs of Lorain to provide
a broader range of services to a larger number of people. In addition,
LCCAA intends to set aside space as an incubator for micro-enterprises.
Community development, training, administrative and financial experts
would be available for consultation to assist entrepreneurs in building
viable, sustainable businesses. The Community College will play a
significant role in designing these programs.
The Catholic Charities is also a private not-for-profit
organization to be located in the Center. They are establishing a
Family Resource Center and may relocate a transitional housing complex
at the site. The tenants of this multi-unit complex would be able to
access the educational services provided by Lorain County Community
College and all other services to be located at the complex.
Humility of Mary Assisted Living Services will provide assisted
living to persons with Alzheimer's disease and provide other senior
services. Senior will be able to attend classes and students will be
able to work with senior citizens as part of a health aide training
experience.
SCCI Hospital of Lorain, Ohio plans to convert a portion of the
complex into a 45-bed acute care hospital certified by HCFA as a long-
term Acute Care Hospital and will provide health careers training
opportunities for community college students. The level of care
provided is post-acute, which is a level between an acute hospital and
skilled nursing care. SCCI's goal is to be part of the continuum of
care to allow patients to return to their utmost quality of life.
With deployment of necessary telecommunications infrastructure,
LCCC will be able to provide a very broad range of training experiences
at this urban center for adults, dislocated workers and high school
students seeking career training. This Center's telecommunications
infrastructure will also link Lorain County Community College to Lorain
City Schools. This critical link will enable LCCC to bring distance
learning applications to this urban school district.
The other tenants of the converted hospital complex in downtown
Lorain will be provided with access to an applied learning experience
on-site and, with two-way communication, these experiences can also be
brought back to the Community College campus. The possibility of a
telemedicine connection with the Department of Veterans Affairs will
provide an outstanding link to LCCC, which currently provides physician
training at the campus.
This critical first step of reaching out to the region will launch
the broader economic development and job-training initiatives that LCCC
has been developing on campus over the last couple years and enhance
successful programs in engineering and manufacturing that have been in
operation. LCCC is requesting a Federal partnership of $2.1 million to
help fund the telecommunications infrastructure and linkages necessary
for the distance learning component of the initiative. With this
relatively small investment, Lorain Community College can become the
learning hub that will help Lorain County successfully meet the
technological challenges of the 21st Century.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Linda Boone, Executive Director, National
Coalition for Homeless Veterans
Mr. Chairman, I am Linda Boone, Executive Director of the National
Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV). On behalf of our members,
located in thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, I thank you for the opportunity to present the views of NCHV in
regard to a number of the priorities expressed in the fiscal year 1999
Budget proposal submitted by the President to the Congress.
We thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, as well as your
distinguished colleagues on this Committee for your efforts in
carefully reviewing the fiscal year 1999 Budget in order to do
everything you can to ensure that our Nations' covenant with the men
and women who have served in the United States military is fully met.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) strongly
endorses the recommendations of the Veterans Independent Budget and
Policy (IBVSO) for fiscal year 1999. In general, NCHV endorses the
IBVSO recommendations for overall appropriations for all aspects of
operation of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)
programs for fiscal year 1999. The IBVSO correctly points out the
drastically diminished purchasing power of funds appropriated for
medical care since 1980, and the fact that such appropriation for the
Veterans Health Administration has lagged far behind the rate of
increases for the private sector and for Medicare.
In particular, NCHV would draw your attention to the recommendation
that third party payments only be used as a supplement to appropriated
dollars, and not as a substitute for appropriated funds. This is a
particularly important issue for homeless veterans. Virtually no
homeless veterans have any private medical coverage, and many may not
qualify for any Medicare coverage. Many homeless veterans suffer from
neuropsychiatric medical conditions, in addition to physiological
problems. Most private insurance plans provide very minimal coverage
for neuropsychiatric treatment, and typically specifically exclude
coverage for war related injuries, including Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). The concern is that the substitution of the third
party payments for appropriated funds cannot help but affect the shape
and emphasis of the service delivery, both in range and quality
services delivered, to adjust to the funding stream(s). This is
particularly likely to occur if the third party collections are relied
upon for basic operations, no matter how conscientious and vigilant the
structure of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) may be in trying
to guard against these phenomena. NCHV firmly believes that such third
party collections should augment, not supplant funds appropriated in
the best interest of the Nations' duty to veterans.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) believes that a
glaring major omission in the fiscal year 1999 VA Budget request is the
lack of a clear commitment to creating adequate transitional housing.
The dramatic shift that continues to take place within the Veterans
Health Administration from inpatient models of service delivery to
outpatient models of service delivery as a primary methodology has
created significant difficulties in providing quality medical treatment
for low income veterans, homeless veterans, and other veterans in ``at
risk'' situations. That problem is becoming larger and more pressing
each month. While perhaps it will be the case that truly objective
research in the future will bear out the contention that the outpatient
mode of delivery of neuropsychiatric treatment and services is as
effective (or possibly even more effective) than the more expensive
inpatient delivery of such treatment, that will only be the case when
there are safe, clean transitional housing facilities, which are devoid
of drugs and alcohol available to veterans under treatment in that
locality. This is already a major (although generally publicly
unacknowledged) problem at the majority of VA Medical Centers.
As one illustration of the negative impact on medical care caused
by the lack of adequate units of safe, clean, sober transitional
housing, the success rate of the ``Homeless Veterans Outreach Program''
at one VA Medical Center (VAMC), in a major metropolitan area in the
Eastern United States, diminished from success with more than 50
percent of their veteran patients to less than 30 percent success. This
was in the first year after the length of the stay on the psychiatric
wards and the substance abuse wards was reduced to one week or less for
all but the handful of veterans at the very greatest risk to themselves
and others. All concerned believed that the lack of safe, clean
transitional housing that has a supportive atmosphere determinedly free
of drugs or alcohol for these veterans to reside while in treatment is
the major impediment to the outpatient treatment and services offered
to be effective. NCHV is in strong agreement with the IBVSO that the
lack of adequate safe, clean, sober transitional housing is a quality
of medical care issue. Perhaps one of our more active members (who
served as a medic in Vietnam) phrased this problem most aptly when he
says: ``You cannot deliver definitive medical care when you are still
in the mud and under fire. You must first get the casualty to a safe
and clean place that is set up for medical care.'' We urge the
Committee to urgently address this crucial problem.
NCHV believes that what is needed to begin to rectify this growing
problem that directly affects medical care vitally needed by many
veterans most in need is for early passage by the Congress and
enactment by the President of the fine legislation introduced in the
other house as H.R. 3039, the ``Veterans Transitional Housing Act of
1997.'' It is NCHV's understanding that similar legislation may soon be
introduced in the Senate.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) believes that
this basic concept of utilizing loan guaranties in order to access
private capital is a good way to create more transitional housing
facilities by means of creating this highly creative, yet very fiscally
prudent, loan guaranty authority program. NCHV urges the strong support
of you and your colleagues for early passage of this vital legislation
by the House of Representatives, and for any action as may be necessary
by this Subcommittee to ensure that the needed budgetary authority is
available when this legislation is enacted. It is estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the cost of this program will
potentially be $7 to $10 Million over five years, in order to yield
$100 Million worth of safe, clean transitional housing that is devoid
of drugs and alcohol.
These additional units of transitional housing, as noted above, are
necessary in order to begin to alleviate the acute shortage of such
transitional units in order to maximize the usefulness of the
(considerable) resources devoted to serving these veterans by means of
the ``Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) or other essentially
outpatient treatment methods of service delivery. This appears to NCHV
to be a very good investment indeed, yielding more than $10 worth of
such housing units for every taxpayer dollar invested, with the rest of
the needed capital being secured in the private sector.
As important and useful as early enactment and implementation of
the Veterans Transitional Housing Act would be, the need for additional
transitional housing units for veterans receiving care from VA is of
such a magnitude, and such a broad geographic distribution, that
additional actions must be taken to ensure quality medical care at each
VA medical facility.
Specifically, NCHV urges that you and your distinguished colleagues
include language in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations bill for VA
that will ensure that the VA Homeless Veterans Grants & Per Diem
Program is funded via the VA internal allocation of funds at the full
$10 Million currently authorized by the Congress. While NCHV is aware
of the reluctance of the Congress to return to ``fencing'' of program
dollars in most cases, specific language in either the Act or the
Committee report pointing out the need may well accomplish the desired
result. Approximately $6 Million has been allocated for this program to
date for fiscal year 1998 by the internal procedures of the VA. Of
these funds, $4.7 will be spent on per diem and $5 Million on grants to
create additional units of transitional housing. It is useful to note
that in fiscal year 1997 $3.3 Million was expended on grants to
community based organizations to acquire and renovate additional units
of transitional housing, and only $2.7 Million on per diem.
As units currently in the process of construction or renovation
become operational, an ever larger share of the authorized $10 Million
must be spent on per diem charges to support the proper operation of
the housing previously acquired by means of Grants pursuant to this
program. Although this program has not even begun to keep pace with the
increased need for such housing, NCHV believes that this program will
no longer be able to create any additional transitional housing units
by fiscal year 2000, as all of the amount currently authorized will
have to be spent on per diem. There is even some question as to whether
there will be enough per diem funds under the current program
authorization that could be allocated by the VA internally to fully
fund the per diem for activities taking place in transitional
facilities already created pursuant to this program. This is an
unacceptable situation. NCHV has contacted the leadership and entered
into discussions with the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
to seek action that will rectify this situation, where the vital needs
of veterans may well go unmet.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) is very
concerned that the continuing process of ostensibly decentralizing
decision making authority within the Veterans Health Administration
(VHA) by transferring authority for some decisions to each of the
twenty-two Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN's) is having the
effect of precluding VHA from even having the capacity to produce any
standardized reporting on a National basis. This makes it difficult to
obtain a clear picture of the rapid changes in both the amount and the
types of medical care and services being provided at facilities across
the United States. In a recent report, the Senate has correctly pointed
out that virtually all systemic quality control/quality assurance
programs have been in effect eliminated or debilitated by the
kaleidoscopic changes, both at the VISN level and at the VA Central
Office level.
NCHV holds that perhaps medical care at the VA would be most
efficient and effective if authority as to how best to accomplish the
mission(s) of VHA were to be even more decentralized. However, the
responsibility for setting the mission(s), and holding the VISN's and
each VA facility accountable for how well that mission is being
accomplished has been given to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and
to the Undersecretary for the Veterans' Health Administration.
NCHV strongly believes in the military principle of ``You may
delegate authority; You may NOT delegate responsibility.'' This
principle is certainly applicable to these two officials. The VA must
do a better job of standardizing reporting, and in re-instituting
meaningful and effective quality assurance systems.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) is also very
concerned about many anecdotal reports from our members about the
further diminishment of neuropsychiatric services to veterans. Not only
is the organizational capacity of the Veterans Health Administration to
deliver inpatient care for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and
for substance being diminished, but the justification of shifting
resources over to outpatient modes of delivery appears to not be
keeping pace with the stripping of resources from the inpatient
neuropsychiatric programs. In other words, the ability of the Veterans
Health Administration facilities to be able to address the
neuropsychiatric wounds of war and the requirements of the veterans'
population for such care, which was already inadequate in the face of
the overwhelming documented needs, is being further diminished. As the
IBVSO correctly points out, this diminishment is further compounded by
the lack of safe, clean, sober transitional housing for veterans who
are ostensibly being assisted by outpatient neuropsychiatric programs
or Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHP).
NCHV urges the Committee and the Congress to take steps to more
fully assess this apparent diminishment of neuropsychiatric services at
VA. Further NCHV urges the Committee to take the steps necessary to
halt and reverse the destruction of the organizational capacity of VA
to properly address the neuropsychiatric wounds of war as well as to
properly fund the creation and maintenance of enough units of
transitional housing and community services in proximity to every VA
facility in the Nation.
NCHV believes that the best means of accomplishing all of the above
noted objectives is for the Subcommittee to request that the Secretary
of Veterans' Affairs hold each Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) Director (and by extension each VAMC Director) explicitly
responsible and fully accountable in their performance goals and
personal performance evaluation as to how well that VISN has: (1) Met
the documented need for safe, clean transitional housing units that are
devoid and alcohol, utilizing VISN funds to fund creation of such units
in the community in addition to the national Grant & Per Diem program
funds that may be available; and, (2) Provided a continuum of care for
homeless veterans seeking care from the VA that includes intensive case
management services as necessary provided by means of VA personnel or
by means of contracting with appropriate community based organizations;
and (3) Maintained the Homeless Outreach program at an acceptable level
of activity and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) type of
measurable outcomes, as compared to other comparable VISN's in the
United States; and, (4) Maintained the quality and extent of
neuropsychiatric care at least at the fiscal year 1995 levels,
particularly for veterans who are Chronically Mentally Ill and those
veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as at least one
aspect of their diagnosis.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV), as noted
above, endorses the ``Veterans Independent Budget and Policy'' (IBVSO)
for fiscal year 1999, as presented by top representatives of the four
sponsoring organizations (AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
U.S.).
The IBVSO is in many ways a much more complete and thoughtful
document than that presented by the VA, particularly in the sections
dealing with Seriously Mentally Ill, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
Substance Abuse Treatment, and Homelessness. It is not just a matter of
the differences in the amount of resources called for to properly
address these problems in the IBVSO (although the IBVSO did call for
the proper resources to more adequately address these vital problems).
Rather, the IBVSO reflects a more proper understanding the magnitude of
these problems, and what resources and actions are needed to begin to
provide for quality medical treatment and high quality, effective
services. NCHV specifically commends these sections of the IBVSO to you
and your colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for closer
scrutiny as you ponder on the correct course(s)
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) wishes to also
point out that the section of the VA fiscal year 1999 Budget request
documents that specifically addresses the Homeless Veterans Treatment
and Assistance Program (pages 2-24 to 2-26) is the only set of goals
for assisting homeless veterans that VA has publicly stated in an
official document. The aforementioned goals are identical to those set
forth in the most recently available VA ``Strategic Plan'' (October
1997), which is publicly available on the Internet Web site of the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
The problem that NCHV has with these ``performance goals'' is that
they are so very minimal. The first goal of trying to increase the
percentage of VA facilities that perform outreach to homeless veterans
should not even be an issue. A simple direct order from the Secretary
of Veterans' Affairs should be all that is needed to ensure that all VA
facilities are doing their job in this regard, without spending any
more of the limited time of VA Central Office staff in trying to cajole
facilities into doing what they should have been doing assiduously all
along. The second goal of creating 500 new community based beds by the
end of fiscal year 2000 might in fact be a reasonable and possibly
adequate figure for beds in safe, clean, sober environments if we were
discussing the need for such beds for veterans in outpatient treatment
in Arizona and Illinois only. However, the VA is here speaking of the
Nation. This figure is startlingly inadequate in the face of the need
being created by VHA's elimination of inpatient treatment capacity and
very heavy reliance on outpatient and ``partial hospitalization'' modes
of treatment service delivery for neuropsychiatric care. Similarly,
NCHV strongly believes that the goal of providing per-diem payments to
offset operating costs for up to 3,500 such beds by the end of 2003, if
the funds are available, is simply inadequate in the face of the very
significant need which is largely created by VA's own actions.
As to the last of the performance goals contained in this section,
NCHV agrees that it will prove to be extremely valuable to all
concerned, particularly the Congress, if the VA can establish outcome
measures for housing, employment, mental health, mental health status,
and substance abuse related to veterans who acquire secure living
arrangements at the time of discharge from a supportive housing
program.
The problem we have here is that VA estimates there are at least
275,000 veterans who are homeless on any given night of the year, with
more than double that number homeless at some point during the year
(i.e., more that 500,000 veterans homeless at some point during the
year). The highest estimate is that VA has some contact with about
30,000 homeless veterans during the course of the year (excluding the
prodigious activity of the VET CENTERS). Establishing outcome measures
and indices, while useful, cannot really be considered to be strategic
goals to address a problem that is of the documented magnitude as is
the number of homeless veterans. It may in fact be a useful tool and a
limited operational objective, but it is not a goal.
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs needs a Strategic
Plan that contains goals and objectives which can (and will) serve as a
blueprint for each of the twenty-two Veterans Integrated Service
Networks (VISN's) to prepare operational plans and objectives that will
begin to meet the pressing vital needs of this most vulnerable group of
our Nation's veterans. To accomplish this purpose, the goals need to be
realistic but ``large enough'' to be worthy of our Nation and the men
and women who served in military service to country. As one example,
NCHV would suggest that every VA effort and program to assist homeless
veterans be evaluated to ensure that the explicit goal of assisting the
veteran to reach the point of being able to ``obtain and sustain
employment at a reasonable living wage'' is central to each and every
effort and program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing the views of the National
Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) to be included in the record of
these proceedings.
______
Prepared Statement of David B. Isbell, Chair, Veterans Consortium
Advisory Committee
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee: On behalf
of the Veterans Consortium Advisory Committee, I submit herewith a
request for a fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $865,000 for the Court
of Veterans Appeals Pro Bono Program--a program for which the
Consortium has, from inception, had operational responsibility. That
amount would represent an increase of $75,000, or 9.49 percent, from
the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $790,000.
I understand that the Subcommittee has previously received our
budget request, as an attachment to the fiscal year 1999 budget
submission by Chief Judge Nebeker on behalf of the Court of Veterans
Appeals; but for ease of reference I have also attached hereto as
Exhibit A a copy of the document that was attached to that submission
(bearing the title, The Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, fiscal
year 1999 Budget and Narrative). The second attachment, Exhibit B, is a
summary description of the history and operations of the Pro Bono
Program. Also attached, as Exhibit C, is a statistical summary of the
Program's operations since its commencement in September 1992.
The Program's budget for fiscal year 1999 contemplates total
expenditures, including both the ``A'' grant and the ``B'' grant, and
an allowance for the cost of oversight by Legal Services Corporation
(LSC), of $863,479. That figure (which, I should point out, is over and
above the contributions in kind by the organizations participating in
the Consortium) is rounded to $865,000 in the fiscal year 1999
appropriation we have requested. A full explanation is presented in
Appendix A; some highlights will be noted below, following brief
mention of two notable events of the past year.
highlights of 1997
In August, 1997, the Program held a ceremony in the Hearing Room of
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to memorialize the placement of
the Program's 1,000th case. That case involved the appeal of James
Gaddis, who had won the Bronze Star as a lieutenant in the Army Signal
Corps in Vietnam. The volunteer lawyers with whom the case was placed
(who have already won a remand) were former Senators Robert Dole and
George Mitchell; Senator Dole was with us for the ceremony.
The other notable event of the last year was a budgetary one: the
Program managed to switch from a fiscal year corresponding to the
Federal fiscal year to one coinciding with the calendar year, bringing
it into alignment in this respect not only with all other recipients of
grant funds through LSC, but also with its constituent organizations,
all of which operate on a fiscal calendar year. This change should
assure that the Program in the future will be able to operate
comfortably during the annually recurring interim period between the
time when LSC receives funds appropriated for the new federal fiscal
year and the time when LSC is able in turn to dispense those funds--a
lag time that has always been, in the Program's experience, a matter of
weeks if not months. The change to a calendar-based fiscal year will
also allow the Program to wind down its operations in an orderly
fashion should the time come when no further funds are appropriated for
it.
The Program was able to operate for the three months between the
end of the previous federal fiscal year (September 30, 1997) and the
start of its new calendar-based fiscal year (January 1, 1998) by reason
of having, at fiscal year 1997 end, unexpended funds left over from
previous years, in the amount of approximately $159,000. This was
almost enough to fund the three months of operations remaining in the
calendar year, though there was a shortfall of some $8,000, which
NVLSP, one of the Consortium members, generously undertook to bear. In
addition, PVA took on one more case than called for under the ``B''
grant, without charge to the Program. Thus, the Program commenced its
1998 fiscal year with no carryover unexpended funds whatever.
the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget
The $865,000 appropriation requested for fiscal year 1999
represents a 9.49 percent increase over the $790,000 appropriation for
fiscal year 1998. The Case Evaluation and Placement Component of the
Program, which accounts for by far the majority of the budget,
similarly accounts for the bulk of the increase, and that increase
reflects the anticipated level of the Program's caseload. The upward
trend is shown by pertinent statistics from the last two fiscal years.
Thus,
--The Board of Veterans' Appeals, from which the appeals reaching the
Court of Veterans Appeals are taken, issued 34,000 decisions in
fiscal year 1996 and 43,000 in fiscal year 1997. (Exhibit A.)
--Total appeals filed in the Court during fiscal year 1996 were
1,561, of which 1,141 were pro se; the corresponding figures
for fiscal year 1997 were 2,166 and 1,564, respectively.
(Exhibit C.)
--Reflecting the increase in filings in the Court, there was a
corresponding increase in the caseload of the Case Evaluation
and Placement Component. Thus, it received 493 applications
from pro se appellants in fiscal year 1996 but 700 in fiscal
year 1997; an increase of 42 percent. The Component completed
the evaluation of 468 cases in fiscal year 1996 and 689 cases
in fiscal year 1997, but despite this greatly increased
productivity, as of January 1998 it had accumulated a backlog
of 170 pending requests for assistance. (Exhibit A.)
Thus, an increase in screening staff and of related expenses is
clearly going to be necessary, and this is reflected in the proposed
budget. In relation to the increase in workload, the budget increase is
modest indeed--though, hopefully, not too modest.
The Veterans Consortium Advisory Committee is grateful for this
Committee's consideration of our budget submission.
______
Exhibit A
the veterans consortium pro bono program, fiscal year 1999 budget and
narrative
overview
The budgeted expenditures of $863,479 represent an increase of
$73,479 (9.3 percent) over the $790,000 appropriation for fiscal year
1998, which governs the Program's operating budget for calendar year
1998. (The Program switched, effective January 1, 1998, from the
federal fiscal year to a calendar year for operating purposes, so as to
be synchronized with other recipients of funds from LSC). This increase
reflects the projected continuing need to deal with a high volume of
cases in the Case Evaluation and Placement Component, and an
anticipated continuing increase in the number of BVA decisions and
resulting appeals to the Court which will result in a corresponding
increase in the Program's caseload.
The Pro Bono Program received 700 requests for assistance in fiscal
year 1997, compared with 493 requests received in fiscal year 1996.
Despite almost herculean efforts at evaluating cases in fiscal year
1997 (689 cases evaluated) versus fiscal year 1996 (468 cases
evaluated), the Program currently (January 1998) has 170 pending
requests for assistance. This increased demand for Program services can
only be expected to continue to rise, as the number of decisions issued
by the BVA increased dramatically in fiscal year 1997 (over 43,000
decisions, versus 34,000 decisions in fiscal year 1996).
Personnel costs.--Salary and benefits of those individuals
performing services for the Program that are reimbursed from grant
funds--account for 74.5 percent of the proposed budget (the same
proportion as in the fiscal year 1998 budget), and 52 percent of the
increase. Personnel costs cover a portion of the time for personnel who
staff the Outreach and Education Components, and all of the time of
most of the personnel who staff the Case Evaluation and Placement
Component (the services of the other staff are provided free of charge
to the Program). Staff who are reimbursed from grant funds, for all or
a portion of their salary and benefits, are employees of either the
National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) or the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA). Table A shows in summary form the number of
persons providing services for each component, and the number of Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to be paid out of grant funds in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
PRO BONO PROGRAM PERSONNEL AND FTE DISTRIBUTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Total \1\ Total \2\ Total \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach............................ 6 0.21 0.26
Education........................... 11 1.05 0.80
Case Evaluation and Placement....... 11 8.00 9.00
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 28 9.26 10.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of personnel providing some service to the program.
\2\ FTE reimbused by the grant, fiscal year 1998.
\3\ FTE reimbursed by the grant, fiscal year 1999.
A fuller breakdown by Component follows.
Case Evaluation and Placement Component--$643,295
The fiscal year 1999 budget contemplates an increase of $67,912
(9.7 percent) over the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Case Evaluation
and Placement Component (referred to in the budget spreadsheet as the
``Screening Component''). Over 40 percent more cases were evaluated in
fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996, which resulted in increased
expenses for office supplies, photocopying, postage, telephone calls,
etc. Those increased expenses were not provided for in the fiscal year
1998 budget.
personnel
There are three categories of personnel staffing this Component:
lawyers, non-lawyer veterans law specialists, and support staff.
Two lawyers, the Director and the Deputy Director, function full
time as such in the Case Evaluation and Placement Component; their
personnel costs are fully reimbursed by the Program--one position each
to PVA and NVLSP. The lawyer FTE for this Component reimbursed from
grant funds, in both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, is 2.0.
Veterans law specialists review the VA claims file and BVA decision
to determine whether or not each case contains an issue that justifies
referral to a lawyer. Veterans law specialists come from the
constituent Veterans Service Organizations (VSO's) and are among the
most experienced non-lawyer service officers these organizations have
to offer.
It is planned that there will be five full time and one part time
veterans law specialists (VLS) in the Case Evaluation and Placement
Component in fiscal year 1999--two of these positions being supplied by
PVA and one by NVLSP, on a reimbursable basis. We anticipate that two
VLS positions will continue to be donated by Disabled American Veterans
(DAV) and The American Legion. We also currently have a part-time VLS
(one day per week) whose services were recruited by Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA), for which the Program pays only the employee parking
expenses. The continued availability of this VLS is uncertain. VLS
expenses have exceeded and will exceed amounts budgeted in fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998, due to the relative seniority of VLS
personnel assigned to the Program. We were able to accommodate these
additional costs in fiscal year 1997, and can make similar adjustments
in fiscal year 1998, by delaying the hiring of the third paid VLS until
sometime in the second quarter of the calendar year. However, we have
had to make adjustments for these increased cost in our fiscal year
1999 planning, and that explains why personnel costs increases appear
to be above the norm.
There are three full time administrative support staff in the Case
Evaluation and Placement Component, all employees of NVLSP, and all
reimbursed out of Program funds.
The fiscal year 1999 budget reflects an increase of $39,603 in
personnel costs, of which $15,432 represents the fiscal year 1997 and
fiscal year 1998 personnel cost adjustments and $24,171 represents cost
of living increases and merit raises. Efforts have been made to keep
personnel costs as reasonable as possible; for example, only modest
cost of living and merit raises have been given to staff in fiscal year
1998, despite the increased productivity of the Case Evaluation and
Placement Component in fiscal year 1997.
The level of salaries and benefits paid to the personnel who staff
the Program are governed by the personnel policies of the constituent
organizations of which they are employees--i.e., NVLSP and PVA--and to
which they may return in the event of termination of the Program or
rotation of personnel by the organizations involved. Both NVLSP and PVA
expect to increase their staff salaries up to 5 percent, of which 3
percent will be a cost of living increase and 2 percent will be
allocated for merit raises. Increases are reflected in the personnel
costs of all three Components of the Program in the fiscal year 1999
budget.
space-rent
In late fiscal year 1997, after the fiscal year 1998 budget was
prepared, the Case Evaluation and Placement Component acquired
additional office space. In addition to annual adjustments the Space-
Rent line item has been adjusted to account for the increase in monthly
occupancy expenses. The increase of $12,311 over the amount budgeted
for fiscal year 1998 appears large because the fiscal year 1998 budget
did not provide for the increased rent.
equipment rental and maintenance
The Case Evaluation and Placement Component has budgeted for a
modest increase of $273 over the amount budgeted for fiscal year 1998
based on actual experience in fiscal year 1997.
office supplies and expenses
The increase of $7,490 over the amount budgeted for fiscal year
1998 is based on actual experience in fiscal year 1997 and reflects the
fact that the Program reviewed over 40 percent more cases in fiscal
year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996.
telephone
The increase of $1,435 over the amount budgeted for fiscal year
1998 is based on actual experience in fiscal year 1997 and also
reflects the Program having reviewed over 40 percent more cases in
fiscal year 1997 than in fiscal year 1996.
travel/continuing legal education
The increase of $500 is budgeted to cover anticipated travel
expenses and to allow staff to participate in Continuing Legal
Education Programs.
library
The increase of $570 is budgeted to acquire new materials for the
library and subscribe to publications that we have not had access to in
the past.
insurance
The decrease of $2,000 represents savings we expect to realize
through renegotiation of our malpractice insurance.
property acquisition
The increase of $5,000 is to cover the cost of a new printer (one
of two that the Case Evaluation and Placement Component has). When the
Component's computers were replaced last year, the printers were not.
Now our principal laser printer is starting to cost us more money in
repair expenses, and will need to be replaced.
contract services
The increase of $3,000 is to cover the costs of completing the Year
2000 transition for our databases, and to develop an on-line legal
research capability, including access to the Court's Bulletin Board.
Outreach Component--$31,181
Overall, the fiscal year 1999 budget calls for a $6,024 increase
(24 percent) over the fiscal year 1998 budget for the Outreach
Component. As indicated below, all but $687 of the increase is in
personnel costs.
personnel
These costs are budgeted to increase by $5,337 because we
anticipate a continued increase in recruiting needs. We assume that the
need for volunteer lawyers in fiscal year 1999 will continue to
increase because of the anticipated increase in the number of BVA
decisions; the budget also assumes that the Program will continue and
expand its outreach efforts outside of the Metropolitan area. As
previously discussed, we expect personnel costs to increase by 5
percent. (Note that while this Component's personnel costs are
increasing, we are decreasing the Education Component's personnel costs
by $5,064 from the fiscal year 1998 budget.)
Three NVLSP lawyers devote a portion of their time to the Outreach
Component; and the Program reimburses NVLSP for that portion of their
personnel costs. The aggregate lawyer FTE for the Outreach Component to
be reimbursed from grant funds in fiscal year 1998 is 0.07; the FTE
contemplated for fiscal year 1999 is 0.14 to reflect, in part, the
actual experience in fiscal year 1997.
Three NVLSP non-lawyers also function for part of their time in the
Outreach Component; and the Program reimburses that portion of their
personnel cost to NVLSP. The aggregate non-lawyer FTE for the Outreach
Component budgeted to be reimbursed from grant funds in fiscal year
1998 is 0.14; the FTE contemplated by the fiscal year 1999 budget is
reduced to 0.12.
Only minor adjustments were made in the other line items and the
net result of these adjustments increase the budget by $687 over the
fiscal year 1998 budget.
Education Component--$125,303
The proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for the Education Component
reflects a decrease of $3,242 from the budget for fiscal year 1998.
personnel
Personnel costs are projected to decrease by $5,064. Our experience
has shown that we are spending less time than projected on the
Education Component and more time on the Outreach Component. Therefore,
we adjusted the personnel costs for this component downward
accordingly.
A total of 6 NVLSP lawyers function in the Education Component and
a portion of their personnel costs is reimbursed by the Program. The
aggregate lawyer FTE expected to be reimbursed from the Program has
been reduced from 0.51 in fiscal year 1998 to 0.40 in fiscal year 1999
Four NVLSP non-lawyers function in the Education Component. All
four of them will have a portion of their personnel expenses reimbursed
by the Program. Both the Grant Administrator's time and the
Administrative Assistant's time have been reduced from the fiscal year
1998 level. We expect that the audit and contract reporting will be
more routinized in fiscal year 1999 than in fiscal year 1998. Fiscal
year 1998 is the first year that the Program will undergo an A-133
audit. Additionally, there will be a higher level of personnel expense
in the first quarter of fiscal year 1998 as the Grant Administrator
position is transitioned from an NVLSP contract consultant to NVLSP's
newly hired Chief Financial Officer. The aggregate FTE non-lawyer for
the Education Component budgeted to be reimbursed from grant funds in
fiscal year 1998 is 0.51, for fiscal year 1999 we are reducing it to
0.40.
other
Combined non-personnel expenses are expected to increase by a total
of $1,822, from $39,472 in fiscal year 1998 to $41,294 in fiscal year
1999. This represents a five-percent increase and is based on prior
year's experience.
``B'' Grant--$38,700
The ``B'' Grantee (PVA) has committed to accepting 20 cases at a
cost of $1,935 per case; representing a 5-percent increase over the
fiscal year 1998 budget figure of $1,843 per case; and reflects a
reduction from the total number of cases (24) budgeted in fiscal year
1998.
LSC Oversight--$25,000
This is the figure LSC has furnished as its estimate of the likely
cost of oversight for fiscal year 1999. LSC also expects that the
budgeted figure of $20,000 for fiscal year 1998 will prove to be low.
Total--$863,479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.008
______
Exhibit B
the history and operations of the pro bono program at the u.s. court of
veterans appeals
The Program was proposed by the Court of Veterans Appeals in 1991,
as a means of dealing with the problem presented by the fact that the
Court was finding that the overwhelming majority of appellants
appearing before it were pro se--that is, without representation.
Congress authorized the Court to use up to $950,000 of its funds to
establish a project for the provision of legal assistance to pro se
appellants. Public Law 102-229, 105 Stat. 1710 (1991). The authorizing
legislation specifically provided that the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC) would make the grants or contracts for such a program, ``pursuant
to a reimbursable payment'' by the Court. LSC in May 1992 issued two
Solicitations for Proposals: one for an umbrella program to evaluate
cases and to recruit and train volunteer attorneys (the ``A'' grant);
and one for organizations already providing representation to veterans
to expand such representation (the ``B'' grant). The Consortium, which
consists of The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans (DAV),
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) and National Veterans Legal
Services Program (NVLSP), submitted a proposal to LSC for the ``A''
grant that was accepted. Three of the participating organizations, DAV,
PVA and NVLSP (plus another organization, Swords to Plowshares, which
has since dropped out of the Program), were awarded ``B'' grants, under
which they undertook to provide representation in a specified number of
cases. The two grants together comprise the Program, which commenced
operation in September 1992.
The Program has three operational components: Outreach, Education,
and Case Evaluation and Placement. The first of these components
recruits volunteer lawyers to handle appeals before the Court on a pro
bono basis: over 800 lawyers, from more than 40 jurisdictions, have
been recruited to date. The Education Component offers two one-day
training programs in Washington, D.C., each year in conjunction with
the D.C. Bar. It offered the training program in Atlanta in the Fall of
1997, and will be doing the same in Chicago in the Spring of 1998. The
training program is also made available in the form of videotapes to
lawyers who cannot attend a live presentation. In addition, the
Education Component provides to each volunteer lawyer a three-volume
Veterans Benefits Manual.
The Case Evaluation and Placement Component, as the name suggests,
evaluates the cases of appellants who are pro se and who, in response
to a notice routinely sent to those appellants who remain pro se thirty
days after filing of their notice of appeal, indicate an interest in
having representation. In any case where this evaluation turns up an
issue deserving argument, a memorandum describing the issue is
prepared, and the case is assigned to a lawyer who has agreed to
provide pro bono representation. (The great majority of the Program's
cases are placed with volunteer lawyers recruited and trained by the
Program's Outreach and Education Components; a minority, consisting of
more difficult or emergency cases, are placed through the ``B'' grant.)
In cases that are determined not to merit pursuit of an appeal, the
appellants are advised as to the most promising course of action for
them to pursue.
The volunteer lawyers are provided continuing education in the form
of mentoring assistance: that is, they are given the name of a lawyer
(or non-lawyer Court of Veterans Appeals practitioner) in one of the
constituent organizations, with whom they can consult as needed. The
Case Evaluation and Placement component also monitors all cases
referred to program lawyers, to ensure that filing deadlines are not
overlooked.
The table that follows, Exhibit C, presents some significant
statistical information regarding appeals to the Court, and the impact
of the Program thereon. As it shows, over the 5\1/2\ years of its
operation, the Program has provided free representation to more than
1,000 appellants before the Court; and the appellants represented
through the Program have prevailed in 77 percent of the completed
cases.
______
Exhibit C
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TVA.009
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging,
prepared statement............................................. 784
American Heart Association, prepared statement................... 789
American Museum of Natural History, prepared statement........... 673
American Public Power Association, prepared statement............ 650
American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement.......... 738
Anthes, Richard A., president, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, prepared statement....................... 754
Archuleta, Ed, general manger, El Paso Water Utilities Public
Service Board, prepared statement.............................. 714
Armstrong, Michael, Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................ 1
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, prepared statement.... 742
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement..... 692
Baker, Michael G., Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Columbus, OH, letter from...................................... 725
Barnes, Mayor Martin G., city of Paterson, NJ, prepared statement 697
Bolin, Dave, president, Groundwater Protection Council, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 722
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri, questions
submitted by.........................................29, 245 375, 609
Boone, Linda, executive director, National Coalition for Homeless
Veterans, prepared statement................................... 795
Bowen, Jerry W., Director, National Cemetery System, Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 169
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California:
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Questions submitted by....................................... 52
Browner, Carol, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency... 331
Prepared statement........................................... 345
Burke, Dr. William A., chairman, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, prepared statement........................ 727
Burns, Chuck, national service director, AMVETS, prepared
statement...................................................... 788
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 338
Questions submitted by.....................................454, 627
Bursell, Dr. Sven-Erik, Ph.D., Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared
statement...................................................... 690
Bye, Dr. Raymond E., Jr., associate vice president for research,
Florida State University, prepared statement................... 762
Cagey, Henry, chairman, Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement.. 763
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Prepared statements........................................175, 337
Questions submitted by....................................... 487
Campion, Raymond J., Ph.D., president, Mickey Leland National
Urban Air Toxics Research Center, prepared statement........... 678
Catlett, D. Mark, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 169
Church, Dr. Roy A., president, Lorain County Community College,
prepared statement............................................. 793
City of Miami Beach, FL, prepared statement...................... 648
Clark, Les, vice president, Independent Oil Producers'
Association, prepared statement................................ 658
Cobb, Richard P., ILL, Springfield, IL, letter from.............. 725
Cole, Barbara J., director, Lane Regional Air Pollution
Authority, prepared statement.................................. 708
Collins, Father T. Byron, S.J., special assistant to the
president of Georgetown University, prepared statement......... 686
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Prepared statements..........................................9, 178
Questions submitted by............................39, 263, 286, 491
Crawford, James L., Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Jackson, MS, letter from. 724
Cunha, Manuel, Jr., president, NISEI Farmers League, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 658
Cuomo, Andrew, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban
Develop-
ment........................................................... 93
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Davenport, Robert J., executive director, Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, prepared statement.............................. 713
DeAlmeida, Lino, Jr., president, National Utility Contractors
Association, prepared statement................................ 732
Delaney, Mayor Bruce, city of Gainesville, FL, prepared
statements...................................................647, 746
Foley, Maj. Gen. Robert F., Commander, Military District of
Washington, Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Department of Defense--
Civil.......................................................... 277
Fox, Dr. Peter, research project manager, Arizona State
University, prepared statement................................. 686
Frank, Billy, Jr., chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission, prepared statement................................. 682
Garner, Mayor James, village of Hempstead, Long Island, prepared
statement...................................................... 711
George, Father William L., S.J., special assistant to the
president of Georgetown University, prepared statement......... 686
Goldin, Daniel S., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 287
Prepared statement........................................... 292
Gorosh, Kathye, project director, the Core Center, Chicago, IL,
prepared statement............................................. 757
Grant, Glen A., Esq., business administrator, city of Newark, NJ,
prepared statement............................................. 760
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, question submitted
by............................................................. 557
Hansen, Fred, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 331
Harper, Sallyanne, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 331
Hawks, John D., Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the
Treasury....................................................... 155
Prepared statement........................................... 156
Humphreys, Mayor Kirk, city of Oklahoma City, prepared statement. 715
Isbell, David B., chair, Veterans Consortium Advisory Committee,
prepared statement............................................. 799
Johnson, Gary, Chief Financial Officer, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.............................................. 1
Jones, Kerri-Ann, Ph.D., Acting Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President........... 589
Prepared statement........................................... 590
Kaatz, Gary, chief operating officer, Forum Health, prepared
statement...................................................... 698
Kelley, Rev. Aloysius, S.J., president, Fairfield University,
prepared statement............................................. 775
Kenny, Michael P., executive officer, California Air Resources
Board, prepared statement...................................... 658
Kirk, Ken, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Washington, DC, letter from.................................... 730
Kizer, Kenneth W., M.D., M.P.H., Under Secretary for Health,
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. 169
Kleine, Mary Ann, director of administration, Gold Gate
University, prepared statement................................. 778
Lane, Neal, Ph.D., Director, National Science Foundation......... 559
Prepared statement........................................... 582
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey,
questions submitted by......................................... 545
Lazar, Ellen W., Director, Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.................. 155
Prepared statement........................................... 159
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions
submitted by................................................... 543
Lee, Virgo, trustee, NYU Downtown Hopsital, prepared statement... 703
Mason, Dr. Robert J., director, Environmental Lung Center,
National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO,
prepared statement............................................. 688
Mauderly, Joe L., senior scientist and director of external
affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, prepared
statement...................................................... 651
Maulson, Tom, tribal chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared statement.................. 695
Mendell, Lorne M., Ph.D., Society for Neuroscience, prepared
statement...................................................... 769
Metzler, John C., Jr., Superintendent, Arlington National
Cemetery, Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Department of Defense--
Civil.......................................................... 277
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from Maryland, questions
submitted by........................................41, 264, 516, 634
Munger, Hon. Willard M., Minnesota State Representative,
memorandum from................................................ 668
Nellor, Margaret H., research project manager, Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts, prepared statement....................... 686
New York University, prepared statement.......................... 766
Norris, Peter M.P., president, SPIN-2, prepared statement........ 777
O'Brien, Terrence J., president, Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Great Chicago, prepared statement.................. 649
Ott, Dr. W. Richard, provost, Center for the Engineered
Conservation of Energy, Alfred University, prepared statement.. 707
Ouchley, Don, general manager, Brownsville Public Utilities
Board, prepared statement...................................... 712
Paskinski, Theodore, president, St. Joseph's Hospital Health
Center, prepared statement..................................... 773
Patrick, Barbara, member, board supervisor, Kern County and
member, California Air Resources Board, prepared statement..... 658
Peacock, Robert B., chairman, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, prepared statement................................... 660
Peterson, Malcolm L., Comptroller, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 287
Prepared statement........................................... 292
Pillsbury, Sarah, Department of Environmental Services, Concord,
NH, letter from................................................ 726
Polf, William, deputy vice president for external relations and
strategic programs, Health Sciences Center, Columbia
University, prepared statement................................. 699
Raabe, Otto, professor emeritus of radiation biophysical,
University of California, prepared statement................... 700
Rapp, George R., Jr., University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN,
prepared statement............................................. 668
Reheis, Catherine H., managing coordinator, Western States
Petroleum Association, prepared statement...................... 658
Rice, Patrick W., State of Nebraska, Department of Environmental
Quality, Lincoln, NE, letter from.............................. 726
Roitman, Howard A., Association of State and Territorial Solid,
Waste Management Officials, Washington, DC, letter from........ 733
Schlender, James H., executive administrator, Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared statement............... 693
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama, questions
submitted by................................................... 474
Smith, Rory D., Budget Officer, Arlington National Cemetery,
Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Department of Defense--Civil........ 277
Society of Toxicology, prepared statement........................ 705
Stetson, Catherine Baker, Stetson Law Offices, P.C., Albuquerque,
NM, prepared statement......................................... 772
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted
by............................................................. 631
Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys professor of environmental
engineering, University of Tulsa, director, Integrated Public/
Private Energy & Environmental Consortium, prepared statement.. 654
Thompson, Joseph, Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs................. 169
Tornblom, Claudia, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Management
and Budget), Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Department of Defense--
Civil.......................................................... 277
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 747
University of Miami, prepared statement.......................... 736
Waller, Dave, Missouri Rural Water Association, prepared
statement...................................................... 718
Water Environment Research Foundation, prepared statement........ 684
West, Togo D., Jr., Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 169
Prepared statement........................................... 182
Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Wodraska, John R., general manager, Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, prepared statement..................... 670
Wofford, Hon. Harris, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for
National and Community Service................................. 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Zare, Richard, Ph.D., Chairman, National Science Board, National
Science Foundation............................................. 559
Prepared statement........................................... 565
Zaterman, Sunia, executive director, Council of Large Public
Housing Authorities, prepared statement........................ 780
Zirschky, John H., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Cemeterial Expenses, Army, Department of Defense--Civil 277
Prepared statement........................................... 278
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Page
America Reads and literacy....................................... 74
Auditability, progress in achieving.............................. 67
Auditable financial records, plan to produce..................... 56
Devolution to States............................................. 74
Evaluation and effective practices............................... 68
Further evaluations.............................................. 70
Inspector general, questions for the............................. 90
National service programs:
Addressing literacy, example of.............................. 87
Monitoring of................................................ 72
Programs not renewed............................................. 73
Record, correction to the........................................ 71
Reducing costs and the education-award-only program.............. 89
Requests of the committee........................................ 57
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Budget highlights................................................ 278
Computer systems................................................. 285
Contracting out.................................................. 283
Elibility criteria............................................... 284
Expansion........................................................ 277
Lieutenant Blassie............................................... 284
Transfer of responsibility....................................... 282
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Affordable housing............................................... 148
Assisted grant programs.......................................... 146
Budget, highlights of............................................ 104
Department, cleaning up the...................................... 101
Disabled, housing for the........................................ 120
Economic development...........................................116, 117
Initiative................................................... 149
Issues important to.......................................... 98
Needs........................................................ 100
Elderly housing, new and innovated approaches to................. 151
Emergency supplemental:
Disbursement of.............................................. 139
Provided HUD................................................. 138
Fair Housing Act, implementing the............................... 98
Financial information systems.................................... 145
Fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental.......................... 96
Fiscal year 1999 budget.......................................... 102
Forest Services' moratorium on building roads.................... 144
HOME block grant plus vouchers................................... 152
Home ownership................................................... 104
HOPE VI.......................................................... 122
Housing.......................................................... 103
For the elderly............................................149, 153
Need and production.......................................... 117
HUD, excellent vision for a new.................................. 102
Indian country................................................... 146
Housing funds for............................................ 145
Largest financial institution.................................... 95
Mark-to-Market legislation......................................95, 100
McKinney Homeless Continuum of Care programs..................... 96
Necessary reforms................................................ 101
Old inner beltway communities..................................152, 153
President's budget request....................................... 93
Public housing authorities:
Issuance by the.............................................. 116
Reforming the................................................ 137
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.......................... 127
Reserve account.................................................. 103
No leasing against........................................... 103
Section 8 account................................................ 117
2020:
Management Reform Program.................................... 94
Plan......................................................... 120
Unsubsidized housing............................................. 99
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Awards process, assuring the..................................... 164
CDFI:
Is a high priority program................................... 155
Making significant strides................................... 158
Program:
Achieves goals........................................... 165
Success of............................................... 164
Fiscal year 1999 budget request.................................. 159
Fund in review................................................... 156
Goals............................................................ 166
Management requirements, unable to meet.......................... 165
Stimulating private markets...................................... 158
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Access to care................................................... 240
Fiscal year 1999 budget request.................................. 171
Medical:
Collections.................................................. 191
Facilities, closing.......................................... 241
Research..................................................... 245
Medicare subvention.............................................. 236
Patient costs, reducing.......................................... 239
Processing:
Claims....................................................... 236
Compensation claims.......................................... 237
Tobacco-related claims, processing.............................238, 239
VBA's road map to excellence..................................... 238
Veterans equitable resource allocation........................... 243
Workload increases, monitoring................................... 244
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYfirst
365
Animal feeding operations........................................ 362
Authority to regulate........................................ 365
Draft strategy............................................... 374
Regulation: focus on large operation.........................
Stakeholder involvement...................................... 363
Base realignment and closure..................................... 352
Clean water:
Action plan.................................................. 359
Vs. clean water State revolving fund funding............. 364
State revolving fund funding level........................... 359
Data quality..................................................... 347
Chief information officer role............................... 348
Edison lab....................................................... 357
Final cleanup, sites ready....................................... 357
Fiscal year 1999 President's budget.............................. 355
Food quality..................................................... 338
Food Quality Protection Act:
Chemical registration........................................ 370
Coordination between EPA and USDA............................ 371
Measurement of risk.......................................... 371
National Environmental Performance Partnership System............ 373
National Rural Water Association [NRWA] grant.................... 372
Particulate matter:
Monitors request............................................. 369
National Academy of Sciences report.......................... 366
Research request............................................. 367
Regional haze:
Particulate matter monitors.................................. 352
Visibility research.......................................... 353
Sector facility indexing......................................... 358
Ship breaking.................................................... 349
Superfund cleanup, slowed........................................ 356
Water quality: Federal agencies' roles........................... 361
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Educating for the future......................................... 602
Information technology and private sector linkages............... 601
Knowledge and distributed intelligence........................... 600
National Science and Technology Council.......................... 590
NSF:
Budget priorities............................................ 597
Interaction with Department of Education..................... 603
Major policy issues facing................................... 598
Research:
Expanding opportunities for participation in............. 608
Relationship with private sector......................... 601
Themes....................................................... 599
OSTP, responsibilities of........................................ 589
Plant and human genome research, interaction of.................. 606
Plant genome initiative.......................................... 604
Coordination of.............................................. 607
Focus on..................................................... 605
On the environment, effect of................................ 606
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology...... 590
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Bosnia amendment, budgetary source for........................... 21
Buyouts, importance of........................................... 9
California hazard mitigation grants.............................. 22
Community development block grants............................... 15
Dam safety....................................................... 2, 26
Declaration criteria............................................. 27
Disaster costs, ways to reduce................................... 26
Disaster relief:
Burgeoning cost of........................................... 2
Cost containment in.......................................... 3
Fund......................................................... 14
Loans versus grants for...................................... 6
Federal terrorism efforts, FEMA's role in........................ 17
Flood predictions................................................ 21
Hazard mitigation grant program.................................. 21
Hazard mitigation grants, time limit for......................... 22
Mudslides........................................................ 27
Municipal facilities, insurance requirements for................. 28
National Association of Counties................................. 18
Natural disaster reduction initiative............................ 16
Predisaster mitigation:
Criteria..................................................... 4
Efforts, results of.......................................... 23
Objective criteria for....................................... 25
Support for.................................................. 24
Project impact, technical assistance for......................... 24
Terrorist attacks, preparedness for.............................. 16
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Boeing contract, status of....................................... 314
Chabrow report................................................... 317
Downsizing, effects of........................................... 326
Iranian missile technology....................................... 317
NASA:
Future funding of............................................ 327
Senator Bumpers support for.................................. 323
Russian:
Commitments.................................................. 315
Delays increases cost overruns............................... 320
Honoring their space commitment.............................. 316
Service module................................................... 320
Space station:
Cost overruns................................................ 321
Launches..................................................... 319
Proceeding with the.......................................... 319
Science...................................................... 324
Total cost................................................... 313
Useful life expendency of.................................... 325
Transfer authority............................................... 325
Uncosted carryovers.............................................. 328
Y2K problem...................................................... 327
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Knowledge and distributed intelligence, investment in............ 581
Nanotechnolgoy................................................... 581
National Science Board's roles................................... 564
Plant genome research initiative................................. 580
-