[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman
JIM KOLBE, Arizona NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Deborah Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, and Christopher
Topik,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 5
Page
Public Witnesses for Natural Resource, Energy and Other Programs. 1
Additional Written Testimony--Natural Resource Programs.......... 343
Additional Written Testimony--Energy Programs.................... 505
Additional Written Testimony--Arts and Other Programs............ 597
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-833 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Alabama
Washington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California SAM FARR, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
----------
TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
----------
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE PROGRAM
WITNESS
VIC MILLER, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Regula. I call the Interior subcommittee to order. We
have a lot of people to hear from today, so we need to move
along.
As you know, you each have five minutes, and we are going
to have to tightly adhere to our schedule, otherwise we will
run out of time.
We are happy to welcome you, Mr. Miller. Your full
statement will be made a part of the record. And for others
testifying today, your statements will be made part of the
record, so if you will summarize it will be helpful. Go ahead.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am Vic Miller. I am a corn farmer from Oelwein, Iowa. I am here
representing the National Corn Growers Association, and I serve
on the Customer and Business Development Action Team of that
association, and I will summarize my statement.
We would strongly urge you to support a minimum of $13
million in funding for the agricultural vision, which you know
is the Plant and Crop-Based Renewable Resources Vision 2020
Program, which is funded under the Department of Energy. We
want to thank you for your leadership and your support that you
have given this program in the past.
The agricultural vision is for plants instead of petroleum
to provide 10 percent of the chemical building blocks market by
2020, and 50 percent by the year 2050.
If plants were the feed stock for this 10 percent market
share today, we would see an increase in farm income of some $5
billion, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced. We would
see increased recycling opportunities as well as biodegradable
opportunities occurring. But most importantly, we would reduce
our dependency upon foreign oil.
With the recent escalation in fuel prices, you all know
what has occurred with petroleum increasing. But we should view
that as a wake up call for research, which is needed to provide
a secure, long-term supply of durable, high-quality, renewable
resource products. Now is the time for that significant
research and development to begin.
Current U.S. corn production could provide all of the
carbon necessary for the current chemical industry in the
United States. If we take historical price averages for corn
and oil, we see that the cost of carbon from corn and the cost
of carbon from oil are coming together very rapidly.
The agricultural visions road map outlines focused research
in four major areas, those being plant sciences, utilization,
production, and processing. All of these areas need to develop
simultaneously for us to achieve the maximum benefit from----
Mr. Regula. What you are saying is that ethanol is not
adequately researched? We are using it all the time.
Mr. Miller. No, Congressman. We are looking at moving into
more areas. Ethanol is only one small area of this focus. The
technology road map covers a broad range, and we need to have
the broad range focus rather than a narrow focus on only
ethanol.
You know, what we are looking at for modern science to
develop these technologies, and for modern science to take this
leapfrog approach, these projects must be large. They are going
to be expensive. They must be multi-institutional involving
both public and private sectors. We must have multi-disciplines
involved here--biology, engineering, and chemistry.
While the administration has requested $13 million for the
agricultural vision, it proposes to take $5 million of that and
focus it on the bioenergy initiative. We support the bioenergy
initiative. However, we do not want to see funding for the
agricultural vision reduced. We need the full $13 million in
this case.
Mr. Regula. You had $3 million this year.
Mr. Miller. That is correct. And the administration has
proposed to increase that to $8 million, and we applaud that
effort. We have absolutely no complaint with that effort.
However, we would like to call your attention to the fact that
if we focus on bioenergy and biofuels, the agricultural vision,
but $8 million pales in comparison to the $40 or $50 million
that DOE is focusing on the bioenergy and the biofuels area.
Our greatest opportunities in the next few years to reduce
our dependency on foreign oil lie in the bioproducts area. And
yet funding for the agricultural vision is substantially below
the level needed for the multi-disciplinary approach that I had
talked about earlier, which has clear linkages across all of
the highest priorities in this road map.
With $13 million devoted to research and development needs,
we could achieve this priority scheduling. We would strongly
urge you, therefore, to adopt a minimum of $13 million for the
agricultural vision. This could go a long way in reducing our
dependency on foreign oil.
Mr. Regula. Well, we are going to be short of money, but we
will see what we can do. The Chairman of the Agriculture
Appropriations Committee is here, Mr. Skeen. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. I want us to get corn prices a little higher.
Mr. Miller. That is our goal, sir.
Mr. Skeen. We are shipping a lot of it to China, and I hope
that we are getting every dime's worth.
Mr. Miller. Well, I would hope that we would see that
occur, too.
Mr. Skeen. They are going through the Panama Canal with
it--my good American corn----
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Skeen [continuing]. For about two or three years now it
has not reflected itself in our markets.
Mr. Miller. That is right. That is right. And this is a
program that we feel that can expand that price of corn.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a copy of The
World of Corn from the National Corn Growers Association.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HOWARD GELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-
EFFICIENT ECONOMY
Mr. Regula. American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy. Mr. Geller.
Mr. Geller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. You know the rules.
Mr. Geller. I know the rules. I have been here before.
I am Howard Geller, the Executive Director of the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. I want to talk very
briefly about the multiple energy problems our nation is facing
right now, and the importance of energy efficiency programs for
addressing those problems.
We all know about the oil price runup that we have
experienced recently. It is costing our nation dearly. The
additional dollars going to OPEC countries this year, relative
to what they have been in recent years, is a total of about $50
billion, or $500 per household. The OPEC tax on every American
is averaging $500 a household right now.
That is not the only energy problem. We have electric
system reliability problems. We experienced brownouts in cities
like New York and Chicago last summer due to very high levels
of electricity demand during peak load periods, overstressing
the electric grid.
And, finally, there is a global environmental problem,
mounting evidence of global warming, as a serious threat--a
long-term threat to the world. Week after week there is growing
evidence that this is a real problem, that the Greenhouse gases
are the principal cause, and that is something we need to
address, again, over the long term but a very real problem.
Accelerating our energy efficiency efforts is a very
important strategy for addressing all of these problems. If we
accelerate our efforts to develop and promote high-efficiency
vehicles and alternative fuels, we can cut our oil imports by
around a million barrels per day by 2010 and two million
barrels per day by 2020.
Mr. Regula. Did you include natural gas?
Mr. Geller. I would include natural gas. I said a
combination of alternative fuels. Natural gas is one fuel.
Ethanol is another fuel. I think we should be pursuing all of
those options on both the supply side and the demand side. We
cannot just do one and not the other. We need to work on both
sides of the problem.
And, of course, accelerating energy efficiency, we can cut
the peak load during those hot afternoons in July and August
through more efficient buildings, more efficient air
conditioners, and hopefully avoid those very damaging brownouts
that hurt industry, hurt households.
We can reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions while saving
consumers money. It just makes sense.
Mr. Regula. Do you think the agency and DOE are doing a
good job on energy efficiency?
Mr. Geller. I think they are doing a very good job in a
whole range of areas, from working on the new technologies, the
vehicle technologies, the industries of the future, partnering
with all of our major industries, working with the building
sector. The deployment programs are very important, too.
It is just that you cannot just bring the technology to the
point where maybe it gets commercialized, but the private
sector is uncertain about the market. You need to be out there
educating consumers, providing information programs like the
motor challenge program, energy star program. Efficiency
standards, building codes are all a very important part of the
overall mix.
I urge you to do your best to try to fully fund the
administration's request this year in energy efficiency. They
have requested about a $105 million increase, about a 15
percent increase. It is a modest request, and it is very
important for----
Mr. Regula. Do you think we ought to send money overseas,
or should we keep that here? Considering, they have a
substantial budget to do this kind of work in other countries.
Mr. Geller. Yes. Thank you for mentioning that. That was
the last point I wanted to turn to was this international clean
energy initiative, which I want to point out is not just an
energy efficiency initiative. I think there is more money in
the fossil area than in the energy efficiency area. There is a
total of $46 million for DOE across the board--nuclear
renewables, fossil, and efficiency.
That is a modest amount of money to work on very important
cooperation with developing countries. It is in our interest.
It will help our businesses export good American know-how and
technology. It will help these countries to develop
economically and socially. And it will help us to address these
global environmental problems that we cannot address on our
own, as well as the oil problem, which we cannot address on our
own.
You know, it is its growing demand worldwide that is giving
OPEC the ability to jack up prices and sock it to American
consumers. So I would urge you to support those programs, the
international programs. We are a rich nation. We can find $46
million in the DOE budget I think.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen, do you have any questions?
Mr. Skeen. Yes. We hope that it translates, too, to an
increase to the producers, because I think we like to have the
product, but we forget that farming is not a very lucrative
business. But it----
Mr. Geller. Right. Energy products on the farm, whether it
is wind power or biofuels, there is tremendous opportunity
there to supplement farmers' income with these new technologies
in rural America.
Mr. Skeen. And they can stay there and produce.
Mr. Geller. Right.
Mr. Regula. Good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Geller. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: METALS INITIATIVE/PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES
WITNESSES
BRIAN ATTWOOD, VP RESEARCH, LTV STEEL COMPANY, AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL
INSTITUTE
LAWRENCE W. KAVANAUGH, VP, MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY, AMERICAN IRON
AND STEEL INSTITUTE
Mr. Regula. Next AISI. Are you speaking on behalf of Andrew
Sharkey?
Mr. Kavanagh. Yes.
Mr. Regula. All right.
Mr. Attwood. Good morning.
Mr. Regula. Good morning.
Mr. Attwood. I am Brian Attwood, Vice President of Research
for LTV Steel Corporation, headquartered in Cleveland, and this
is Larry Kavanagh with the AISI.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
deliver the support of the American Iron and Steel Institute
for continued funding of collaborative research programs. The
steel industry has long made collaborative research an integral
part of its business strategies. Our long-standing relationship
with DOE, and specifically the Office of Industrial Technology,
is an excellent example.
Evidence of the value of this research lies in the 1999
commercial licensing of two technologies. Royalties from a
novel galvanneal temperature measuring system generated the
first ever repayment of DOE cost-sharing in an industrial
program, which occurred in May 1999. The second technology--hot
strip mill model--is presently being used at several North
American steel plants. In the year 2000, we will continue to
commercially license these APC technologies.
With the significant advances in energy utilization
occurring in steel making over the last 20 years, we are
approaching the practical minimum for energy consumption during
steel making.
Now, in order to achieve substantial energy savings, we
must focus our research efforts not on how steel is made but
how it is used. An example would be reduced fuel consumption. A
significant portion of future R&D will focus on optimizing the
manufacturability of steel to make lower cost, more durable
goods, while saving energy. And we ask that you encourage DOE/
OIT to support this important new focus area.
AISI also feels longer term R&D needs to be capitalized,
and we support the steel challenge initiative of the OIT budget
which is designed to fund futuristic radical new methods of
steel production with regards to the partnership for a new
generation, vehicle PNGV, and the steel industry.
There is a widely held but false belief that replacement of
steel with aluminum reduces generation of Greenhouse gases. We
draw your attention to a study by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology which shows that the Greenhouse gas emissions
generated during the making of aluminum creates a huge CO2 debt
as compared to steel. It is likely to take generations, if
ever, for reduced gasoline consumption from aluminum cars to
pay back this debt.
During our recent presentation to the National Academy of
Sciences peer group, we demonstrated the ability of steel to
design a vehicle to meet the PNGV goals. That is being done in
our ULSAB advanced vehicles concept program.
As is clear from this and prior testimony, there have not
been cooperative steel industry PNGV programs for automobiles.
We have undertaken our own programs--ULSAB and ULSAB-AVC--to
demonstrate steel's ability in lightweight cars.
With respect to light trucks, we are planning to submit a
proposal for a light truck design project to DOE/PNGV, as we
attempt to work in partnership with government agencies on
trucks. The program is estimated at $10 to $12 million over
five years and will focus on materials, new design, and safety.
We ask that you encourage DOE-OIT to support this steel-
related vehicle research. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
this opportunity to offer these comments.
Mr. Regula. Are you having success on developing lighter
steels?
Mr. Kavanagh. The work has actually focused on both high
strength steels, which means we can reduce gauge, as well as
the holistic design of the vehicle. So we are really working
very closely with the end user now in using these steels.
Mr. Regula. The mission being to lighten the weight of the
car.
Mr. Kavanagh. The body and weight in particular, yes.
Mr. Regula. Particularly with aluminum and fiberglass.
Mr. Kavanagh. Exactly. Exactly. On an economical basis,
too.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Kavanagh. In fact, we have shown we can reduce cost as
well as weight in these vehicles. So it is kind of exciting.
Mr. Skeen. Where is the technology being funded from?
Mr. Attwood. Right now, it is coming from the steel
industry.
Mr. Skeen. The steel industry itself.
Mr. Regula. A hundred percent.
Mr. Kavanagh. Yes. In fact, it is international, too. There
are 35 steel companies total involved in ULSAB, the ultra-light
steel autobody initiative.
Mr. Skeen. So you have an ongoing situation?
Mr. Kavanagh. Yes.
Mr. Skeen. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Attwood. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: FOSSIL ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
WITNESS
TOM LEUCHTENBURG, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, GAS RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
Mr. Regula. Okay. Mr. Leuchtenburg, the Gas Research
Institute. Good morning.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. Good morning, Mr.Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Good morning.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. Good morning. My name is not David Webb,
I think as you know. My name is Tom Leuchtenburg. I am Director
of Government Relations for Gas Research Institute. Mr. Webb
sends his regrets. Today is the day of our annual meeting of
the corporation, and its Board of Directors.
Mr. Skeen. You do not want to miss that.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. No. That is one of those must shows.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity----
Mr. Regula. Give us the highlights of your testimony.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. I would like to approach it that way, Mr.
Chairman. I do have a written statement for the record, but I
will be brief. I would like to just very briefly summarize that
and then concentrate on just one of the issues addressed.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. First, we participate actively in the gas
research RD&D initiative, gas industry RD&D initiative. This is
a group of over 30 different kinds of gas companies,
associations, institutes, that type of thing.
In considering the needs of the industry, and also the
recommendations for federal RD&D funding, we support that
recommendation and you will hear a number of witnesses during
this hearing address specific elements of that request. In
general, there are a few specific additions requested. In
general, it is highly supportive of the natural gas RD&D
programs, as proposed by the administration.
The area I would like to concentrate on is one that we have
not discussed much in the past. This is the area of technology
development for gas distribution and transmission companies.
GRI is a membership organization, with 330 members, covering
the span of the gas industry. Over the last 20 years, it has
operated principally upon a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission surcharge on interstate gas----
Mr. Regula. I see that.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. This has allowed a lot of dispersed
benefit, public benefit, R&D to be performed. In the past, in
each instance when we have testified before a committee, or
with the Department, we have always responded that there was no
need for consideration of federal funding in these areas
because there was a mechanism for funding available for the
technologies--public benefit technologies of distribution and
transmission companies.
As a result of all of the changes in the natural gas
industry--and GRI has changed like a lot of other
organizations. The principal change is that as a result of a
settlement agreement at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission the mechanism used to fund the public benefit
research is on a set schedule of decline, starting from our
then-year budget of approximately $175 million, and going by
the end of 2004 that mechanism will expire and there will be no
additional funds from that mechanism collected for public
benefits R&D.
And so I think given the assurances that we have always
given to you and to the Department, that there was a mechanism
available for funding public benefit R&D in those areas. The
first thing I want to do is just make clear that we are on a
schedule.
Mr. Regula. Why?
Mr. Leuchtenburg. Why? I think in terms of the way the
system worked, there was--the FERC process is based on an Order
42566, that allows interstate pipelines--two unusual actions
before the Commission. One, instead of filing individually,
they are allowed to file through GRI collectively for approval
of RD&D expenses. And the second, it is a mechanism for
advanced approval, unlike the normal mechanism of spending the
funds and then showing prudence, and so forth, based on the
idea that RD&D inherently involves great risk, and so forth.
The pipelines--as its high point, GRI collected
approximately $220 million----
Mr. Regula. That is gone now.
Mr. Leuchtenburg [continuing]. Over time--that will be. It
is in the process. Over time, the pipeline R&D portion, while
all that was collected based on their sales was never more than
$15-, $20 million kind of level, with all of the changes that
came, they thought they were at a disadvantage and it was a
long proceeding which ended in its termination.
Mr. Regula. You would like to receive some federal money
for the research part of it.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. I think in terms of that portion that is
related--that portion of needs that is related to the
Department of Energy goals that you assigned to the Department,
yes, sir, I think they should now be considered and evaluated
and compared against other competing alternatives, and that
there are real needs there. And I have outlined those in my
testimony, and I appreciate the opportunity----
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
Mr. Leuchtenburg. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOSSIL ENERGY
WITNESS
JENNIFER SCHAFER, PLUG POWER
Mr. Regula. Jennifer Schafer, Plug Power? That is a unique
title, Plug Power.
Ms. Schafer. Plug Power, yes.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak with you
today, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Skeen. I am going to testify on
behalf of Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells, and I am the
Director of Governmental Affairs for Plug Power, which is a
leading U.S. developer of fuel cell technology out of Albany,
New York.
Our mission is to bring fuel cells to the residential
customer in the year 2001, and we are dedicated to this, and we
are going to be able to do it.
Mr. Regula. And the customers would get the kilowatt hours
produced for the same cost they are now paying the power
company, or less?
Ms. Schafer. At our competitive--when we reach our full
production, probably in 2003, yes. Right now, we are partnered
with the General Electric Company, who is going to be marketing
our fuel cell and has already begun that, and with Detroit
Energy in Michigan, who has exclusive marketing in four states.
The fuel cell is an appliance--right now it is the size of
a refrigerator but will be shrinking to the size of about a
dishwasher. It sits outside the home or in the basement and
makes all of the electricity for the home. When we do reach our
full production, we will be cost competitive with the grid at
about $500 per kilowatt, and that is about eight cents to the
customer per kilowatt hour.
That consists of about four cents for the actual fuel--it
is natural gas at the moment--and four cents for the cost of
the fuel cell, any maintenance, normal maintenance, and
amortization of----
Mr. Regula. Do you hook this into your natural gas line?
Ms. Schafer. That is correct. It is like any other
appliance, like your gas stove, like your gas water heater.
Mr. Regula. Is it automatic, or does it have a thermostat
that kicks it on if you need electricity or heating?
Ms. Schafer. It will always run. Whenever you need any
electricity, it will provide it, and it is load following. So
it is not throwing it out in the atmosphere or anything. It is
giving you what you need.
Mr. Regula. From the fuel cell to a box?
Ms. Schafer. The fuel cell is a box.
Mr. Regula. Well, but to get into your power system in your
house, how does it get from the fuel cell to your fuse box?
Ms. Schafer. Through electrical lines wired through the
house. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Wired into your fuse box.
Ms. Schafer. Wired in. Right. That is it.
Mr. Regula. You can put it in the basement.
Ms. Schafer. Put it in the basement.
Mr. Regula. No emissions?
Ms. Schafer. No emissions. It works on an electrochemical
process, so it is fossil fuel at the moment in, and right now
it makes electricity out of natural gas with no emissions.
Right now, we are field testing hundreds of units with our
partners, and all of those right now are running on natural
gas. And our first commercial product will be natural gas.
Mr. Regula. When you have the chemical reaction on the
natural gas, then, that eliminates any emission from the gas
because it----
Ms. Schafer. Right.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Splits the atom or----
Ms. Schafer. Right. It splits the proton off of the
electron, and it allows the electron--it allows the proton to
go through a special membrane. I could give you the chemistry
but----
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Ms. Schafer [continuing]. A little detailed.
Mr. Regula. I will pass on that. [Laughter.]
Ms. Schafer. I don't blame you.
Mr. Skeen. Don't get too mysterious or----
Ms. Schafer. No, I will not.
But we will eventually, in the short term, have propane
fuel cells that run on propane, so that will be good for
vacation homes, remote applications. At the eight cent per
kilowatt hour, a fuel cell will be cost competitive in about 25
million homes across the country.
We are also proposing with DOE to do fuel cells on
biomass--garbage in, electricity out. That is a little longer
term, obviously.
We have DOE and the National Labs, and, quite frankly, the
subcommittee to thank for the breakthroughs on fuel cell
technologies that have allowed us to bring this to the point of
market introduction. And right now our device provides a fuel
cell with about 40 percent efficiency, which is competitive
with the grid.
But a fuel cell is distributed generation. It has a
byproduct at the site of usage; that is heat. If you can
recapture that heat, then you have really got something there.
We are proposing that the Department of Energy join with
industry on a cost shared program to develop a combined heat
and power unit for the residential market--a single appliance
that will do your heating, your water heating, and provide all
of your electricity.
It brings efficiencies upwards of 80 percent--cannot beat
it--and will save the consumer a lot of energy cost.
Additionally, it allows us to get away from that home heating
oil issue over which we do not have a whole lot of control.
Mr. Regula. When do you plan to go to market with this?
Ms. Schafer. We will go to market in 2001. Our cost, with
our electricity-only unit, in 2001 is going to be around
$10,000 a unit, which is a little high. But by 2003, when we
get our production run up, then we will be cost effective at
about $5,000 a unit.
So we are urging the Department and the committee to fund a
combined heat and power unit, which will further reduce
homeowner electricity and energy costs overall.
We also--while I am here, I wanted to support the buildings
fuel cell program, Micro-Cogen. It has been underfunded for
quite a few years, and we are participating in that. It is 50
kilowatt fuel cell--a little bigger than what we are doing now.
And the transportation fuel cells programs is doing a fabulous
job.
Mr. Skeen. Well, the funding for this research, that
bothers me a lot. It seems like it has faded away in some
sectors. Who is funding this?
Ms. Schafer. For us?
Mr. Skeen. Yes.
Ms. Schafer. On our residential product, it is all
private--pretty much all private, although we are doing a few
demonstrations, particularly with some of the state
governments. We may be doing a few demonstrations this year
with the Building America Program, which is also under your
purview. But we have, for advanced research, a larger unit--
there are technological issues, transportation unit, there is
shock resistance, there is a lot of things. We have been
working with the Department of Energy.
Mr. Regula. I wish we had more time. It is an interesting
technology, but if you have any material----
Mr. Skeen. Wish we had more money.
Ms. Schafer. Yes, I wish you did, too. Anything we can do
to help you get more money?
Mr. Regula. You have got to get stopped right now, Joe.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. The organizations that provide the funding--some
of it from government, yes, but also from industry.
Ms. Schafer. Our partners are providing a lot of it, and we
have gone public--we went public in October to raise the money
as well.
Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
Ms. Schafer. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Regula. An IPO?
Ms. Schafer. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: STATE ENERGY PROGRAM
WITNESS
RICHARD SEDANO, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY
OFFICIALS
Mr. Regula. Mr. Sedano, National Association of State
Energy Officials? Okay. You know the rules.
Mr. Sedano. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am good on
the floor. I will put on the accelerator, if you like.
I am Richard Sedano, Public Service Commissioner for the
State of Vermont and Chair of the National Association of State
Energy Officials. I am here to support elements of the
Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program. We are supporting $219 million in the state grant
programs, including the State Energy Program and the
Weatherization Assistance Program.
We are also supporting in our testimony today $72.2 million
for the Energy Information Administration, including funds for
supplemental petroleum information, which we find important. We
also want to urge that you continue the initiative that you had
last year, Mr. Chairman, to provide at least $6 million for
RD&D through cooperative agreements between the Department of
Energy and the states.
Specifically, we would like to see $44 million for the
State Energy Program and $175 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program.
Energy policy is, of course, a very unsettled subject right
now. Oil prices are volatile. Energy markets are changing. And
state energy offices, I think, are very helpful throughout the
country in addressing energy security issues, energy
independence issues, responding to energy emergencies and
crises, as we have seen this year, and I think they provide
sensible solutions and promote innovation.
We have been especially successful in the last couple of
years working with the Office of Fossil Energy at the DOE. We
are working on all sorts of new technologies that will be
promoting both energy efficiency within the context of fossil
energy development.
We are also interested in improved data collection and data
management for all fuels. We think consumers are very
interested in this. It is an important part of our job.
Another thing that state energy offices are doing more of
is that as utility resources for energy efficiency and electric
energy R&D are reduced through competitive forces, state energy
offices are filling that void.
My testimony has several examples about different states
that are doing some very interesting things. But what is common
in all of those examples is that a relatively small amount of
federal money goes to produce incredible amounts of private
sector money as well as state money coming into these energy
efficiency and technology development programs.
There is an especially nice one in Vermont, which I hope
you will take a look at.
The State Energy Program provides the backbone support that
allows all of these successes to happen, and that is really the
core thing that I want you to understand as best as I can help
you understand it. That these people who are supported by the
State Energy Program are looking for opportunities, looking for
innovation, and are there on the spot when the opportunities
emerge and make good things happen.
We are also supporting the EIA budget because we need their
quality information, and especially these days, in a timely
way. Sufficient funding is needed to meet this important public
interest, and the recent oil markets issues have made that
very--imminently clear. Specifically, we have something called
a State Heating Oil and Propane Program in which we would like
to see increased levels of data reported from the states, from
the oil and propane and gasoline markets, through the state
energy offices to consumers.
So the takeaway, Mr. Chairman, is we see that the federal
monies that come through the State Energy Programs and the
Weatherization Programs are really multiplied in their benefits
throughout the economy and through resources from the private
sector, from states, and even, perhaps most importantly,
partnerships are forged which sustain these activities long
after the federal money is moved on to other uses. And I think
that is really the essence of our public interest.
Mr. Regula. Thank you. One question. Can you handle the 25
percent contribution on weatherization?
Mr. Sedano. Mr. Chairman, there are several states which
will have a real problem with that. I understand that some----
Mr. Regula. But they all have surpluses. We have checked.
Mr. Sedano. Well, that is not the case. I have done a
little checking, too, because my membership is very concerned
about this. We know that about 16 states are going to have a
problem with this. I understand that the states of Kansas,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming are having budget crises
right now. We are very concerned about this, Mr. Chairman.
Some states will be able to provide some of the match. I
can tell you that Vermont is fine because we already have a tax
that supports weatherization from our own funds. So my state is
going to be fine.
The majority of the states will probably be fine. But a
significant minority of states, states which really require
support of this kind, are not going to be fine, Mr. Chairman.
And I hope you will take that into account.
Mr. Regula. Do you have anything, Mr. Skeen?
Mr. Skeen. I have no questions.
Mr. Sedano. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: FOSSIL ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
WITNESSES
RICHARD A. BAJURA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR COAL AND
ENERGY, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
GEORGE FUMICH, PROGRAM ADVISOR, NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR COAL AND
ENERGY, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Regula. West Virginia University, Mr. Bajura.
Mr. Bajura. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Dick Bajura,
and my colleague is George Fumich. We are here to share with
you some of our frustrations about the funding for the fossil
energy budget and highlight some of the programs in
transportation technology to the industries of the future.
With the role that coal is going to play in the future, we
are frustrated that the administration has recommended a $19
million cut in the coal programs, $28 million cut overall. We
would recommend that you support funding at a level of $433
million, which is what the PCAST report suggested several years
ago.
Mr. Regula. Do you think we are going to keep using coal to
generate electricity?
Mr. Bajura. I think so, sir. The projections are that it is
going to go up and increase. Eighty-five percent of our energy
is going to be supported by fossil fuels in some projections.
So I think----
Mr. Regula. Gas and/or coal or----
Mr. Bajura. Gas and/or coal.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Oil.
Mr. Bajura. Right.
Mr. Regula. What percent of our electrical energ--is
produced by coal?
Mr. Bajura. Currently, 56 percent, and that may go a little
bit higher. Natural gas is going to increase. We do not know
what is happening with nuclear in the future, and I think it is
important for us to prepare for that future and embrace fossil
fuel research. I think it is important that you support funding
for these areas.
Mr. Regula. Is clean coal technology getting on stream? We
have had quite a bit of money invested in that. Is it getting
commercialized?
Mr. Bajura. Clean coal technology is getting on stream,
sir. But there are many problems that need to be addressed--
materials handling--advanced separations, for example, have
been proposed by the administration this year. There are some
bugs that need to be worked out.
And, quite frankly, I am concerned that we have not
invested enough effort in these technology areas. I see that
overseas many of the European nations are implementing some of
the modules that we are using in Vision 21, and we are not
deploying them here.
I am concerned that we are going to fall far behind if we
do not have a vigorous program in issues like gas turbines,
carbon sequestration, fuel cells, all of which can run on
natural gas. But I think we need to prepare for a future with
coal.
I also think that it is important for us to look at
transportation fuels from coal. Producing transportation fuels
with chemicals are going to be a very important way of
deploying Vision 21 projects. And we are recommending some
additional funding for that activity.
The ultra clean fuels initiative that is proposed is
important. We would also like to see that that be directed
toward coal technology.
There are some important programs in natural gas. I am glad
to see that Congress is supporting the natural gas hydrates
program. We think that there needs to be additional funding in
that area.
The gas infrastructure that you heard about today is
important, and I would encourage the committee to continue
supporting the coal mine methane program that you initiated
last year. Very important for Greenhouse gas sequestration.
We think that coal can be used for other purposes and
appreciated your support last year for our carbon products
program at West Virginia University, and hope that you will
continue to support that this year.
In transportation technologies, they have got some good
programs. We are working on developing diesels. We need to get
those deployed in the next several years, or we are going to
miss the market for doing it.
Mr. Regula. A new style diesel engine that is more
efficient?
Mr. Bajura. Advanced diesels that will be more efficient
and less polluting, and also applicable to some of the lighter
weight vehicles, like SUVs and cars. Nobody wants to run a
diesel these days, but yet they are very highly efficient.
Mr. Regula. Are hybrids, the engine plus electric--I think
Toyota has one and GM is working on one--aren't those diesels?
Mr. Bajura. No, they are not diesels.
Mr. Regula. Oh, they are not? Are they gasoline?
Mr. Bajura. They are gasoline, and there is some emphasis
on natural gas. And we would encourage additional emphasis on
natural gas as an alternative fuel in these programs.
We heard about the State Energy Program here by the
previous speaker, and I believe it is important that we work
with the State Energy Programs in implementing alternative
fuels. We are very far away from meeting our EPEC targets of 10
percent alternative transportation fuels. We are only running
about two or three percent now, and I think continued support
for that area is important.
Also, I think we need support for infrastructure. People
need help in servicing vehicles, and we think something like a
natural gas cylinder inspection program would be important for
next year, too.
In the Industries of the Future Program, we like that in
West Virginia. Fifty-three percent of our industries, our
manufacturing industries, are in the IOF programs that they are
highlighting. We think the state programs are very important
and would encourage you to ask IOF to deploy a state assistance
program next year.
And mining, very important for West Virginia. We appreciate
your continued support for that, sir.
Mr. Regula. Any comments you would like to make?
Mr. Fumich. I would like to support Dr. Bajura's comments
regarding the importance of coal and fossil energy. The
government's own statistics--the Energy Information
Administration--states that fossil is still going to support
about at least 65 percent of our energy requirements to the
year 2020. And as far as the power area, that is going to
increase about two and a half to three percent a year. And the
coal part of that will not quite be 56 percent. It will be a
little bit less.
I think natural gas will be more, but the tonnage will be
greater. And we are talking--you are talking about the world,
you are talking about India and China. We are going to have to
do all of the research because we are not going to meet the so-
called Kyoto requirements unless we do that.
Fossil energy is greatly underfunded.
Mr. Regula. Well, you are preaching to the choir with me.
Well, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: ADVANCED TURBINE SYSTEMS/SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL/FOSSIL ENERGY
WITNESS
FRANK BEVC, MANAGER, EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE POWER
CORPORATION
Mr. Regula. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation. Mr.
Bevc.
Mr. Bevc. Chairman Regula, Congressman Chairman Skeen,
first, thank you for the opportunity to present our views to
the committee. I almost feel a bit redundant, given the last
testimony. That is, we also feel that fossil energy has been
short-changed.
We feel that the committee has done an admirable job in the
past of balancing a number of conflicting priorities, and in
the fiscal year 2001 budget the balance between renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and fossil energy, as presented by
the administration, is slightly out of kilter.
Mr. Regula. I think so, too.
Mr. Bevc. Basically, my job is to bring new energy
conversion devices--turbines and fuel cells--into the
marketplace. I am an engineering manager.
And we believe that those energy conversion devices
basically are the final link in the chain to producing----
Mr. Regula. You heard the previous testimony on fuel cells
from the young lady. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Bevc. Yes, I do. I believe that the bulk of our energy
through history has been produced by rotating machinery, by
turbines. I think that fuel cells will be entering the
marketplace over the next five years. I believe that
businesses, commercial stores, and malls, and small industrial
concerns, will find that fuel cells can be more economical than
grid-delivered power.
We think that, just like balance between energy efficiency
and renewable energy and fossil energy, there is plenty of room
in the marketplace for small power generation sources as well
as central station kinds of----
Mr. Regula. Does Siemens Westinghouse produce fuel cells?
Do you plan to market them?
Mr. Bevc. Yes, we do produce solid oxide fuel cells,
slightly different than the Plug Power solid polymer PEM-type
fuel cells. Ours work at higher temperatures and are inherently
more efficient.
We have a number of programs ongoing with the Department
of----
Mr. Regula. Do you use natural gas?
Mr. Bevc. Yes. Well, let me say that we, and all fuel
cells, can use any hydrogen-bearing fuel. So natural gas or
coal or biomaster drive gas--or as the Plug Power
representative said, propane----
Mr. Regula. Or like in rural areas of New Mexico, where you
do not have a gas line running into the home--what would you
use, propane?
Mr. Bevc. Well----
Mr. Regula. If you wanted to have a fuel cell?
Mr. Bevc. Again, it would depend upon the specific
economics of the application. Recall that all of these things
require energy. So you will go back to a source of fuel, of
natural gas or propane, and how much you are consuming and how
much electricity you need I think will depend upon the
economics of those kinds of devices in remote locations.
In our testimony, we talk about basically two existing
programs and two new DOE initiatives. First, we would urge the
committee to fund the final year of the advanced turbine
systems program. We believe it has been very successful. I will
speak for General Electric, at least from my viewpoint, that
both we and they have gas turbines that are far better and more
efficient and cleaner than they would have been without the
program. And, basically, the last year's funding of that
program is in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
A thing that I think the gas turbine industry learned while
executing the ATS program was how to work with universities.
Down in South Carolina, the South Carolina Institute for Energy
Studies basically is a mechanism by which industry, the
Department of Energy, and the university community can work
together on pre-competitive type technology.
We believe that has been a very effective program and has
drawn in the university community in over 60 programs and 37
states, basically doing basic research, and, most importantly,
training the new engineers coming out of college that energy
and fossil fuels are interesting and exciting things to work on
and feeding our community with the technical talent that we
need.
The two new initiatives of the--within the Vision 21
realm--there is something called a next generation gas turbine
program, basically a program that sort of fills the gap between
the small generation sources and the larger ones.
Forces of deregulation determine what should be present in
the marketplace. More so, we should be producing devices. We
believe that when you put them in combined cycle, either in the
combined heat and power kind of device that Plug Power
mentioned, or in a hybrid cycle with a micro turbine or little
gas turbine, you can get even more efficient production and
cleaner production.
Mr. Regula. Do you see increased use of fuel cells in 10
years?
Mr. Bevc. Yes. Very much so. We believe that fuel cells
will be in the marketplace certainly within 10 years. And our
corporate estimates are that between 10 to 15 percent of all
new generation in that time period will be from distributed
power.
Mr. Skeen. Going along with what you have been talking
about, it has been interesting to us that we have a bus
manufacturing effort going on in my part of New Mexico, and
they are using fuel cells because they are very popular with
cities. They are very competitive. But it is actually putting
this technology into use, and it is being used--it is selling,
and it is doing the job.
Mr. Bevc. I think the applications and the growth in the
marketplace are certainly going to increase over the next five
years.
Mr. Regula. Very interesting. Well, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE/USGS/OSM/BLM/FS
WITNESS
CONSTANCE D. HOLMES, SENIOR VP, POLICY, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Regula. National Mining Association, Constance Holmes.
Ms. Holmes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We really
appreciate the opportunity to come in and talk to you today
about our views about the fiscal year 2001 budget. I know I do
not have to repeat any of the statements that have been made by
our predecessors when we say thank you for your concern about
the budget in fossil energy because we have the same types of
concerns. The fact that we do not think that--I will get more
time, see? [Laughter.]
We do share your concerns and appreciate your support for
expanding and not contracting the fossil energy budget. It is
extremely important to the future of the coal industry,
especially as we are selling to an electric utility industry
that is being deregulated, as that utility industry has to meet
new demands, add capacity, and still use existing capacity and
look at retrofit of that existing capacity to meet new
SO2 requirements, new NOX requirements,
requirements on particulates, and future--possible future
requirements to reduce mercury and carbon dioxide. And fossil
energy is very important for those programs.
We do share the concerns of previous witnesses that the
budget, the fiscal year 2001 budget request for coal and power
systems was decreased this year by some $18 million, and we
would certainly hope that the committee will return the budget
for power--coal and power systems at least to the level of
fiscal year 2000 of around $212 million.
As the previous two speakers, we certainly support DOE's
Vision 21 program. That we believe will result in some very
highly efficient powerplants that will allow utilities to give
our Americans, and use coal and use other fossil fuels and
supply low-cost energy, but at the same time will allow them to
reduce emissions of SOX, NOX, and
CO2 and mercury.
Any remaining carbon that might still result after Vision
21 projects are complete and online certainly can be offset
through sequestration. We are very pleased as well that the
Vision 21 program essentially uses dollars that have already
been spent and built upon the clean coal programs. And we think
that the work that DOE is proposing for 2001 is very important
to be fully funded if, indeed, the technologies are going to be
demonstrated by 2015 when we believe they will be needed.
We are very supportive of DOE's request to extend the
research program on carbon sequestration. Frankly, given the
importance of carbon sequestration, possible importance of that
to the future, we think that they could have asked for even
more money. There are two research projects in the area of
sequestration that are underway right now that could prove to
provide a way to sequester carbon in the relative short term.
One of them uses fuel cells, and that is an industry
government funded zero-based emissions project that is just
getting underway and has requested a million dollars in the DOE
budget. And we hope that there will be results, actual on-the-
ground results, within five years.
There is another project that could, if it is fully
funded--it is not in the budget--but if it is fully funded
could also have results within five years. And that is the
biosequestration on semi-arid lands project that is being done
out at Los Alamos.
We believe strongly in the carbon sequestration research.
It is a long term research effort, but we think that we need
now to provide a suite of technologies so that they are in
place if we need them in the future.
NMA does oppose, however, DOE's request to rescind the $105
million from appropriations from the Clean Coal Program. We
think that those dollars could be reprogrammed. And if they
cannot be productively used in the CCT program, they could be
reprogrammed to look at needs for existing coal-fired
technologies, so that we can retrofit that existing base.
We are also very supportive of the coal preparation and
liquefaction technologies, the research on those. We are
supporting two projects in particular--the advanced separation
technology initiative and the Steubenville comprehensive air
monitoring program that DOE, NMA is a partner. The Ohio Coal
Development Group is a partner in that as well.
In my last remark, I would like to thank you very much for
your support for the mining industry, the future program. We
have been very pleased at the response of the mining industry,
and we have 10 projects underway right now. They are focused on
safety improvements, and they are focused on efficiency of
mining operations. But they represent the tip of the iceberg.
On our first project solicitation we had 23 very top notch
proposals. We could not fund them all, clearly. We are right
now reviewing 62 proposals that if they were fully funded, and
if money was available, we would be--we would ask for
approximately $52 million. I am just pointing that out, just
simply to tell you that there is a great need for mining
research, one that is way beyond that that we had anticipated.
And we do respectfully request that if the budget allows the $4
million that has been requested----
Mr. Regula. Do you see a future for fossil fuel in power
generation?
Ms. Holmes. I absolutely do, yes. When we are looking at
the zero-based emission projects, when we are looking at the
plants that come out of Vision 21, and the efforts to reduce
SO2 and NOX to almost nothing,
essentially, along with carbon sequestration, there is a bright
future for coal.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Skeen.
Mr. Skeen. I have no questions. I know that you would enjoy
the coal----
Mr. Regula. Yes. [Laughter.]
And there is no coal mine in my district either, but----
Ms. Holmes. Well, thank you again for your support.
Mr. Regula. Very little at least. Thank you.
Ms. Holmes. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: CONSERVATION
WITNESS
DAVID HAMILTON, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
Mr. Regula. Okay. The Alliance to Save Energy, Mr.
Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you very much. I did not think you
would be running ahead. That is great.
Mr. Skeen. Energy efficient.
Mr. Hamilton. Very good.
My name is Dave Hamilton, and I am the Policy Director of
the Alliance to Save Energy, which is a nonprofit bipartisan
coalition of business, government, environmentalists, and
consumer leaders dedicated to improving the energy efficiency
of the economy.
You know, each year we come before you to try to highlight
one part of the energy efficiency world that helps, we believe,
elucidate its contribution to our nation's energy supply and
the economy. And we look in the news and politics to see where
best to check that out.
I think that this year the oil price spike has dominated
the news. It is a lesson for us in that we have not managed to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil in the 20 years since the
original oil crises. I think that, you know, from your comments
at Tuesday's hearing, I do not think that that is lost on you,
Mr. Chairman, or you, Mr. Skeen. That we are still vulnerable
on energy issues, and we still need to take action.
And a long period of low prices managed to put us into
somewhat of a malaise about how we deal with that, and we want
to urge that real action take place in deployment of hybrids,
deployment of fuel cells, and continued both research and
development and deployment.
You know, the progress we have made is only highlighted by
the fact that I think this time OPEC really would like to
squeeze it slowly because they do not want the money to stop.
We do not have a political crisis like the Iranian Revolution
or anything to turn it into a political crisis. But they have
very graciously agreed to increase production so that prices
will go down slowly. And the question is: when is the next time
they are going to decide to ratchet it up?
So our next--my next point, is last year, Mr. Regula, I
came here and talked about energy efficiency as a contributor
to energy supply, and how do we think about that, and how do we
figure it out. And I presented an analysis, which I have
included again in here, of--an alliance analysis of Energy
Information Administration data, which would add the number of
BTUs, which is contributed by energy efficiency according to
EIA, to the rest of our nation's energy supply.
And how would that look? How does that make the whole
picture look? And I enclose a table in my testimony which says
that, you know, if you include energy efficiency, displaced
BTUs, which you can use for any other use that you would like
to, account for about 25 percent of the energy supply. And that
fossil fuels really account for more like two-thirds.
That is not meant to denigrate or lessen the role of fossil
fuels in the economy, and, clearly, our economy still rests on
them. But it is also very important, especially since we are
spending the millions of dollars that we spend on energy
efficiency in the Federal Government, and that citizens and
companies spend every day out in the country, to accurately and
effectively judge what that contribution is.
So I would point out that table. I would also point out a--
something that I mention in the testimony, which is a study by
the Rand Corporation of California Energy Efficiency Programs,
which conclude that three percent of California's gross state
product in 1995 was due to lowering energy intensity, which is
lowering the amount of dollars you have to spend for energy for
a unit of output, and how lowering energy intensity makes
fertile ground for economic growth.
And I would point that out. I would also point out the
second table in there, which is five technologies plus
appliance standards from the buildings programs, which now,
with GAO approved accounting methods, now account for $80
billion of returns to the economy over 20 years, when in that
same period of time we have only--we have spent less than $2
billion on the buildings programs.
And I think that kind of return is almost--it seems almost
not believable. But in GAO's audit, those--how those success
stories are computed, and you have a situation where five
technologies plus appliance standards have returned $80 billion
for a less than $2 billion investment. And I just want to point
that out as how we are--you know, these programs are
successful.
Mr. Regula. Any of my colleagues have questions? We are on
a five-minute time cycle here.
Mr. Dicks. No, thank you.
Mr. Regula. So we do not have much time.
Do you agree that it is important to have fossil research,
too?
Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely. And I believe that, you know, the
more fossil research is oriented toward making use of it more
efficient--you know, and I think Mr. Reicher and Mr. Gee have,
you know, combined publicly a lot more this year to say, you
know, we do parts of the same thing.
Mr. Regula. There is a place for both.
Mr. Hamilton. Right.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: FOSSIL ENERGY
WITNESS
BEN YAMAGATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Regula. Mr. Yamagata? Coal Utilization Research
Council. We are happy to welcome you.
Mr. Yamagata. Mr. Chairman, it is good to be here again. I
hope I do not take all of my time, so you can catch up if you
need to.
I provided to the members, besides my written statement, a
sheet with some overheads on them. And I thought maybe I could
speak for them, Mr. Chairman, that might provide some more
clarity with respect to the issues that I would like to cover
with you, if I may.
Let me start by saying that we appreciate the opportunity
to be here today to talk about the fossil energy program,
particularly the coal-based fossil energy program. And I would
like to make two points, if I may, to you. First of all, to
summarize the Coal Utilization Research Council's
recommendations to increase and modify DOE's fossil energy
budget.
And then, secondly, to provide this subcommittee with our
rationale as to why we would recommend those increases.
Time permitting, thirdly, perhaps to put in some broader
context around these comments, specifically that we are
suffering, as you know, Mr. Chairman, yet an other oil price
jolt. And we will continue to do so unless and until we define
a workable national energy policy that relies in part upon fuel
diversity where coal and renewables and hydro all coexist and
contribute.
That having been said, as other witnesses have already
pointed out to the subcommittee, the administration has asked
for, depending on how you count the numbers, $18- to $19
million less in the coal R&D program than you appropriated last
year. And even with respect to the amounts that are requested,
there are new initiatives like the international coal
initiative and the sequestration initiatives, which changes
those numbers even more dramatically.
Given that context, the CURC is recommending to you that as
much as $13 million of that $18 million be restored to the
program. My written comments go into some detail about where
those increases we think ought to take place.
In addition to that, however, we are also recommending the
addition of $8 million more to certain key specific areas that
unless adequately funded are going to slow everything else
down, or will not initiate some new initiatives that we believe
ought to be initiated in this timeframe.
I want to emphasize to the members that the additions we
are recommending are minimums. They are minimums in the context
of it will provide for funding of a core R&D program for coal,
we believe.
If you want to get serious and accelerate programs, then I
think several areas there--perhaps additional funding--and I
would point out chemicals from coal, for example, particularly
with respect to the early entry of Vision 21 chemical plants,
and also more work on what we believe are principal and primary
technology platforms--integrated gasification, combined cycle,
and pressurized fluidized bed--which I know the Chair is very
familiar with.
We also, in our recommendations, would urge you to reject
the administration's request to rescind the clean coal funds.
The Chairman, as many of us know, has been the pioneer and the
champion of that program. I know we do not have to talk very
much about that, Mr. Chairman, but it has been a good program.
It continues to be a good program.
Of those funds that have been requested for rescision, the
CURC--that is, this organization that I am representing--is in
the process of trying to come up with a program that may make
sense in lieu of the use of those funds apparently in the
program--clean coal program where they may no longer be needed
for a specific project.
We would like to preserve some time with the committee and
come back to the committee with some more specific
recommendations as to how we think those funds might
appropriately be used for coal.
Ms. Holmes pointed out that perhaps use of existing plants
and technologies that can reduce the cost of emission
compliance on existing plants is an area that we think might be
very fruitful.
Let me spend the last minute or so, or 30 seconds, just
briefly talking to you about why we believe these additions are
required, because I do not think it is appropriate for us to
come here and simply say that the addition should take place
because they were there last year.
The CURC has gone through a process of defining a
technology road map where we have defined a series of
parameters, both in terms of time and technology objectives, in
order for us to get to lots of emission reductions and greater
efficiency. And it is on the basis of this type of a road map--
technology road map, Mr. Chairman--that we believe our
recommendations are key, too. And so I would commend the
subcommittee looking at those recommendations as well, and at
the technology road map. That is the basis of our
recommendations.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
Mr. Yamagata. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: NATURAL GAS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
WITNESS
CHARLES H. FRITTS, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Regula. American Gas, Mr. Fritts.
Lets suspend for a couple of minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Regula. Mr. Fritts.
Mr. Fritts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Charlie
Fritts. I am with the American Gas Association. We represent
189 gas distribution companies throughout America.
The base of our case for additional support for gas-related
research is that natural gas is clean, it is here, it is
domestic, and it is priced competitively in today's market.
Mr. Regula. What is the estimated supply in North America?
Mr. Fritts. It is at least 70 years, and the funny thing
about it is 20 years ago they said it was 70 years, and we used
20 trillion cubic feet per year since then. And there is still
70. It is based on technology and price. Actually, some of the
research that this committee has funded has led to finding of
greater reserves.
Mr. Regula. So are you saying there is a lot of it out
there, and we are not going to have to import it from OPEC?
Mr. Fritts. We are connected through a pipe system, both
largely through the producing states and the Gulf of Mexico. It
is all domestic. The overseas imports are not an event.
Mr. Regula. Is there still LNG coming in?
Mr. Fritts. LNG coming in, it is down in the one percent
range. It is obviously much more expensive than whatever is
piped in, so it is a peak shaving technique. That is all.
America is not taking full advantage of its natural gas
resources and gas' inherent qualities. And we would like to see
the DOE budget for natural gas be increased to allow American
industries to do so. We have identified a series of specific
research recommendations that we are going to recommend to the
committee to add to the DOE budget in the nature of about $30
million.
We are not asking for a gift. All of these programs will
have cost-sharing from the industry. The first one I would like
to mention is the natural gas infrastructure. This is roughly
$13 million in the DOE budget. It is for things like leak
detection. It is for underground detection of obstacles to
lower the cost of drilling. It is for things that will make the
system more reliable, and once the gas system is more reliable,
the electric system, which uses a lot of gas for generation,
will also be more reliable.
On the distributed generation side, this is a new thing
coming to the industry. And if I can show you a few pictures,
what this basically is in distributed generation, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Dicks--excuse me. I just want to--basically, what we are
doing here, distributed generation means onsite, at the site of
the use you are going to make your electricity, as opposed to a
central powerplant.
Because you are doing it at the site, you are able to
structure it so that the heat that is normally wasted out the
smokestack is recovered and used again. And that picture you
have there, the turbine, micro turbine, which is, again, an
item that this committee has funded research on, is capturing
that waste heat at the wall greens to make hot water and
capturing no heat from that to heat the air in the building.
Mr. Regula. What percent efficiency do you end up with?
Mr. Fritts. The net of this picture right there is close to
80 percent efficient. Your average generation plant, central
station, is in the neighborhood of 30 percent. So you are doing
more than doubling the efficiency here by capturing that waste
heat through a distributed generation program.
Distributed generation comes in several packages. You have
heard previous witnesses talk of fuel cells, micro turbines,
reciprocating engines. We are looking for increases in the DOE
budget in all of these because there are different types of
markets that need distributed generation and that different
sizes of packages, of power packages, that each will need, or
sizes that fit in the combination and recapture the waste heat.
So we are looking for modest increases in the distributed
gen, in the fuel cells, reciprocating engines, and the micro
turbine programs.
We also support the Industries of the Future Program,
specifically the super boiler program. This is a very high
efficiency boiler that DOE has been working on, and we would
like to see greater attention to that in the neighborhood of
about a $3 million increase.
Mr. Regula. That would be in powerplants.
Mr. Fritts. These are boilers, industrial boilers.
Mr. Regula. Okay, for heating.
Mr. Fritts. Another concept coming on that is similar to
distributed generation is the combined heat and power, or
building combined heat and power. This is taking a building
itself, making the electricity or heating the unit, and
recapturing that waste heat to then cool it, heat it, and heat
the water.
Cooling technologies are a great new thing for natural gas
because in summer when electricity is at its peak demand
because of electric air conditioning demand, gas use is in a
trough because it is largely a heating fuel for the winter. Gas
can cool. It is natural to use gas to cool to offset the
demands that are placed on the electric system for cooling.
On the vehicle side, we are asking for an increase of $5
million for the clean cities program, and $4\1/2\ million for
the heavy-duty alternative fuel program. Here again, you are
looking at the oil crisis, and most of that is transportation
fuels. Natural gas vehicles can do tremendous work here to
lessen that dependence.
Again, I will close on one note, Mr. Chairman. This
committee, in its '99 appropriation and report, said to DOE,
``Give greater consideration to total energy efficiency over
the full fuel cycle in your energy conservation programs.'' An
Executive Order said the same thing.
This continues to be an issue at the Department of Energy.
They have a standard now called ASHRAE 90.1 that is----
Mr. Dicks. What is it called?
Mr. Fritts. ASHRAE 90.1. It is a conservation standard for
building--commercial building envelopes. It is not consistent
with the instruction and the guidance from this committee, and
it has also not proven to be cost justified. And we would like
this committee to challenge the appropriation for that program.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I am sorry we
are short on time----
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, if I may----
Mr. Regula. Sure.
Mr. Hinchey [continuing]. Just briefly--there are large
portions of the country that do not have access to natural gas.
Do you make any recommendations, not necessarily to this
committee but more broadly as to how larger sections of the
country could have greater access to natural gas?
Mr. Fritts. Most of the major cities do. It really comes
down to economics, what sort of load is at the end of the line
that justified building a pipe transmission line to it. We
would be glad to talk to you about incentives to do that, but
right now it is an economics test that makes that determination
between the pipelines as well as the distribution companies.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Fritts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: VISION 21 INITIATIVE PROJECTS
WITNESS
DR. SY A. ALI, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, ROLLS-ROYCE
Mr. Regula. Rolls-Royce? Dr. Sy Ali. Welcome.
Mr. Ali. Thanks for this opportunity, sir. My testimony
pertains to three activities within the Department of Energy's
Vision 21; and, two, under distributed generation and cost-
cutting programs.
The DOE request for appropriations in fiscal year 2001
pertaining to the DOE fossil energy site includes fuel cell gas
turbine hybrids to develop and field test a one- to three-
megawatt hybrid system by the year 2003, and then development
of a larger, up to 40-megawatt system, which could serve to
replace central powerplants.
Mr. Regula. It is a fuel cell?
Mr. Ali. This is fuel cell----
Mr. Regula. It would produce----
Mr. Ali [continuing]. Gas-driven hybrid combination.
Mr. Regula. Oh, okay.
Mr. Ali. And then the other DOE fossil energy program is
flexible gas turbines. Previous speakers talked about the next
generation gas turbines. This is the gap that exists currently
between the industrial ATS program and the large utility ATS
program to use for repowering existing stations by pulling out
the boilers and putting gas turbines in their place.
The other activity within NERO pertains to the university
support. There are 93 universities participating in this
program out of 37 states. This has been very beneficial to the
industry as well as the universities in terms of training new
people to serve the market, as well as development of advanced
techniques that could be jointly worked between the industry
and universities.
The Office of Power Technology within DOE has requested two
projects--low emission combustion system and micro turbine
development. The justification for congressional support
pertains to the current trials that is being talked about in
terms of electrical energy, the NERC, which is the National
Energy Reliability Council, is development plans for brownouts
and blackouts in the year 2000 and what to do about it.
So severe curtailment of new powerplant construction has
also been detrimental to having----
Mr. Regula. Does this result from deregulation in part?
Mr. Ali. No, this has not been a part of the deregulation.
This has been U.S. EPA activities involvement.
Mr. Regula. That made it difficult to build powerplants?
Mr. Ali. That is correct, sir.
Distributor generation using advanced technologies would
tend to minimize these shortages. The other reason of
justification is to maintain U.S. leadership in the gas
turbines area and in the fuel cells.
Mr. Regula. Are you suggesting that if you have a
manufacturing plant and put in a gas turbine as a standby, and
if you have a brownout or a blackout your gas turbine would
kick in and keep you going.
Mr. Ali. You could do it that way, or you could use gas
turbines as baseload----
Mr. Regula. Feasibly.
Mr. Ali. We are currently using at our facilities gas
turbines.
Mr. Regula. Can a gas turbine produce the KWH at the same
price you can get from the line?
Mr. Ali. In some parts of the country, you can. Advanced
gas turbines are developed to provide competitive power output.
Mr. Regula. Part of the problem that was alluded to by Mr.
Hinchey, for this program to expand, is access to gas.
Mr. Ali. This would require initially access to gas. But as
one of the speakers indicated, any hydrogen-based fuel would
work. And any fuel--coal gasified would work, propane would
work.
I have a chart in the handout that shows the growth outlook
that has been predicted by the Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration showing that over the next 20 years
they are projecting about 400 percent growth in power from gas
turbines.
Mr. Regula. And Rolls-Royce produces these?
Mr. Ali. Well, Rolls-Royce is one of the companies that
does it.
Mr. Regula. Yes, I understand.
Mr. Ali. Yes, sir. And it also shows that in spite of the
emphasis on renewables, according to the outlook renewables are
going to stay fairly flat. Electric is going to be coming down,
and nuclear certainly is coming down.
The other chart shows that gas turbines will share from
less than 15 percent currently to approximately 40 percent of
total power generation. The chart showing carbon emissions from
power generation technologies, different kinds of power
generation technologies, showing that current systems are about
five times higher than advanced technologies.
Mr. Regula. Does Rolls produce fuel cells? Are you in that
field, too?
Mr. Ali. We are working on that as well, sir.
Mr. Regula. Fuel cells, gas turbines.
Mr. Ali. And micro turbines.
Mr. Regula. Micro turbines. What is a micro turbine? Is
that a small turbine?
Mr. Ali. It is a vague definition. Some people define it 30
kilowatts, 25 kilowatts. Our concept of a gas micro turbine is
several hundred kilowatts because economics indicate that to
use all of the energy properly you need to have proper use made
of the exhaust from it or combined heat and power and cooling.
So our request to this committee is to urge support for the
fiscal year 2001 fuel cell gas turbine project, flexible gas
turbines, industrial low emission combustion system, high
efficiency micro turbine, and AGTSR--this is a university
project.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ali. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: FUEL CELLS
WITNESS
ERIC SIMPKINS, CHAIRMAN, DIRECTOR, FUEL CELL POWER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Regula. Fuel Cell Power Association, Mr. Abood?
Mr. Simpkins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Good morning.
Mr. Simpkins. Members of the committee. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My
name is not Jeff Abood, but Eric Simpkins. I am Chairman of the
Fuel Cell Power Association and Vice President of Fuel Cell
Energy, which was formerly the Energy Research Corporation.
Mr. Regula. Is it made up of industries from across the
board that produce fuel cells?
Mr. Simpkins. Stationary fuel cells.
Mr. Regula. Yes. So it is an industry group. Okay.
Mr. Simpkins. I will make my statements brief, so I can
answer your questions.
Since we testified last year, the stationary fuel cell
developers have made what I would call remarkable progress
toward commercial market entry of utility scale fuel cell
systems. The world's largest advanced fuel cell stack, a
commercial version of a 250-kilowatt molten carbonate system,
has generated over a million and a half kilowatt hours, about
10,000 hours of online service, in a good connected facility,
connected with Connecticut Utility.
A 100-kilowatt solid oxide fuel cell plant has generated
over 11,000 hours in the Netherlands, exceeding performance
expectations. And both molten carbonate and solid oxide systems
have entered commercial field trials. That is, field operations
of commercial designs at customer sites.
With the encouragement from this subcommittee and the
Department of Energy, the nation's molten carbonate and solid
oxide developers have begun work on the next generation of fuel
cells, the hybrid fuel cell turbine systems, which have been
discussed previously. This week, a 250-kilowatt solid oxide
system is completing factory acceptance testing.
These plants promise to increase electrical generation
efficiencies to as much as 75 percent, with no significant
environmental emissions. We use both fossil and renewable fuels
and generate electricity more cheaply than conventional systems
with these advanced hybrids. In the next year, we will expand
commercial field trials to let utilities and independent power
producers continue to test these first commercial designs; that
is, kick the tires, enabling the developers to complete
development in other plants and full commercial service.
The molten carbonate developers will have fuel cells fully
commercially available at the end of next year.
The Department of Energy's fuel cell programs are more
important than they have ever been because the energy industry
in the United States is facing three critical challenges.
First, America's transforming and expanding economy is
threatening to consume the country's projected supply of
reliable power. This booming economy, coupled with years of
insufficient capacity and transmission additions, have resulted
in the North American Electric Reliability Council forecasting
negative power margins in several regions within six years.
Second, the high cost of permitting difficulties of
building new transmission and distribution infrastructure, and
the need to shore up anticipated inadequate supply of reliable
power, has initiated the strong movement toward distributed
power generation globally.
And, last, consumers recognize that electricity can and
must be produced and delivered more cost effectively and more
cleanly than it has in the past. DOE's fuel cell programs are
developing clean and efficient fuel cell generation systems
that, with the appropriate level of funding, will be available
in a timeframe that coincides with the nation's growing demand
for new sources of power.
Mr. Dicks. Is the budget underfunded? Are these all adds we
have to make in order to get the fuel cell budget up to where
it has to be? $25 million?
Mr. Simpkins. The budgets to the fuel cell developers have
not been consistent with the agreements made between the
developers and the Department of Energy. And that has gone on
each year for the last four or five years. So as a result, we
have had to stretch programs out to the right. We are not
getting our products into the marketplace as soon as we had
expected.
Actually, we had--in fact, the molten carbonate developer
had--my company had anticipated, according to the original
schedule, to have our first commercial product available last
year. And we will not have it available until at least the end
of next year.
Mr. Hinchey. But that does not really answer the question.
The question is: have the budgetary allocations met your
requirements?
Mr. Simpkins. Unfortunately, they have not. No, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. How much have they fallen short?
Mr. Simpkins. We have typically, on an annual basis, gotten
about two-thirds of the requirement that has been established
by the Department.
While U.S. fuel cell manufacturers are positioned to gain
some share of the market, their ability to lead in this growing
market is directly linked to the DOE fuel cell development
programs. If these DOE industry partnerships are adequately
funded, we will conclude in a timely basis and enter markets
worldwide.
Mr. Regula. Is there research going on in other countries
on fuel cells?
Mr. Simpkins. There is. It tends to lag behind the U.S.
Mr. Regula. So we are ahead in that, and we have a chance
to capture an international market.
Mr. Simpkins. That is correct.
Mr. Regula. If we get our development on track or up to
speed?
Mr. Simpkins. That is correct.
Mr. Regula. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Simpkins. That is a very fair statement.
Mr. Regula. Interesting.
Mr. Simpkins. The vision of commercially viable power
generation using molten carbonate and solid oxide technologies
has been proven. Progress is attributable to the support of
this subcommittee and the work of the Department of Energy fuel
cell systems technology development program.
The industry partners are Fuel Cell Energy, formerly the
Energy Research Corporation, and Siemens Westinghouse. The
partners are achieving milestones consistent with appropriated
funding levels but not to the original program schedule. They
are completing the final design improvement and manufacturing
cost deduction phases.
Funding the projects at the cooperative agreement levels
will yield fully commercially available plants ready for
markets worldwide.
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you very much. We have had some
very interesting testimony today on fuel cells.
Mr. Simpkins. Here are some photographs of the molten
carbonate system, which is under test now, and of the solid
oxide system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. They both work, right?
Mr. Simpkins. Both work very well.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: RISK BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WITNESS
THOMAS TUGEND, CHIEF, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Regula. Ground Water Protection Council? Shifting to
another subject here. I understand you are from Ohio.
Mr. Tugend. Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
name is Tom Tugend. I am the Chief of the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, and I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to provide
testimony on behalf of the Ground Water Protection Council's
request for $950,000 in funding to continue development and
installation of the risk-based data management system, or
RBDMS.
This funding initiative this year, our request is $550,000
less than what the committee appropriated or allowed for last
year. In Ohio, in the past, our oil and gas well data was
maintained in a number of different ways--in mainframe computer
system, on microfilm, card files, paper files--and this
information really was not readily available to our staff, the
oil and gas industry, or the public.
In 1996, through our partnership with the Ground Water
Protection Council, we were introduced to the RBDMS system and
contracted with the Ground Water Protection Council to
customize RBDMS for our needs in Ohio. The RBDMS system has met
and exceeded all of our expectations and needs and provided for
easy self-help access to the use of the oil and gas well data
in Ohio for our staff, the public, and the oil and gas
industry.
We have received very positive feedback from the users of
RBDMS in Ohio with the following quotes from these users. ``The
database provides information that will allow producers to
drill better wells at a lower cost. Through RBDMS, we are able
to find production and well data which has saved us countless
trips to your office. It looks great and is easy to navigate
through. The RBDMS system is fantastic. The staff is doing a
great job with it. Saved a considerable amount of time and
expense in meeting reporting requirements mandated by Ohio
law.'' It is not often in our business that the regulated
community openly praises the effort of the regulator.
Twelve other states have implemented all or portions of
RBDMS with similar results as we have had in Ohio. The multi-
state team approach by the Ground Water Protection Council in
the development of RBDMS has been very successful. Continued
support of this RBDMS system will benefit a larger cross-
section of the nation's oil and gas industry and the public
that is also involved and the regulators themselves.
Again, thank you for the opportunity here today, and I
would gladly take any questions you have about our efforts.
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you very much. Very interesting.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
DOE: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOSSIL ENERGY
WITNESS
MICHAEL DICKENS, IBACOS
Mr. Regula. Next is IBACOS, Michael Dickens.
Mr. Dickens. Good morning, Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you very much.
Several of you know about IBACOS and the work we have been
doing with DOE in Building America. Our simple goal is to try
and help bring about better homes in America, higher
performance, use a lot less energy, but still cost the same as
today. If you think of your own home, it is probably very
inefficient in its use of energy. Most people would certainly
love to drop the costs of their heating and cooling by 30 to 40
percent.
And over the last four to five years, with DOE, we have
shown builders we can do that at not one dollar extra cost. We
are now working heavily in communities in Tucson, in
Pittsburgh, in California, where there will be 50 to 60 percent
energy savings for a couple of thousand homes there in that
community, and----
Mr. Regula. You are a private industry coalition trying to
help the whole industry be more efficient.
Mr. Dickens. That is our vision, and what we have done with
DOE is created--help create Building America, where there are
now five consortiums working with 70 manufacturers, builders,
designers around the country, and, in essence, creating a
leadership model because the builder is out there alone. They
do not really have a lot of help, so if we want to improve the
quality and performance of homes someone needs to help them.
And that is the role we have taken on.
We are very encouraged with what DOE has done over the last
five, six years with Building America. We have been proud to
help on behalf of industry. But we need to do more, and we are
very thankful for what you have done, increasing the budget
last year. And we would like to see that continue.
DOE has a specific role within PATH, the Partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing, that President Clinton
announced 18 months ago, where five or six or seven agencies
come together, but DOE's role within that is to really lead the
energy efficiency. And with the pilot communities that Building
America because--is pioneering, I think we can showcase that
strongly.
We have helped industry come to the table to help with road
mapping. I think that is a good start to understand what is
needed. But unlike the car industry or the computer industry,
there is no real integrator. The builder cannot integrate, and
so this alliance, this coalition, is absolutely the right way
to go.
We are excited. We are pleased to be part of it. And we
certainly thank the help you have given in the past.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Dickens. That is about it. Any questions?
Mr. Dicks. So you think there is a role here for the
Federal Government to play?
Mr. Dickens. Absolutely. I think if they do not play it, no
one will ever integrate the home. And it is the most important
product, and it is responsible for up to a trillion dollars of
service, a couple hundred billion dollars of materials and
products, and a hundred billion plus in energy. It is
absolutely their role. I think it would be a crime not to drive
it further.
Mr. Dicks. What about retrofitting existing houses?
Mr. Dickens. I think that is also a major opportunity area.
It is a very complex area. Building America typically has been
in new residential, but the PATH program is taking on the
existing 100 million homes as well.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hinchey. Do you involve yourself in multi-family homes
and commercial buildings as well?
Mr. Dickens. Not commercial because of Building America new
residential. But that includes multi-family. And the other
important role to add is that the federal role can help with
fuel cells and other R&D, through Building America, introduce
that to the builder. That is another--I could spend a long time
talking about the issue.
Mr. Regula. Build a fuel cell right into the original
house?
Mr. Dickens. Absolutely. That----
Mr. Regula. Like you put in a gas furnace or whatever----
Mr. Dickens. Yes.
Mr. Regula [continuing]. Now?
Mr. Dickens. This next five years you will see that. But,
again, the research, development, and distribution of that tech
transfer is critical, and that is Building America.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. What does IBACOS stand for?
Mr. Dickens. Integrated Building and Construction
Solutions.
Mr. Regula. Are you funded by the building industry?
Mr. Dickens. 50/50. We have 100 percent match in resources
and dollars to DOE's money, which I think is a strong one-to-
one match. So win-win public-private partnership. Half the
money----
Mr. Regula. And that money does research on efficient
materials?
Mr. Dickens. Materials, systems, and then the assembly of
them in testing in the field.
Mr. Regula. Very interesting.
Mr. Dickens. Thank you.
Mr. Hinchey. Before you go, did you give us an estimate as
to the potential energy savings that can be achieved in the
kind of program that you are working on?
Mr. Dickens. We are showing builders today, production
builders, who are really penny-wise driven builders. They will
not spend one dollar extra on their home. We can save 30
percent of the energy at no extra cost today. And in the
communities in Tucson, and soon in Pittsburgh and L.A., we are
going to drop that 50 percent.
Mr. Hinchey. You are incorporating solar into your--
Mr. Dickens. Where possible, yes.
Mr. Hinchey. Where possible.
Mr. Dickens. Where feasible as well. So the one day with
fuel cells and others we will have--you will move towards a
zero energy house. But that is a market implementation hurdle
first.
Mr. Hinchey. Absolutely.
Mr. Dickens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
TITLE IV AND V (SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT)
WITNESSES
GREGORY E. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT
COMMISSION
PATRICK PARK, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE OFFICE OF ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND
RECLAMATION, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION
Mr. Regula. Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Mr.
Conrad.
Mr. Conrad. We will split our time, Mr. Chairman, and stay
within our five minutes here. I will talk about the Title V
program at the Office of Surface Mining. Mr. Park, from West
Virginia, will talk about the Title IV, Abandoned Mine Land
Program.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Conrad. I am appearing here today on behalf of the 14
member states of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission,
which is a state government organization who operate privacy
programs under the Surface Mining Act.
We are at a significant cross-roads, Mr. Chairman. For six
fiscal years, we have striven to implement these programs which
regulate the active mining industry nationwide, without
meaningful increases in federal grant monies. Each year we have
provided reliable and realistic forecasts for our operational
costs and have stood prepared to meet our 50 percent match of
the state funds required under SMCRA.
And yet, in the face of increasing costs due to inflation,
uncontrollables, and fixed overhead, we continue to see a
reluctance on the part of the Interior Department to propose
increases in its own budget to adequately fund the Federal
Government's 50 percent share for the operation of these
critical state regulatory programs.
Last year, several states faced reductions in forests and
cuts in key program areas, such as complaint investigations,
water and blasting monitoring, inspections, and permit reviews.
But through a combination of emergency reprogramming of monies
by OSM, and some significant fiscal belt-tightening by the
states, we avoided any deleterious program impacts.
But now again this year, with OSM's minimal proposed
increase for Title V grants of only $500,000, we are faced with
the same uncertainty and discomfort concerning how we can
effectively carry out our statutory responsibilities without
adequate funding for our programs.
Mr. Chairman, we stand prepared to do our part, to fund our
50 percent of the cost of running these vital programs for
regulating the coal mining industry. But we need your help. We
would request that you would work with us to help restore the
Federal Government's commitment to assist the states and
assuring adequate protection of public health and safety in the
environment.
We request that the subcommittee approve funding for state
Title V grants in the amount of $61 million, which is based on
our estimates of regulatory program costs for fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Park. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I am Patrick Park. I represent
the National Abandoned Mine Lands Association, which entails 23
states and three Indian tribes. We operate the approved state
reclamation program, abandoned mine lands program, as approved
by the Office of Surface Mining.
Our primary responsibility, as stated in the Act, under
Section 102, is to--in summary, to eliminate all of the public
health and safety problems that were created from eligible
abandoned mine lands.
Mr. Dicks. What is the backlog?
Mr. Park. What is the backlog?
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Mr. Park. Today, through the AMBS system, which is
maintained by OSM, we have completed 16 percent of all of the
priority health and safety problems in the country. And the
program has been in existence for 23 years.
Mr. Dicks. You only got 16 percent completed?
Mr. Park. Sixteen percent done.
Mr. Dicks. What is the cost to do the other 84?
Mr. Park. What is the cost to do the other 84? From the
AMBS system, it estimates about $8 billion. There is an excess
in the fund at this time of $1.5 billion.
We are supportive of the budget of OSM, in part, and
especially to the minimum programs. We urge that the annual $2
million funding level be maintained for minimum programs as
stated--as authorized by Section 402(g)(8).
We also understand and are supportive of the proposed
extension of the AML fund, which is scheduled to expire
September 2004, for an additional 10 years. And we also are
supportive of continuing to increase the funding level to what
has been collected in each state and tribe through fees.
One of the disturbing things that I have noticed through
the years is a couple of newspaper articles. One was in
Oklahoma this year, May 13, 1999, which in summary stated that
on that day--on May 13th--a 14-year old girl was pulled from
the waters dead, drowning in a strip mine pit. The victim's
mother stated that the pit should have been filled and closed.
Also, an article in West Virginia's paper, Mason Town,
stated an individual stopped by on his way to work, fell off a
high wall 200 feet, stable in the hospital. He went to that
strip pit to visit an area where a friend of his died four
years previous to that.
Fatalities are still being--from all mines through this
country. As you stated, 16 percent has been done. There is more
to be done. The intent has not been completed, and we in the
states and tribes feel that before we can feel assured that we
have completed our job we have to assure that there are no
fatalities or injuries on these old mining lands.
Mr. Regula. This is a huge task.
Mr. Park. Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
USGS/WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
WITNESS
DR. JON BARTHOLIC, PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR OF THE MICHIGAN INSTITUTE OF
WATER RESEARCH AT MICHIGAN STATE U., NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER
RESOURCES
Mr. Regula. National Institutes for Water Resources, Dr.
Bartholic? You are from Michigan State University?
Mr. Bartholic. Yes.
Mr. Regula. Is that where they have a basketball team?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bartholic. I think Ohio gave us a rough time a couple
of times, too, so----
[Laughter.]
It is a pleasure to be here. I am representing, as
President of the National Institutes of Water Resources, and I
am Director of the Institute at Michigan State University.
In particular, we are requesting program support of $6.562
million for fiscal year 2001. This represents a $1.5 million
increase over last year's appropriation.
We work closely with USGS and we particularly are
supportive of USGS's budget request for the expansion and the
long-term monitoring----
Mr. Regula. Give us specifics of what you do. When you say
``water resources,'' that is an all-inclusive term. What do you
do?
Mr. Bartholic. I think that is all important. I think you
hit it right on the head. It is all inclusive, and it is pretty
broad. What we do is we play a role between interacting and
partnering with federal agencies, EPA, USGS, USDA, those
agencies, the state organization--for example, here is a recent
publication we put out, partly supported by EPA, partly
supported by the state, partly supported by USDA, and we put it
together in our institute.
So that we bring those things together----
Mr. Regula. Recommendations.
Mr. Bartholic. And knowledge, and we transfer the
technology to local communities, and so on, to get----
Mr. Regula. So your customers are the local community.
Mr. Bartholic. That is right. And the local community is
the government. For example, in Michigan, we have got 1,800
local units of government. And if we are going to try to
improve water quality, and preserve the quantity that we need
in ground water, and so on, we need to really distribute the
information that is partly generated----
Mr. Regula. Do you see water quality and supply a growing
problem? Critical almost?
Mr. Bartholic. Yes. I feel like hypoxia of the dead zone in
the Gulf is probably related to non-point source pollution from
the head waters. Drinking water supplies--many places in Ohio,
the Midwest, have to do source water protection because of
increasing toxics, finding pharmaceuticals in the drinking
water supplies. So we have got to do more to--and bacteria, so
we have go to do more to protect those supplies.
In the Midwest, right now there is--particularly in
northern Ohio and much of the Midwest, the water in the ground
is below normal, so there is potential for drought. The Great
Lakes are at an all-time record low at the present time, so all
of these are complex problems. And because of the network that
goes across the country, each of the institutes has an advisory
group that helps set priorities, state, local, private,
agriculture, so we work with those to come up with information
and help them make their----
Mr. Regula. It seems to me that is an enormously
prospective problem, potable water and adequate supply.
Mr. Bartholic. It is. And with increasing population, it is
not getting any better. So that is why we are basically asking
for a small increase. Our funding is about $5 million a year.
We are asking for an increase of $1 million a year in the base
budget programs. That would go to each of the institutes. And a
half million a year at the national level.
Mr. Regula. Do you share information?
Mr. Bartholic. Absolutely. We have this national network.
Mr. Regula. And you share with local governments and users.
Mr. Bartholic. Right. And we are now--many of us are
bringing together, integrating information over the World Wide
Web, so that any township can--actually, you could get on your
computer right now and find a map of your state, your county,
and we are starting to put together more information, working
with USDA, on soils information, discussing yesterday with USGS
how we can use digital ortho photographs so anyone could look
at a community. And so on.
So, basically, we are requesting the one million increase
for the base program, and then we have a national program of
about half a million.
The last statement I guess I would like to make is that we
feel that the cooperation between the institutes and U.S.
Geologic Survey is really at an all-time high, and that we can
be a partner with them. And because we work so much----
Mr. Regula. Are you happy with their work?
Mr. Bartholic. Yes. And we think it needs to be
strengthened. And I guess, if anything, we feel that somehow
some of their work, which is strong science, is not always
recognized in, the expansion of some of the scientific funding.
But that is really critical as we try to do water research, and
so on.
Mr. Regula. Important topic.
Any questions? Comments?
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Go ahead. Sure.
Mr. Hinchey. You talk about the 1964 Water Resources
Research Act and the fact that it established water resource
research and technology centers in every state. Is that still
ongoing? And there is such a center in every state?
Mr. Bartholic. That is correct. All 50 states and the
District of Columbia, and the territories.
Mr. Hinchey. And one of the responsibilities of this
research organization is to examine the impacts on watersheds,
particularly, I would imagine.
Mr. Bartholic. We really think the watershed is a key way
to integrate things. But then you have got farmers, you have
got local units of government, you have got developers that all
need information, so they can work in the water shed in a more
sustainable way.
Mr. Hinchey. Do you have any specific information you can
give me on New York, on the New York City watershed?
Mr. Bartholic. No. Truthfully, the red light is on. But
that watershed project I think is an example, and Cornell
Institute is working on that. But I think what--basically, by
working in the watershed, New York has saved potentially
billions of dollars by reducing nutrients, sediment, and other
things, so they did not have to put in a very expensive
infiltration plant in that area.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, that is really an open question. That
has not been determined yet.
Mr. Bartholic. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Hinchey. By any means. Because some of the activities
in the watershed there mitigate toward the establishment of a
very expensive filtration plant, as a matter of fact. That is
why I am asking you if you have any specific information with
regard to the watershed.
Mr. Bartholic. I will check with our Cornell Institute
there and get you some specific information.
Mr. Hinchey. Oh. It is at Cornell?
Mr. Bartholic. Yes.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much. This is really an
important topic.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NEH
WITNESS
STEPHEN GREENBLATT, THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES ALLIANCE
Mr. Regula. Federation of State Humanities Councils. Mr.
Greenblatt.
Mr. Greenblatt. It is the National Humanities Alliance.
Mr. Regula. Oh. I am sorry. Yes, I did not read it
correctly.
Mr. Greenblatt. Thank you. Looks ominous. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Stephen
Greenblatt. I am Professor of English and American Literature
at Harvard University. I am a member of the Executive Council
of the Modern Language Association, and I am on the Board of
Directors of the American Council of Learned Societies.
My own career as a scholar was launched some 30 years ago
when I had a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship
for younger humanists--the term, unfortunately, is no longer
applicable--enabling me to finish a book on Sir Walter Raleigh.
And since that time, I have written and edited some dozen
books, principally on Shakespeare and Renaissance literature.
I am currently serving as the Associate General Editor of
the Norton Anthology of English Literature, which is a textbook
that serves in a large number of American high schools and
colleges and universities as the principal introduction to the
splendors of English literature from Beowulf to Late Last
Night.
I want to present the two hefty volumes, 6,000 pages of it,
of the Norton Anthology, to you, Chairman Regula, along with a
recent edition that I did of Shakespeare's complete works.
Mr. Regula. Would each of you would like to read these and
report to the committee? [Laughter.]
Mr. Greenblatt. There will be a test at the end of the----
Mr. Moran. Could you read that and summarize it for us?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. No. I think that is a minority----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Greenblatt. You can use them to prop open a door if you
need it. I would love it if you would look at them.
Mr. Dicks. Is there still a fellowship program?
Mr. Greenblatt. There is a fellowship program, much reduced
because of the cuts in the 1996 budget. But it does exist.
I represent the National Humanities Alliance today and its
membership of 85 scholarly and professional organizations,
associations, and museums, and libraries, historical societies,
educational and state councils, research centers, and other
organizations.
As you know, the President is proposing an overall budget
for the NEH in the next fiscal year of $150 million, which is
an increase of $34.7 million over the present fiscal year. And
even we who are humanists and not economists understand that a
23 percent increase in a single fiscal year is a substantial
one.
But we want you to take into consideration, if you would,
the context of the request, which is that adjusting for the
inflation and cost of living increases, the funding level that
is called for in this current budget is actually far short of
what the NEH's funding was before the very severe budget cuts
of 1996.
And when those cuts occurred, all kinds of valuable
programs that we believe were of great service to the American
people had to be terminated. Others were thrown into disarray,
and the whole project of national funding for the humanities
was called into question.
Samuel Johnson remarked at the prospect of hanging,
concentrates a man's mind wonderfully, and the humanists have
had their minds concentrated something fierce in the last few
years, and we do not need more concentration. [Laughter.]
Our budget request now calls for a rebuilding of programs
for some new focused initiatives and some pump priming funds
aimed at increasing the flow of private money to support the
humanities.
I want to speak briefly about one of the humanities
programs with which I am directly involved. For more than three
decades, I have had the privilege of teaching at two great
universities, a great private and one a great public one--
Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley.
The institutions are among the national treasures, and are
fittingly places to which talented students and scholars come
from all over the world. But I want to testify today that for
me personally, though I take great delight in my brilliant
students, the most remarkable, thoroughly rewarding teaching
and learning experiences I have had have been the NEH funded
summer seminars for high school teachers, college teachers,
that I directed.
As you know, these seminars are for ambitious people who
tend to be at schools without much in the way of support for
teaching--for research, rather, that have relatively low access
to research materials as well as funding, very little time,
have heavy teaching loads, and they are craving a return,
renewal, and refreshing of what drew them to the profession in
the first place. And the NEH summer seminars give them this
access.
Mr. Regula. NEH funds the instruction, but not the cost of
being there?
Mr. Greenblatt. It funds a small amount of money to the
individual teachers so they can support themselves. It is a
very modest sum--in the summer--to enable them to come for it--
to places like--to places with great research facilities.
Mr. Regula. And they apply for this.
Mr. Greenblatt. They apply for it. It is highly
competitive. And they come and study with people for a summer,
using these resources that they do not otherwise have. And when
they leave, there usually is a spate--first of all, there is a
huge spate of letters of recommendation one writes.
But quite apart from that, there is a spate of books and
articles, and then a remarkable effect on teaching, so that it
is not simply that it--that you have helped people return to
the passion that brought them to the profession, but you
actually reinvigorate the classrooms. So that it affects not
simply the--in the case of 15 students, 15 seminar members, let
us say, in a seminar, but actually hundreds and thousands and
eventually tens of thousands of people outside beyond this
program. It has been extremely successful.
My NEH summer seminars were on Shakespeare. But the
question is why American tax dollars should go to support
someone who died in 1616 and never came to our country, or, for
that matter, Dante or Cervantes or Jane Austen or Tolstoy. And
the answer is that they, along with Walt Whitman and Melville
and Faulkner and Toni Morrison, are essential figures in the
culture. They transmit the values that we care about. They
contribute to the pursuit of happiness that we take to be our
national birthright.
And if that happiness is to be something other than
strictly based on material culture and dollars and cents, then
we have to have support for the humanities. And NEH funding is
a sign that you, our representatives, take seriously. The
strengthening of the humanities is in our national interest.
I do not have to tell you----
Mr. Dicks. Well, we agree with you on this side of the
aisle.
Mr. Greenblatt. Thank you. I hope that you do. [Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. The Chairman does, too. I am not sure everybody
over there might not, but the Chairman does. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. It is getting partisan here, so I think we had
better stop. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much. We are out of time.
Mr. Greenblatt. Okay. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Hinchey. I want to thank you, too. I still have my
first copy of the Norton Anthology, and, in fact, I have
several editions. But I have noticed that they have gotten an
awful lot thicker, so maybe----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Greenblatt. They are a little hard to read comfortably
under a tree any longer.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. Greenblatt. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. That is the effect of creating NEH.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NEH
WITNESS
JACK FARIS, FEDERATION OF STATE HUMANITIES COUNCILS
Mr. Regula. Next is the Federation of State Humanities
Councils.
Mr. Faris. Good morning.
Mr. Regula. You are part of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, is that correct?
Mr. Faris. That is correct.
Mr. Regula. Bill was here yesterday.
Mr. Faris. That is correct. I read about that.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, we had a good meeting with him.
Mr. Regula. And, of course, Mr. Dicks is one of--well, he
is one of Mr. Dicks' constituents.
Mr. Dicks. Right. Exactly. From the State of Washington.
Good man.
Mr. Faris. It is a pleasure to be here.
Mr. Dicks. His father was from Bremerton.
Mr. Faris. That is right. It is a great family.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak on behalf of the humanities. My name
is Jack Faris. I have for the past year served with the Bill
and Linda Gates Foundation. I have just accepted a position
with the University of Washington, and I am here as a board
member of the Washington Commission for the Humanities to
second the advocacy of my predecessor here, and to advocate
funding in the amount of $38.32 million for the state
humanities councils and $150 million for the NEH.
In speaking on behalf of the NEH, I am also speaking on
behalf of our fellow citizens. I would like to take this
opportunity, on behalf of our fellow citizens, to thank you for
your public service. I think it is a wonderful thing that we
are joined today by some young people in the room, and it is a
great thing for them to see that this is, in fact, a----
Mr. Regula. They are going to perform for us.
Mr. Faris. That is good. That will be excellent. This is a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
And thinking about the importance of the humanities, the
words of Lincoln also appear in a speech that he made in 1858,
in which I think he addresses the importance of the non-
material. He said, ``What constitutes the bulwark of our own
liberty and independence, it is not only our founding
battlements, our bristling seacoast, the guns of our war
steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army;
our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes
liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands everywhere.''
The importance of the humanities is timeless, and I think
today more than ever before our society is experiencing forces
of technological change which bring many benefits but also
threaten to pull us apart and increase the distance from one
another.
This year, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution
Traveling Exhibition Service and the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, the Washington Commission for the
Humanities, along with states humanities councils in Delaware,
Kansas, Michigan, South Dakota, and Tennessee, will bring a
traveling exhibition called ``Barn Again'' to communities
across our state and these other states. This is the
magnificent poster, which demonstrates the power of this
American icon. And it is a pleasure to see that your wonderful
wall coverings here also include----
Mr. Regula. Yes, I am a farmer and I have a barn, so I
would like to have this. [Laughter.]
Mr. Faris. You will very much enjoy learning about the
history of the architecture and the agricultural uses of----
Mr. Regula. They came to my area.
Mr. Faris. Very good. It is a terrific example of the
public humanities. It is also a wonderful symbol----
Mr. Regula. For you farmers, I will pass the poster down.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faris. The barn is a wonderful symbol for the role of
humanities in our lives. As you know, the raising of a barn is
the epitomization of cooperative activity. And once raised,
barns have served as a focus for community life with dances and
many other activities.
Mr. Regula. We have the Amish in my district. And when
their barn burns down, they all come together. They do not have
insurance, so when a barn burns down on an Amish farm the whole
community comes out and rebuilds it. It looks like an ant hill,
and I say that in a complimentary way. In about one or two days
they have built a new barn. It is remarkable.
Mr. Faris. Well, my proposition to you, sirs, is that a
barn--the barn raising is, in fact, a wonderful metaphor for
the role of humanities in our communities. There are many
elements of what the state councils support that are barn
raising-like in their ability to strength our communities in a
time of rapid change.
There are many programs that reach geographically isolated
audiences in New York, in Washington State, and others.
Speakers' bureaus are specifically designed to help bring
interesting and important programming to rural communities. The
Kentucky Humanities Council, Chautauqua, has reached every
single one of the state's 120 counties in which 90 percent of
the communities have populations of less than a thousand
people.
The Virginia council supports rural community grants to
support public forums, county studies, and educational
programs. There are also many programs that serve especially
underserved groups. The Minnesota Humanities Council, for
example, is translating 20 children's books into the Hmong
language, which provides a crucial bridge to literacy for adult
immigrants.
In Washington State, we are expanding our Clemente course,
an extraordinary college-level course in the humanities,
developed for adults living in poverty, in partnership with the
University of Washington and El Centro de la Raza. Also,
Alaska, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida are supporting Clemente
courses, and Oregon is planning one.
In Hawaii, California, Alabama, Virginia, Minnesota, North
Carolina, Utah, Washington, and the Virgin Islands, a
remarkable program called Motheread/Fatheread is strengthening
the ability of parents to help their children become successful
readers. The program reaches children when they are most likely
to have long-term benefit during the years of two to 11. Even
the six-week course significantly increases the amount of time
parents spend reading with their children.
There are also important programs already mentioned that
support K-12 education. The Georgia Council's Center for
Character Education, for example, provides character education
and training for K-12 teachers.
Time does not permit a full elaboration of all of the
importance of the programs of the State Humanities Council.
They are all done in partnership with the National Endowment
for Humanities funding, supported by complementary funding from
other private sources, including the Bill and Linda Gates
Foundation in the case of Washington.
By funding the humanities, you, as representatives of this
wonderfully diverse society, are participating in a very
special form of barn raising. You are investing in America that
can understand, appreciates its past, and work together for its
future.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dicks. Let me just ask you, do you think we are doing
enough for humanities? Should we be putting in a higher level
in the budget?
Mr. Faris. Absolutely, I would advocate for the highest you
can find room to do. I know you have----
Mr. Dicks. That is a surprise. [Laughter.]
Mr. Faris. You have competing priorities, but our society
needs, as I indicated before, things that build humanity and
build confidence in our society more than any time I think in
our previous history. And these programs are extremely
efficient and effective at doing that.
Mr. Dicks. All about values.
Mr. Faris. All about values.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Faris. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
IMLS/NEH/NEA
WITNESS
EDWARD H. ABLE, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS
Mr. Regula. American Association of Museums, Mr. Able.
Mr. Able. Good morning, Mr. Regula.
Mr. Regula. Good morning.
Mr. Able. Chairman Regula, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Moran, Mr.
Hinchey, members of the subcommittee, thanks for the
opportunity to be here this morning to speak on behalf of the
fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Institute of the Museum
and Library Services, National Endowment for the Humanities,
National Endowment for the Arts.
Mr. Chairman, I request my full statement be included in
the record.
Mr. Regula. Without objection.
Mr. Able. For almost 35 years, the federal cultural
agencies have provided invaluable financial support of museums
of every kind as they pursue their educational mission for the
public. While that support has declined significantly during
the recent era of tight fiscal discipline, it has never
faulted.
Some might argue that we are, however, approaching the
point of marginal utility. We have heard from a variety of
museums that despite their needs for operating funds, they are
no longer applying for IMLS general operating support grants
because the demand has become so great relative to the funding
available.
I strongly urge you to help reverse this trend by
increasing funding for the Office of Museum Services within
IMLS to $40 million for fiscal year 2001. This increase would
accommodate both the President's budget request for $9.07
million for new technology and leadership initiatives--a
subject I will speak about later--and the museum community's
request for $7.38 million or a much-needed and long overdue
boost for core programs such as general operating support.
In addition, I want to encourage the committee to fund the
NEA and the NEH at the levels requested in the President's
budget of $150 million each.
Since my time is limited, I will simply mention the
critical support the NEA and NEH provide museums but focus on
the importance to museums of the general operating support
grants of IMLS. The main reason for establishing the OMS--and I
quote from the legislation--``to ease the financial burden
borne by museums as a result of their increasing use by the
public.'' This has never been more true than today.
Ninety percent of museums believe that funding to meet
basic commitments is a critical need for the coming years, with
70 percent ranking this issue first among their needs. This is,
quite frankly, a result of the increased attendance at
America's museums to a level of 850 million visits a year. Yet
while the need has increased, OMS has shrunk.
Funding has dropped dramatically since fiscal year 1995
when it was $28.7 million to today's level of $24.4 million.
This has meant that the general operating support program was
able to fund only 19 percent of applications in fiscal year
1999, down from 20 percent in fiscal year 1998 and 26 percent
in fiscal year 1995, despite outside peer reviewers determining
that 59 percent of the applications were worthy of funding.
It has been estimated that funding all of the recommended
applications would cost nearly $65 million, which means that
$40 million we are requesting is modest relative to the overall
size of the federal budget and the demonstrated need.
While GOS cannot be used for construction or renovation,
museums are free to use the money where each institution
determines it is most needed. An analysis of the GOS reports
done within the last three years by IMLS show that 94 percent
of the grantees said that the grant was used in whole or in
part to improve their education programs. Education has long
been central to the work of museums, but in recent years it has
moved to the forefront of their public service mission as we
all strive to better educate our youth.
In 1992, AAM issued a landmark policy report entitled
Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of
Museums, reaffirming the museums' role in the education
enterprise.
Five years later, in 1997, IMLS reinformed the importance
of the museum education when it published True Needs, True
Partners, profiling museum school partnerships and the result
of a museum survey highlighting the full range of educational
activities that museums offer to the nation's schools.
For example, 88 percent of the U.S. museums provide K
through 12 programming, spending at least $193 million
annually. The typical museum provides between 100 and 223
instructional hours to students each year.
However, unless a museum has a strong infrastructure, it
cannot fulfill its educational potential in a way that ensures
broad public access and benefit. Let me share just one example,
and, Mr. Regula, I hope you do not mind if I use your district.
[Laughter.]
Akron Zoo, Akron, in the words of the zoo director, GOS
provides tremendous support for this institution, allowing it
to fund projects ``we could not even think of doing without
that support.'' GOS has allowed it to upgrade its computer
systems for membership management, provide interactive
educational programs on zoo grounds, and put together a
promotions package which led to an increase in attendance of
over 36,000 to a total of 146,000 in a six-month period, their
largest ever.
Thirty-one percent of that increase came from adjoining
counties, and 12 percent from your own county in Stark County,
Mr. Regula.
Family memberships grew by 400. In addition, 16 percent of
adult attendees and 21 percent of the children come from
outside the immediate area in Stark County. As far as
educational outreach, the GOS has allowed the zoo mobile, where
trained zoo staffers take three animals to schools to teach and
discuss wildlife issues and conservation, to travel outside the
home county and make many other visits.
This is simply one example of how a small amount of money
can be leveraged by these institutions. OMS provides enormous
support to the museum community above and beyond general
operating support, particularly in the area of technology,
which I want to mention for a moment because of its tremendous
importance to the future.
Before the advent of the digital age, museums were only
able to share their collections with the public in teaspoon
amounts to onsite visitors. Now, however, museums are
developing interactive exhibits and applying new technologies
to increase their accessibility through the world wide web.
We have made great strides in U.S. libraries in terms of
information access and navigation. To be effective partners
with our library colleagues, it is critical that we make the
same advances for museum collections if we are to maximize
their potential impact on the education of our youth.
The President's budget calls for $7.136 million in the OMS
national leadership grants for technology advancement for
museums. We strongly support this request and urge the
committee to fully fund this initiative, which will greatly
facilitate museums' efforts to improve their technological
base, greatly increase public access to their collections, and
provide distance education programs.
Let me say, in closing, that there can be no question about
the importance of the Office of Museum Services. It has
provided invaluable services to America's museums, and through
them to the American people at a minor cost to taxpayers.
The agencies had a tremendously positive impact and
continue to have that impact with your help. I strongly urge
you to support funding for the OMS within the IMLS at $40
million, and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,
National Endowment for the Humanities, at the President's
request level of $150 million each.
I thank the committee for its time and the opportunity to
submit testimony. And if you would like some more examples, I
have one for each of the subcommittees. You probably figured
that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
Mr. Able. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Able, thank you. Thank you very much, and
I think that you are pointing out that during the last period
of time--several years--that funding for the arts and
humanities has not really kept pace. In fact, it has declined.
But the situation we find ourselves in now does not provide any
excuses to continue that decline. We have to really reverse
that and go in the other direction.
Mr. Able. I would hope not. But I must say in deference to
the Chairman and the committee, we are well aware of the many
worthy mouths that are fed out of this subcommittee budget. And
we are only hopeful that we can all help get your mark increase
so that you can feed all of those mouths a little better.
Mr. Hinchey. Amen, brother. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NEA
WITNESS
JAN DENTON, AMERICAN ARTS ALLIANCE
Mr. Regula. The next will be two together, the American
Arts Alliance and OPERA America. All right. Here we go. Raise
the curtain and----
[Laughter.]
We are going to have a performance here. Am I correct? Tell
us about it.
Ms. Denton. That is correct. Mr. Chairman, members, my name
is Jan Denton. I am the Director of the American Arts Alliance.
As you know, our Alliance is comprised of five service
organizations which represent the not-for-profit art museum
directors, dance, opera, theater, and presenting organizations,
2,500 members strong.
We are here today to ask you to approve a much needed
increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, so that our
organizations can more easily create, present, exhibit, and
tour the best of American art to as many places in the country
as possible.
Before I turn this over to Congressman Moran to introduce
our real witnesses today, let me just say that the
demonstration you will see and hear is the result of just one
education program by just one of our members, OPERA America,
which works with schools on an interdisciplinary curriculum
which integrates music with language, arts, science, and
history.
Congressman.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. It is actually up to the Chairman to
turn it over to Congressman Moran. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. Thank you. You are on, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. We all
know what you mean when you describe how exciting it is to
serve on this subcommittee. And particularly with your role as
Chair, we see such a varied breadth of talent, and that talent
is present not just in the large auditoriums but throughout our
school system and in our communities.
And today we have Wes McCune, who is the music teacher at
John Adams Elementary School in Alexandria, and his third
graders--Ariel Ardura--I want you to raise your hand when--
Ariel? Thank you, Ariel. Zuri Cannon. Zuri? And Bryant Centeno
Monroy, and--am I pronouncing that right, Bryant? Close enough.
Close enough. [Laughter.]
And James Collier. Mr. Collier.
They are beneficiaries from NEA's funding. As you know, we
fund opera companies across the country, and this is an opera
that they are going to present to us that was written
completely by their class. And we are going to hear just the
finale of the original opera. It is called Rhidopis, and it is
the Egyptian Cinderella.
And I guess without further ado, maybe we can have the
benefit of that work. Thank you.
Mr. McCune. Although this is not as extensive as the Norton
Anthology, we did bring you----
[Laughter.]
A copy of the complete score. The children did all of the
writing, words and music. And this afternoon they would like to
sing for you the final scene. The Pharaoh has successfully
located the owner of the slipper, and this is the coronation
wedding scene.
[Presentation followed by applause.]
Mr. Moran. This is where great talent starts. [Laughter.]
We thank all of you.
Mr. Regula. This was done with an NEA grant.
Okay that was very nice. We are happy to have you young
people here. Where is your school? Alexandria. Do you have a
performance in the evening for your parents and the members of
the community? One night or do you have a couple of nights? A
couple of nights. Do you sell tickets? Well, you should.
[Laughter.]
These young people could be future opera singers. Thank you
very much for bringing these young people here today. That is
very persuasive evidence of the value of the NEA.
Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Moran. Yes. I am proud of my constituents.
Mr. Regula. Okay. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NEA
WITNESS
PETER DONNELLY, PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE COUNCIL FOR ARTS, AMERICANS FOR
THE ARTS
Mr. Regula. Okay. We have the Americans for the Arts, Mr.
Donnelly.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I
am from the theater, in my last life before I was running
Americans for the Arts, and I learned a long time ago that you
should never follow children or animals on stage, and this is
really a dirty----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. I think that was W.C. Fields who said that.
Mr. Donnelly. If there is a way of my coming back tomorrow?
I would like to reschedule. [Laughter.]
Mr. Regula. They may help make your case, though.
Mr. Donnelly. They do, indeed. I thank you for that. I feel
confident because I am bracketed by two very distinguished
colleagues from the northwest, Jack Faris of the William and
Melinda Gates Foundation, and Michael Halleran of the
University of Washington. We have come en masse today to prove
to you what the arts do for the northwest and the impact that
they have had.
I am President of the Corporate Council for the Arts in the
Seattle/Tacoma region of Washington and Vice Chairman of the
Board of Directors of Americans for the Arts.
While I am here representing communities from Washington,
D.C. to the State of Washington in support of funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts, I would like to focus today on
how the arts have helped transform the Puget Sound region from
a sleepy little seaport 35 years ago to a vibrant cultural
destination in a region that is consistently considered one of
the best in the country for the arts.
It was really NEA money early on in the process in the mid
'60s that primed the pump for public money in the northwest. It
came before our local commissions, before the state, county,
and the city commissions. When you think of the northwest, you
think of excellence in many areas--Boeing for aircraft,
Microsoft for software, Nordstrom for retailing, and Starbucks
for coffee. We are also known, however, for the excellence of
our arts organizations.
All together, the Seattle/Tacoma area boasts some 200
nonprofit cultural organizations. These include an
internationally-acclaimed opera, symphony, ballet, art museum,
theaters that routine produce work that travels to New York, as
well as a rich tapestry of smaller organizations. They are
dedicated to everything from the classics to the cutting edge.
I can tell you firsthand that the NEA has played a
strategic role in our community's cultural naissance. You can
really trace what goes on in the northwest to about 1965,
Seattle World's Fair and the coming alive of the NEA.
You should know that the Corporate Council for the Arts
raises private funds to regrant to cultural institutions within
King and Pierce County. We do not receive NEA money. We receive
no public money. Ours is a corporate board and it is corporate
money and foundation money.
But my board made up of corporate leaders is the most vocal
advocate for public funding of the arts. Why? Because they know
that the public and private funding partnerships are crucial to
sustaining the arts in the Seattle/Tacoma area and every other
area in this country.
When you look at the Puget Sound region, we often think of
the new wealth and may think a bit about how it is going to
replace all other philanthropy. That is not the case now, nor
will it be for some time to come, if ever, especially in that
many of our young, high tech millionaires from our region come
from backgrounds with very little history of philanthropy. And
public money very often is the money that primes that interest.
Even as the newly wealthy become philanthropic and step up
to funding the arts, they cannot fill the role that the NEA has
played and the Federal Government has played.
I have heard unfounded criticism through the years of the
arts being elitist. I find myself explaining and defending that
all the time. Too often I think the critics are confusing
elitism with excellence. We strive and reward excellence in
sports, government, and business. We must, likewise, strive for
and reward excellence in the arts and never confuse excellence
with exclusivity.
Wealthy people will always be able to afford the arts. When
they pay top ticket prices, they actually help subsidize the
less expensive seats. On top of this, most also donate to art
groups, which helps make other ticket prices affordable or even
free, making the arts more accessible to everybody.
The Seattle region serves an annual audience of six million
people. Of that number, nearly one-half million attended with
discounted student tickets, and more than 100,000 seniors
received substantial discounts. An additional 1.2 million of
those tickets were free to students.
Providing more access to the arts is our public purpose.
Government support helps ensure it; additional funding would
help expand it.
Let me tell you now how the arts give back economically to
our region. Ten years ago, downtown activities in Seattle and
Tacoma were comparatively stagnant. Both political and business
leaders looked to the arts to turn this situation around. That
approach has worked.
Cultural activity now generates $375 million in business
sales and creates 16,000 annual jobs in our region. The arts in
downtown Seattle attract up to 10,000 people a night to shows,
exhibits, concerts, restaurants, and shops. In downtown Tacoma,
the arts have brought people back to the safety of the streets
at night. And when all three theaters in downtown Tacoma are
operating, they create a welcome new phenomena--a traffic jam.
[Laughter.]
The NEA has done a phenomenal job in evaluating the impact
of engaging youth at risk in after-school arts programs. We
know that delinquent behavior decreases while academic
performances and self-confidence skyrocket off the charts when
they are involved in the arts. The NEA has recently recognized
one of Mr. Dicks' favorite arts organizations--the Hilltop
Artist and Residents in Tacoma, with a Coming Up Taller program
for the groundbreaking work with youth.
The NEA has also recently awarded arts education grants to
such groups as the Seattle Children's Theatre, El Centro de la
Raza, to expand outreach activities with schools and youth. In
Spokane, the NEA grants make it possible for every fifth grader
in the school system to attend two Spokane Symphony concerts.
For fiscal year 2001, the NEA has requested an additional
$50 million for its new Challenge America Program, which would
specifically support more of these kinds of programs for youth
across the nation. I encourage the committee to find the
appropriate resources to meet that challenge. Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks. I want to say, if the Chairman will yield----
Mr. Regula. Surely.
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. I want to congratulate you on your
statement, and, also, the fact that the corporate community in
the State of Washington has really stepped up to support the
arts.
And you are absolutely right--I can remember important
challenge grants that we no longer can have because of
decreased funding levels. These grants that helped stimulate
the arts in the Seattle/King County area. And I want to
congratulate you for your good work over the years, and just
look forward to a day when we can do better for the endowments.
Mr. Donnelly. From your mouth to God's ears, Congressman.
[Laughter.]
And I would like to also take this opportunity to thank
you. You have been a good friend to the arts from the beginning
of the national endowment on, and we are grateful for that.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you very much.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you. You have a very lively arts
community in Canton also. My colleague runs the cultural fund
in that town, and they raise close to a million dollars a year
on behalf of the arts. So that is good work.
Mr. Regula. You do a great job, a lot of private support.
And I think that is really the key to it. We are kind of the
seed money.
Mr. Donnelly. It is a partnership and it works.
Mr. Regula. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NEH
WITNESS
MICHAEL HALLERAN, DEAN OF HUMANITIES, U. OF WASHINGTON, ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Regula. Mr. Halleran? Dean of Humanities, University of
Washington.
Mr. Dicks. Big day for the University of Washington!
Mr. Regula. Oh, you stacked the deck today, Norm.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. They did it without me even knowing it.
[Laughter.]
My alma mater.
Mr. Regula. We are happy to welcome you.
Mr. Halleran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the subcommittee. I am Michael Halleran, the
Division Dean of Arts and Humanities at the University of
Washington. And it is my pleasure to appear before you today as
part of this unexpected northwest contingent to testify in
support of the fiscal year 2001 budget of $150 million for the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
I am testifying today on behalf of the Association of
American Universities, the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and the American Council
on Education. Through their combined memberships, these three
organizations represent all of the public and private research
universities in our country.
These institutions are responsible for educating a large
number of our undergraduate and graduate students, and conduct
the bulk of our nation's basic research and scholarship.
The humanities, as you well know, represent the endless
attempt to understand our cultural world and our place in it.
They encompass stories about our past and our present, and
about the world of our imaginations. They form an ongoing
dialogue about meaning and value. The humanities provide a
framework for clear and critical thinking, an understanding and
respect for history, and a knowledge and appreciation of
diverse cultures. They are the subjects--literature, history,
and philosophy--that have stood at the center of education for
over 2,000 years.
More than any other set of disciplines, the humanities
embody the spirit of our civilization. We Americans are
wondrously diverse. And our diversity is expressed, preserved,
and understood in the humanities.
The NEH, I will be very happy to say, has enjoyed strong
bipartisan support throughout its 35-year history, and it has
been the single most important source of support for humanistic
endeavors in the United States. It makes possible a wide range
of cultural endeavors that can only be achieved with the help
and encouragement from our Federal Government. Community
colleges, state colleges, small private institutions, and
research universities all use NEH grants to preserve that
national resource.
Post-secondary institutions are in a fundamental and
etymological sense conservative. That is, part of their mission
is to conserve our culture. They conserve, interpret, and
transmit it to the next generation of Americans.
NEH investments also make a crucial difference on the
nation's college and university's campuses in support of long-
term projects that might otherwise be lost. I would like to
speak briefly about one specific example from my campus.
In 1994, the British Library came into possession of 29
very old and very fragile birch bark scrolls which seemed to
have written on them some early form of Sanskrit, the ancient
language of India. To assist them in interpreting it--they
could not figure this out in England--they called upon one of
the world's great experts, Richard Solomon, my colleague at the
University of Washington.
Dr. Solomon was able to determine that these were the
oldest writings ever found dealing with Buddhism. In other
words, these were of extraordinary importance for understanding
the early stages of one of the world's major religions. Many
have compared this new discovery to that of the Dead Sea
Scrolls earlier in this century--those texts of early Christian
writers that transformed our understanding of the formative
stages of Christianity.
As some of you may know, the Dead Sea Scrolls were
embroiled in mystery and controversy, and for decades their
contents were denied--people were denied access--scholars and
laypersons alike. With the support of the NEH and other
organizations, Dr. Solomon and his team of scholars at the
University of Washington have been able to devote much of their
time and energy to this fascinating and important project, and
they are committed to the early and wide promulgation of their
discoveries.
The first volume of their work has already been published,
and the second volume will appear later this year. Here, as is
often the case, the NEH grant has attracted other funding; and,
thus, the agency support has had a multiplying effect.
Now, most of the NEH projects, however, touch closer to our
own soil. Such projects include the preservation of the papers
of George Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Mark Twain, and
critical additions of our great philosophers--William James,
Charles Peirce, George Santayana. Who in this room has not
watched, perhaps several times, Ken Burns' wonderful
documentary on the Civil War? This would not have been made
without NEH support.
The seminars and exhibitions on the Constitution,
celebrating our nation's foundational document, also were made
possible through NEH support.
Another way in which NEH funding makes a critical
difference is by fostering better teaching. The President of my
university, Richard L. McCormick, has been a leader in moving
universities toward playing a greater role in K-12 education.
With our new leadership institution, under the direction of
Rudy Crew, and many other smaller initiatives, the university
is playing a greater role in the education of K-12 students.
The NEH can help us and many other institutions fulfill
this important part of our mission. We are very much
appreciative of the subcommittee's long-standing bipartisan
support for the NEH, and urge the subcommittee to support its
$150 million fiscal year request.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. I think that is an excellent
statement and another very strong justification for the request
the President has made for this important activity.
Mr. Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Regula. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Hinchey. My compliments especially to Rudy Crew. Your
gain has been our loss.
Mr. Halleran. Thank you. I agree.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Regula. The committee will be in recess until 1:30.
----------
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
WITNESS
MOLLY BROWN, FRIENDS OF BACK BAY
Mr. Regula. The hearing will reconvene. We have got a long
list here and the rules are five minutes per testimony. So we
will start out with Molly Brown, President of the Friends of
Back Bay.
We are pleased to welcome you. Your statement will be put
in the record. And just summarize for us.
Ms. Brown. Very good. Good afternoon. I am Molly Brown from
Virginia Beach, Virginia and I am President of Friends of Back
Bay. We are a volunteer support group that has been working
with the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge.
With the help from Congress, we have been----
Mr. Regula. Excuse me. Mr. Wamp is going to take the chair
for a while.
Mr. Wamp [presiding]. The chair has got to leave.
Ms. Brown. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Wamp. I am Molly Brown
from Virginia Beach, Virginia and I am President of Friends of
Back Bay and we are an all volunteer group that has been
working with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the expansion of
the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. And with the help and
support of Congress, our project is now 60 percent completed
and we are thirtieth on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife flats list.
If I can refer you to the map that is in the back of my
testimony, you can actually see our project and how it has
grown. The original Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1938 is what you see in the bottom and the
Atlantic Ocean in the blue area inside then is the Back Bay.
Everything that you see in green is what has been completed,
that is 60 percent that is completed. What you see in black is
under signed options and what is in yellow is being negotiated
and what you see in red is what we need money for and right now
we have over 800 acres of willing sellers and so we are asking
for $3.6 million for the Year 2001 and it is estimated that
that will buy 351 acres. We have had lots of good things
happening in Back Bay. The eagles, our first nesting eagles
over the last 30 years, have nested now for the seventh year
straight. We have opened a new environmental learning center
and the local fifth graders did an essay contest on what the
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge means to me and one of their
interesting comments was that fifth graders said that refuges
were a place animals ruled and people just came to visit which
we thought was interesting.
We planted a time capsule that was buried and will be open
in the Year 2020 so the children are excited because they will
be able to bring their children back to see the opening.
There is a farm that is adjacent and the local farmer
volunteered on his own to plant local Virginia crops, corn and
soybeans, cotton and peanuts so in addition to the children
coming to learn about water quality and the importance of
wetlands, they will also know the importance of Virginia crops
and farming to Virginia.
The water quality in Back Bay has been improved because
there were two pig farms left, one has been purchased this year
and hopefully one will be purchased with money that is
appropriated for next year so this will again improve the water
quality and they were also willing sellers.
The threats to the Back Bay continue as Virginia Beach
continues to grow. It is the largest, fastest growing city in
Virginia, but a survey of 500 registered voters in the City of
Virginia Beach, 86 percent favored the importance of protecting
Back Bay.
So we are asking Congress for the funding, $3.6 million to
show a commitment to the willing sellers and also to keep our
project moving forward.
I would like to thank you and are there any questions?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Molly. I want you to rest assured that
the key people here, even though this table is not full, the
key people here need to hear your request and need to have your
testimony as we try to formulate our priorities for the coming
year in a tight allocation. But this is great to know.
As an aside, a guy that I graduated from high school with
named Gordon Robertson, I do not know if he is down in Virginia
Beach helping you or not, but I will just put it on the record
that he needs to. That is Pat Robertson's son. I think he is
still in that area. He is an attorney in private practice and
if it is the same guy I used to know, he would be involved in
something like this. So that is all I will say and I thank you
very much for your testimony, Molly.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NPS & FWS
WITNESS
JUSTIN HAYES, AMERICAN RIVERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Mr. Wamp. Next is American Rivers, Justin Hayes, Associate
Director for Public Policy. Is that you, Justin?
Mr. Hayes. Guilty as charged.
Mr. Wamp. Welcome, sir.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you very much. I would like to start, sir,
by thanking you and your Committee very much. This Subcommittee
is responsible for funding some of our nation's most important
conservation programs and some of our most important
conservation agencies, so I would like to thank you.
Mr. Wamp. Great.
Mr. Hayes. I would like to start by introducing you to a
document that we put together every year. It is something
called the River Budget and over 455 river conservation groups
from across the country have supported the appropriations
request that we are making through here. I am just going to
highlight a couple of them that come through your Subcommittee
though.
One of them in particular is the Rivers, Trails and
Conservation Assistant Program or the RTCA. We are making a
recommendation that this program receive $12 million. This is a
voluntary program that the Park Service administers where local
communities approach them and ask for technical expertise and
assistance in planning open space, parks, trails, river
management corridors, that sort of thing. It is a great program
and it yields a lot of benefit and it leverages that federal
money with local money very well. So we hope that you will
appropriate $12 million for that program.
Another program that we are highlighting this year is the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife, another excellent program. This
one in the Fish and Wildlife Service leverages the federal
money with private money and it works voluntarily with private
landowners on their land, trying to restore and rehabilitate
some of that very important wildlife habitat. As you know,
private landowners play a very important role in restoring the
health of our watersheds.
I will just sort of show you a brief picture here of what a
riparian area used to look like and when the Fish and Wildlife
Service came in with this partners program and were able to
bring federal money, they were able to work with the local
landowner and restore the watershed here in the riparian area
that resulted in much better water quality and fish habitat in
the river.
I would like to move on if I could to sort of a broad
category, hydropower relicensing. We are requesting a total of
$16.9 million spread through several agencies that are outlined
here in my testimony, but as you know, private dams have to be
relicensed periodically by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, or FERC. This is a long process and it is very
important that the federal agencies be able to participate at
all of the meetings that take place so that they can formulate
conditions that licenses will then hopefully enact. There are
going to be about 450 private dams coming up for licensing
within the next 10 years. This represents a very large increase
in the workload for the federal agencies and many of the
agencies are not prepared to be able to participate
substantively in these relicensings, so over the next several
years we are going to need to be ramping up the appropriations
for these agencies to participate in that.
I would like to draw your attention also to one other item
here from our river budget. It is the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Program and the National Park Service. A lot of the wild and
scenic rivers are on federal lands and those are managed and
funded through different appropriations, but some of the rivers
run through private lands and State lands. The Park Service has
a program where they can help facilitate the management of
those nationally designated wild and scenic rivers through
nonfederal lands. A number of new rivers have been designated
as wild and scenic. These are sort of called partnership rivers
because they demonstrate a good partnership between the
federal, State, local government and private land owners. With
these new rivers being put into the wild and scenic river
system, we need to be increasing that appropriation so those
rivers can be managed appropriately.
A couple of extra seconds here, I would like to bring up
two items that are not in our river budget, but I think they
are very important. I would like to mention them. One of them
is the National Forest Service's Watershed Research Program. We
are recommending that this receive an appropriation this year
of $15.5 million. The Watershed Research Program is very
important. It provides good scientific information for federal
managers as they manage our resources and our watersheds. With
that good science that they are pulling together, we are able
to manage our watersheds better and there has been a lot of hit
and miss stuff that has taken place over the years and it is
important that we be developing and implementing good science
to govern our actions.
So with that I would like to thank you very much for your
time and hope that you will fund these programs through the
amounts that we have requested. They are relatively small
programs, but they reach in almost every State across the
country. RTCA has participants from over 45 States, Partners
for Fish and Wildlife has over 2200 private landowners that are
participating in it from all across the country. Because they
are so diffuse though they kind of go under the radar screen
for a lot of Members of Congress. They are not the big ticket
items that a lot of people are clamoring for in their back
yard, but these do provide very valuable benefits across the
United States, restoring hundreds of miles of river annually
and protecting and helping to manage tens of thousands of acres
of land.
Mr. Wamp. I toured the Conosaga River in my district with
Fish and Wildlife and know that their voluntary efforts are
really paying off and that that beats the heck out of the
regulatory hammer. I also will go down May 6th, subject to
water being in the river, the Obid Wild and Scenic River in my
district and we will go through actually some private and State
held lands as we go down that river. The only other thing I
would ask is about the National Forest Service Watershed
Research Program. U.S. Geological Survey really has the water
guys here at this Subcommittee. Do they coordinate with USGS
with whatever the Forest Service is doing on water research,
water quality?
Mr. Hayes. It is my understanding that the USGS program is
primarily a monitoring and data collection and the Forest
Service program actually sets up experiments in the watershed
so for instance, I know of several projects where they are
looking at recently burned areas and they are trying to decide
what is the best use of federal money to rehabilitate a burned
area.
Mr. Wamp. Which is what the Tennessee Valley Authority is
probably doing with water quality in my district, but it is
what the Forest Service might do in other districts.
Mr. Hayes. Exactly.
Mr. Wamp. Thanks for your testimony. What you are doing is
advocating for some very necessary programs and I thank you for
your testimony today.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
WITNESS
DANIEL P. BEARD, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
PUBLIC POLICY
Mr. Wamp. National Audubon Society, Daniel Beard, Senior
Vice President for Public Policy.
Good afternoon, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard. Good afternoon, how are you?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you for being here in a timely manner. I am
great. Welcome.
Mr. Beard. Thank you very much. It is good to be here. I
guess I really wanted to start by thanking you on behalf of the
million members and supports of National Audubon Society for
the opportunity to testify. We come up every year and give you
our views and amazingly we have had a pretty good batting
percentage.
The one thing I wanted to emphasize with you and the other
Members of the Committee is one of the most difficult struggles
you have had over the last few years have been riders that have
been offered up primarily by the Senate.
Mr. Wamp. Thanks for recognizing that, thank you, sir.
Mr. Beard. Yes, I do. This Subcommittee has done a
tremendous job of beating back the ever present desire on the
part of many people to put in a rider on anything under the
sun.
Mr. Wamp. Right.
Mr. Beard. The Congress has procedures to be able to take
up each one of those issues and the Appropriations Bill is, in
our view, not the right place to do that. So we would urge you
to continue your leadership and to work with the leadership to
try to resist the opportunity of the Senate to do that. And it
has been the most difficult thing you have done. In particular,
there will be efforts to add writers to the Forest Service to
deal with the Roadless Initiative which we think is very
important that President Clinton has underway. There is a draft
environmental impact statement. Millions of people are
commenting, hundreds of hearings taking place. There will be an
effort on people's part to add a rider and we would urge you to
resist that.
I want to also thank the Committee for their leadership on
the Everglades. The Everglades restoration is one of the
highest priorities we have as an organization. It is a fabulous
ecosystem and we could not do the job if this Committee had not
provided the kind of leadership that it has. You held an
oversight hearing yesterday and we urge you to keep people's
feet to the fire, particularly the State to make sure that they
meet their commitments. The State has been very good. Governor
Bush has done a tremendous job of making the Everglades a high
priority and we will continue through our State office there to
urge him to do so. But he has done an excellent job. He has
come to Washington. He has testified. But this Committee has
served a key role particularly Mr. Regula has made it his work
to make sure that keeps the pressure on. And it has helped a
great deal. We have been here in the past on our National
Wildlife Refuge System and urged, along with other
organizations, through the CARE group for additional funding
for the operation of the system. We believe this is very
important. There is a broad based coalition that supports it.
This Committee has been in a leadership role on it and we would
urge your support.
There are just three smaller items, but they are important
that I really want to highlight for you. The first is the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Administration has
requested $7 million. We believe $8 million is a more
appropriate figure. This is an interesting organization that
pulls together both private and public funds to undertake an
issue. This is the way in which people can contribute money for
projects that are undertaken by the federal government through
the Foundation. It is a quasi-public body. We have managed to
leverage a small amount of federal funds and address a wide
range of problems. There is $8 million in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, $2.7 and $2 million respectively in the Forest Service
and BLM requested for the Foundation. There is a small program
that Audubon is the fiscal agent for. It is called the Chicago
Wilderness Program. It is very important to Mr. Porter, Mr.
Yates, who used to be on this Committee and others. But it is a
way in which a small amount of money is used by over 107
organizations in the Chicago Metropolitan Area to reach
suburban and inner city kids and introduce them to both State
and private lands that are around Chicago and give them a
wilderness experience.
Finally, is the North American Wetland Conservation
Council. This is an excellent organization which has funded a
large number of wetland restoration projects, many of which
are, in your part of the world and in Tennessee, Mississippi
and the Delta, actually it has funded projects all over the
United States. For every federal dollar we invest in that, we
get $2.50 in matching funds from public and private sources,
organizations like DU, Audubon, State agencies, private
foundations and even individuals have contributed. It is an
excellent way to undertake wildlife restoration and habitat
restoration primarily for waterfowl, but to improve our
wetlands.
The important thing I want to stress is that this Committee
took a leadership role in isolating, or encouraging the
Commission to initiate a small grants program and that is $1
million. Of the money that came to us we have used for small
grants. I would urge you since we are doubling, the
Administration has requested a doubling of the appropriation, I
would urge that we double that requirement to $2 million. We
are leaving projects on the table now. These are private funds
that we have available to us and we would urge you to do so.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Beard, excellent testimony, well articulated.
And we like to say at this Subcommittee that we fund the good
guys, so as you appear before us today, know that you are one
of those good guys and keep up the good work. Your testimony is
concise and we appreciate the contribution.
Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
WITNESS
WAYNE PACELLE, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, SENIOR V.P. FOR
COMMUNICATIONS & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Mr. Wamp. The Humane Society of the United States, Wayne
Pacelle.
Mr. Pacelle. Yes.
Mr. Wamp. Senior Vice President for Communications and
Government Affairs. Good afternoon, Wayne.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Representative Wamp. I am here, as
you noted, on behalf of The Human Society of the U.S. and our
7.3 million members and constituents. One of every 50 Americans
is a supporter of The Humane Society of the U.S.
And just very quickly, I wanted to voice a word support for
the Administration request for Law Enforcement Division of the
Fish and Wildlife Service at $12.6 million increase. These
agents are really doing such yeoman's work and they have so
many difficulties in conducting their work and there are so few
individuals out there to protect so much of our country and so
many of our natural resources. So I wanted to put in a word
about that and also we support the Administration's request for
$1 million for each of the three conservation acts dealing with
rhinos, tigers and elephants.
I wanted to spend a little bit of time on the issue of
trapping on national wildlife refuges and you, Representative
Wamp, supported your colleague's Sam Farr's amendment to
restrict the use of inhumane and indiscriminate traps on
national wildlife refuges and it passed pretty overwhelmingly
in the House last year, but it was defeated in the Senate and
it was not included in the conference report. There was, I
think, a bit of misinformation about this as it moved to the
conference committee. We did get a letter from the Interior
Secretary and then also one from Fish and Wildlife Service
Director Clark.
Mr. Wamp. You are not accusing Don Young of misinformation,
are you?
Mr. Pacelle. I would never. No, certainly not. I only
accuse him of having high blood pressure when this is
discussed. That is it.
And the amendment was really narrowly crafted to deal with
the use of particular traps and this is one. Traps come in
different sizes. They are like shoes. So a small trap would be
for a smaller animal like a fox or a mink. This would be a very
large trap for the larger animals like a wolf and I was advised
not to set this because if I did set it and caught my finger,
it would probably cut my finger off, if not severely do damage
to it. So I am not going to set this for you, but suffice it to
say that if I were to set it and I could set it, it would be a
dramatic demonstration of what damage these traps do to
creatures.
I do not consider this a sportsman's caucus issue. I do not
think it is much of a sport to set out a trap and leave it and
wait for some animal to come and get caught. That is like
setting land mines out. It is not a sport. It is one thing if
you are tracking an animal in the woods and exhibiting some
woodsmanship. It is another thing to set something out and
leave it and then have an animal languish in a trap for 12 or
24 or 48 hours as the animal twists of his leg or her leg or
chews at the leg, breaks teeth and injures the jaw in the
process of trying to escape the vise grip of this trap. So we
would like to see the Subcommittee take some action on this. We
think it is inappropriate for federal tax dollars to be spent
to promote the use of inhumane traps on the one category of
lands that have been set aside specifically to protect
wildlife. These are called wildlife refuges. It is absolutely
counter intuitive to suggest that we would have commercial and
recreational trapping with these barbaric devices banned in 89
nations throughout the world because they are so inhumane. They
are declared inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the
World Veterinary Organization, to have these on refuges. It
makes absolutely no sense. We did some polling work on this
indicating that 85 plus percent of Americans want these devices
severely restricted on national wildlife refuges. The House
agreed with us. We hope the House continues to agree with us.
We have to do some work in the Senate, but I did want to raise
it and I also wanted to thank you, Representative Wamp for your
support last year on this.
Finally, I want to say just a word about animal control
initiatives on Native Reservations. We worked with
Representative Dicks' staff on this and others. Reservations
have a very significant animal control problem. Dog bites are
epidemic on these Reservations. Dog bites, in general, are a
major public health problem; 4.7 million dog bites a year with
many individuals killed as a consequence of these bites. Animal
control on Reservations is almost nonexistent. We have, with
our own resources, from the Humane Society, gone to many
Reservations across the country and this year in 2000, we are
going to Reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
California, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico,
Arizona, Colorado and Utah and providing private assistance to
Reservations to help deal with public health and safety issues.
But we do believe that some federal funding is important to
augment these efforts, so we are requesting $750,000 which is
detailed in the testimony that I have provided.
Mr. Wamp. Well, be assured that the Chairman and our
Ranking Member have a great working relationship and that
anything you work with the Dicks staff on the Majority is going
to know about it and we do things here in a bipartisan way,
whether it is Native Reservation issues or others. I will say
in closing I was glad the day that I voted for the Farr
Amendment, but I am even more pleased today, since you are
here, that I was on the right side of that issue. Thank you for
your testimony and I think it has contributed greatly.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
WITNESS
CHRISTINE STEVENS, SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY, SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL
PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION,
Mr. Wamp. Next is the Society for Animal Protective
Legislation, Christine Stevens.
Good afternoon, Christine.
Ms. Stevens. Good afternoon. I have been here many a time.
Mr. Wamp. How are you? Many a time, well, you still have a
pleasant look on your face.
Ms. Stevens. Oh yes, I am always hopeful.
Mr. Wamp. Good, thank you. Welcome.
Ms. Stevens. Well, what I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
and I want to congratulate you too for voting right.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. And I will be mentioning trapping as I go
along, but the way I want to start is to thank, I am glad that
the budget at least has gone up $12.6 million, but it should go
up twice that much. In reality, maybe you ought to go up three
times that much and then it would be safe for these special
agents to remain and be doing their work for the next two
years. We cannot be sure if we do not get started right now
because actually there are quite a few special agents taking
early retirement and that is a very dangerous thing because as
you can see it is terribly valuable for the whole world to have
something like the law enforcement division of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. There is nothing like it in the whole,
wide world.
Now I am going to go on to bear poaching and smuggling. You
may have heard there was still another bear poaching incident
reported in Virginia just I guess two days ago. It is a very
important matter to stop this thing and it can be stopped by
devoting a little bit more money to this part of the law
enforcement obligations. I have made this note here, well, they
did this thing with the States, Virginia and West Virginia and
that is how they managed to catch him.
But now I want to go on because I have not very much time
to ask you to ask Secretary Babbitt in very urgent terms to
respond to the widespread international concern with steel jaw
leghold traps. Now the U.S. Trade Representative signed an
understanding with the European Union December 11, 1997, but we
still have not made any progress towards, this is what it says,
phase out the use of ``conventional steel jawed leghold
restraining traps.'' We think that if you said that you wanted
Secretary Babbitt to do it, he himself is opposed to steel jaw
leghold traps and made a big strong statement to that effect
several years ago. So there is hope. If you would give a little
nudge.
Now I would like to also briefly comment on the Wild Horse
and Burro Act. Again, there is a place where the Committee can
help to make it possible. There is a very substantial
appropriation already made, but that is for the livestock
interest. I mean it is badly balanced so that the law says that
the wild horses and burros are a national treasure and that is
the way we ought to be treating them and not as sort of
unwelcome visitors on public lands where people that are
grazing sheep and cattle say it is all ours. Well, it is not
all theirs. And that is what we would like you to bring home to
them. We have some phraseology that would be helpful if you
would like to use it.
So finally, I would like to say that most importantly is to
keep law enforcement division going and you have got to have
those special agents. It takes quite a while for them to be
trained and to get experience enough so that they can really do
the work. A lot of them are off on their own. If you look at
the tales, there are many automobiles that have gone over
100,000 miles and that is not safe for these important well-
trained individuals to be out there with people who would love
to snipe at them and get rid of them. These are criminal
elements that are preying on our wild life. So I guess it is
just time to stop.
Mr. Wamp. Very good testimony, ma'am, and I understand that
the President has asked for $12.6 million increase, but your
organization is asking for twice that much.
Ms. Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Wamp. To double it, even though you believe it could be
three times that much. But the principal issue is this issue of
enforcement so that Fish and Wildlife's agents are increased
and not decreased and you actually have a problem with some of
them retiring through a graying workforce. You have got to
replenish those officers so that they can actually keep up with
any of these law breakers.
Ms. Stevens. Absolutely, it is vital.
Mr. Wamp. Very good. Thank you, Christine, for your
testimony today.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you very much for your good votes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NPS/FWS/BLM/USGS/FS
WITNESS
MARY BETH BEETHAM, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE
Mr. Wamp. Defenders of Wildlife, Mary Beth Beetham.
Ms. Beetham. Yes.
Mr. Wamp. Is that correct, Mary Beth? Now my mother's name
is Mary Beth, Mary Beth, so you are starting in real good
shape.
Ms. Beetham. It is a very pretty name, is it not?
Mr. Wamp. It really is. Mary Beth, welcome. Director of
Legislative Affairs for the Defenders of Wildlife and as they
say on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, it starts right now.
Ms. Beetham. Thank you very much, Mr. Wamp. I am Mary Beth
Beetham and on behalf of Defenders and our nearly 400,000
members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
First as always, we would like to thank you and your staff
for your staff in several vital areas. We tremendously
appreciate your continued leadership and support in providing
critically needed increases for refuge operations and
maintenance. We are also grateful for the interest of staff in
identifying some of the most important needs for continued
improvement of the system such as the minimum staffing
requirements. We ask for your continued support on this as we
approach that important milestone that is coming up, the 100th
anniversary of the Refuge System in the Year 2003.
We also thank you for your support for Everglades
Restoration and for your work in opposing anti-environmental
riders during last year's appropriations process. As Mr. Beard
was saying, we recognize most of this problem does come from
the Senate and we urge you to continue to oppose them this
year.
We do appreciate the Chairman's leadership in drawing
attention to the need to take care of what we have and we agree
with him. We also wish, however, to emphasize the need to take
advantage of new conservation opportunities before they are
lost. We urge the Subcommittee to fund the President's Lands
Legacy Initiative and to work with the Budget Committee to
establish the new budget category proposed to dedicate and
protect the level of funding for future years.
Lands Legacy would provide the funding for the menu of
programs needed to achieve landscape level conservation as we
move into this new century, outright acquisition at the federal
and State levels, easements for working lands, State
conservation of endangered and nongame species, and open space
planning. Broad support does exist across the nation for
permanent funding for these programs at predictable levels. We
urge the Subcommittee to take the initiative and establish this
critical new fund.
I would like to address one of the proposed Lands Legacy
programs in a little bit more detail, the new $100 million
funding request for State nongame wildlife grants through Fish
and Wildlife Service. This is badly needed to provide some
reliable funding for conservation of the roughly 90 percent of
species that are neither hunted nor fished nor federally
listed. Annual State funding spent on conservation of nongame
species is less than one tenth the amount spent on hunted
species which, of course, is funded by the Federal Aid to
Wildlife Restoration. In funding the new nongame program we
would ask the Subcommittee to include report language
stipulating that each State that has not already done so,
develop a plan for prioritizing fund expenditures that includes
accessing species population status and distribution, habitats
essential for their conservation, factors contributing to the
decline of the identified species and their habitats and
actions to address these factors.
These nonburdensome planning requirements are actually
identical to those in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of
1980, passed to conserve nongame species, but never funded.
These plans would be extremely cost effective in providing a
comprehensive blueprint for States to more strategically
conserve the diversity of wildlife and avert future ESA
listings which I think is something we would all like to be
able to do.
In addition to funding for refuges, Lands Legacy and
Everglades, I would like to quickly highlight some of
Defenders' other priorities. For Fish and Wildlife Service
endangered species programs, we support at the very least the
President's budget, the four main accounts, but believe even
higher funding levels are needed, especially for listing and
recovery. For Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement program
again, we support at the very least the President's budget
request, the first in a two-year program to reinvigorate law
enforcement. For Forest Service, we support increases for
threatened, endangered and sensitive species research and
habitat management. Under Forest Service research we are
concerned that the request would be inadequate to fund the
needed research on threatened, endangered and sensitive species
and we would like to see $10 million more for Forest Service
research to fund critically needed research on forest
carnivores, bats, plants, amphibians, mussels and crayfish and
since I see the sum up light coming up here I will just quickly
sum up. We also are urging requested levels for BLM for
wildlife and fisheries management and threatened and endangered
species management. We think BLM has some good requests in this
year and also USGS Biological Resources Division, we support
the President's request and believe that this program has been
critically underfunded for a number of years.
So we have a number of programs we support, but we do
support the conservation of plants and animals in their natural
communities and the programs under the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction are key to achieving that goal and so we know that
there is going to be a problem with the allocation, but we urge
you to do the best that you can.
Mr. Wamp. That is what I was going to say and thank you
very much for your testimony. You do hit on some pretty big
ticket items that we will fund as we are able based on that
allocation because the pressures are going to be, I guess at
least as great for the coming year as they were for this past
year, but I think you do know that you have a very receptive
ear here at this Committee from all the Members and certainly
the staff in a bipartisan way to try our best to fund these
priorities and to wrestle with those tough, old crusty Senators
when we get to conference.
Thank you for your testimony, ma'am.
Ms. Beetham. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY
WITNESS
BARRY S. TINDALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL RECREATION AND
PARK ASSOCIATION
Mr. Wamp. National Recreation and Park Association, Barry
Tindall, Director of Public Policy is ready to assume the
chair.
Good afternoon, Barry.
Mr. Tindall. How are you, sir?
Mr. Wamp. Welcome.
Mr. Tindall. Thank you. It is a great pleasure. I think
this is the first opportunity I have had to appear before you
and Mr. Dicks, it is good to see you, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Good to be with you.
Mr. Tindall. We had the pleasure, Congressman Wamp, of
meeting with Rob in your office a few weeks ago, I guess, with
your constituents now, Tennessee Recreational Park
Organization, one of our affiliates.
Mr. Wamp. yes.
Mr. Tindall. And I urge you to take to heart the tonnage of
paper that they left in your office. Part of our testimony will
be somewhat redundant of what was given to you earlier.
Very quickly, we are an association of about 25,000 people
and organizations who plan, manage, design, predominantly State
and local park and recreation resources, but we are strong
advocates of strong federal land systems as well and recreation
access as appropriate to them.
Just very quickly on the numbers, we urge the Subcommittee
to very aggressively look at the Administration's request for
$150 million for stateside, land and water conservation fund.
We think that is a do-able figure. It is a little bit below
what the Administration requested last year which was $200
million, but higher than this Subcommittee was able to provide
at the end of the day last year.
One feature of the Administration's recommendation, we
really urge you to take a look at and frankly reject. They are
proposing to set aside $72 to $75 million in sort of pre-
selected, pre-federally selected projects and take those,
credit those, if you will, to the State assistance program,
when for the most part it is not a value question. These are
probably very good projects. They more than anything provide
buffers to a handful of federally aided--not federally aided,
federally managed projects, but our view is on stateside land
and water conservation fund that the best decisions, the most
appropriate will come from State and local officials and
citizens who have opportunity to input on those priorities. We
can go at length about that. I will not bore Debbie with it,
but that--she has heard the drill before. That was the intent
of land and water conservation from the outset. That would be a
partnership program. In fact, the first five years of land and
water was--actually the law said 60 percent to State and local
governments. We have gotten a long way from that. And last year
was the first time it had money since fiscal 1995, I think. So
serious problems are there.
On the urban park and rec recovery program, the
Administration has asked for what we would consider to be an
extremely modest $200 million. Our recommendation last year was
for $100 million and frankly we think that is something that
without a great stretch could be accommodated. We do not really
know what has happened on stateside land and water request for
the pretty $40 million that is out there, but we do know
because of the time period just closed, request for projects,
for urban park and rec recovery projects is closed and we had
70 projects, I think, and $2 million available. So a whole
bunch of folks and probably jurisdictions in Tennessee and
Washington and elsewhere are not going to be funded and these
would be, in our judgment, probably very competitive projects
if we had more resources out there.
We urge the Subcommittee to look at the monies that go into
the National Park Service's Rivers and Trails and Technical
Assistance Programs. There are still a lot of activities
dealing with recreation, conservation, reuses of military
installations. We are reauthorizing hydro power projects all
the time. We need to look at those licenses and see what, if we
can enhance and leverage recreation values as a result of that.
The Administration requests about $8 million. I think we and
other groups would be more comfortable and I think $10 to $12
million probably would be a better figure for that. In that
same vein, we commend the Administration and the Park Service,
in particular, for recommending funds for its environmental
resource challenges, I think they call it. There was about
$18.5 million in there for cooperative research, for learning
centers and things like that which we think will not enhance
the management of the National Park System and discover
problems with invasive species and things like that, before
they get out of control, but they will enhance the visitor
experience as well.
In a similar vein, and we have not talked about this
previously, but the U.S. Geological Survey has a many-part
initiative to make its science available to land use planners,
State and local governments, other people who are dealing,
trying to deal with the problems of sprawl and things like
that. So we make a recommendation for that initiative. They
testified I think back in mid-March on that and we would concur
that good science and good information sharing is going to
result in better land use decisions and ultimately save the
American taxpayers a lot of money so we do not do crazy things
on the front end.
So that is the essence of our testimony. A lot of folks who
come before you today, a lot of organizations, individuals will
measure the outcomes in acres of land. That certainly is
important in many respects, but we are a nation that is
increasingly obese. We have horrible problems with juvenile
delinquency. We have a lot of other health problems, older
Americans, their recreation behavior is changing, their
abilities change. There is a great deal of evidence around from
the medical research community that suggests that with active
recreation, active lifestyles, a more diverse array of things
available to the young people and old people that we can be a
healthier nation and ultimately save money in the long term.
So that is the essence of our message today.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Barry. On this stateside portion of
land and water conservation fund I think everyone agrees that
it is not equitable based on the way it was set up. We have a
lot of pressures here at the Subcommittee and as with many of
these funds that were not used for their original purpose. We
are trying to fight our way back into that. I think you are
making progress. I know John Kasich is a bit supporter.
Probably the most active Mayor in America is Victor Ash from
Knoxville, Tennessee on this issue of getting money back to
local governments for urban parks and to use the stateside
portion for those purposes that it was originally intended. And
I think more progress is going to be made through this year's
appropriation cycle. So you continue to persevere and we will
join you as we are able. We have so many other pressures and
you can appreciate our work. We appreciate yours. Thank you for
your testimony, sir.
Mr. Tindall. Is that a commitment to work more closely with
Mr. Kasich?
Mr. Wamp. I have been. I have been. We are bringing the
Chairman along as he is able and he is the most reasonable man
in the House, this Chairman Regula. The is the most reasonable
man in the House.
Mr. Tindall. Is this Mr. Regula's last regular term as
Chair?
Mr. Wamp. It depends on whether he gets a waiver.
Mr. Tindall. I was going to tell him that we always enjoy
coming before him while we have differences of opinion on
occasion he has been a gentleman and----
Mr. Wamp. He is. He is indeed.
Mr. Tindall. And an advocate for recreation and parks.
Mr. Wamp. Of course, if it is up to Mr. Dicks, he will be
removed by force.
Mr. Dicks. The voters of America will decide that.
Mr. Wamp. Nonetheless, you will still have a reasonable man
in the chair. I know how to suck up. Cannot lose.
Thank you, Barry.
Mr. Tindall. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LAND CONSERVATION/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
WITNESS
JAMES C. BROWN, TENNESSEE RIVER GORGE TRUST
Mr. Wamp. Okay, this next is a transition commercial for
one of the premiere conservation organizations in the
Southeastern United States which happens to be the Tennessee
River Gorge Trust and for Debbie Weatherly, our staff director,
and Loretta Beaumont who have traveled to some of the great
places in this country with me as I have served on the
Subcommittee, I will tell you that if you ever want to see the
Grand Canyon where everything is alive and not dead, come to
the Tennessee River Gorge. Come to the Tennessee River Gorge
and you will see it alive.
Mr. Jim Brown for the Tennessee River Gorge Trust. Welcome.
You can tell these are my constituents.
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much. I brought a pretty picture
and now you can see it. I do not need to show it to him. He
already knows about it.
Mr. Dicks. I need to see it though.
Mr. Brown. Okay. There you go. I probably do not need to
speak now because that picture will tell it all, a thousand
words.
Mr. Wamp. You need to speak, go ahead.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you and the Committee for having me up here. And I am here not
just to support the Tennessee River Gorge Trust, which I would
gladly do, but to speak out in advocacy for The Forest Legacy
Program, the USDA Forest Service which has been a program that
has been around for a number of years, been rather underfunded,
which is amazing when you consider millions of dollars and I
never thought I would say that is underfunding anything, but I
think that the general consensus is now there needs to be more.
The Administration is asking for $60 million. That will be for
nationwide, for projects such as the Tennessee River Gorge and
the Tennessee River Gorge Trust work and certainly we are for
that. Our part of that $60 million, we do not know what that
might be, it does not matter. Whatever we can get we would love
to have.
The River Gorge Trust is pretty typical of land trusts
across America. It is a local organization, founded by a
housewife and her friend and now 20 years later we have 900
members, $8 million in land assets. We are protecting 15,000
acres of a 26,000 acre river gorge which lays just immediately
to the west of a metro area. You probably know better than I,
you were doing census hearings this morning, I do not know if
it is 450,000 or 500,000 people, but it is in a corridor that
is rapidly growing. So the----
Mr. Dicks. What metro area is that?
Mr. Brown. Chattanooga metro area, yes sir. And this gorge
that you see there which you are looking at the heart of in
that picture is actually, begins within the city limits of the
city of Chattanooga. I have got a bigger thing back here, but
we will not bring that out.
Anyway, the gorge is 95 percent forested. It contains more
species of rare, threatened and endangered plants, animals,
insects that I would care to read off here. I would glaze
everybody's eyes over with Latin binomials, but in a quick
synopsis we have 800 documented vascular plants which we have
in our scientific and biological field station, 13 species of
frogs and toads, 184 species of birds, 193 species of
lepidopterans, 63 species of animals and your brother will be
happy to know we are going to do a complete survey of the fish
species within the gorge pretty soon.
What we did was many years ago, we started off wanting to
protect a pretty area, scenery. What we protected was more than
just scenery, we had a wonderful recreation opportunity and we
had tremendous diversity. There are three areas within the
gorge that are State natural area quality. One so unique that
the botanist had to totally rewrite the book, there was nothing
like it in the entire State of Tennessee and one of them said
that means there is nothing like it in the entire world.
We have funded this entire project with local money. We
started out wanting to do that. We do it. The land that we own,
we pay taxes on. We are committed to doing things through the
private sector as far as we can and the reason we are here
today is simply because to finish this project and we do have
an end date on this, we want to finish it, we want to wrap it
up and complete what we set out to do. We are going to need
just a little bit extra. Forest Legacy is a program that can
give us the leverage to get the remainder of funds from private
sector, private community. And when you think that $8 million
came out of our community alone, 500,000 people and we have a
very, very generous community, we exceed every year our United
Way, we just need that little bit of kick to finish this thing
off. Forest Legacy could do that and I think there are programs
across America, across the entire nation that are just like
this in every other State. Forest Legacy is a program that will
help us to buy the land, buy the easements and then the good
news is for the Land Trust at least is, the federal government
is not going to be obligated to take care of this stuff. We
will be happy to do it. So you are not buying a park that you
will have to staff and you will have to fund maintenance for.
The private sector will take care of it, we just need a little
bit of help.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Brown, let me say that the President's
request of $60 million was very ably represented by your
presentation today. It is organizations like yours that have
really made conservation in this country work effectively and I
applaud you. As I said over lunch with your group today, I look
forward to working with you in the future to make sure that
this happens from my perspective here on the Subcommittee. I
know others will join me along the way so thank you for your
testimony, thank you for traveling to Washington today, we will
see you back home.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
OHIO AND ERIE CANAL NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR
WITNESS
DANIEL M. RICE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO AND ERIE CANAL CORRIDOR
COALITION
Mr. Wamp. Next is the Ohio and Erie Canal Corridor
Coalition, Mr. Daniel Rice, Executive Director.
Mr. Rice, welcome, good afternoon. Thank you very much,
sir.
This is the kind of day where I would like to say we are
going to go outside for this next witness and have recess or
meet outside. You remember, you used to do that every now and
then, just break away outside? Those were good times. But
nonetheless, it is 72 degrees in here, so go ahead.
Mr. Rice. If we have the time, Mr. Chairman, I would concur
with you, sir, and actually I will refrain from doing what some
earlier folks did, singing. We had some wonderful singers here
earlier this morning singing opera, supporting the National
Endowment for the Arts, but I am going to refrain from that. I
am going to spare you that.
Mr. Wamp. You should. It cost a Member of Congress his seat
last year, so I would strongly discourage that. Go ahead.
Mr. Rice. Mr. Regula has heard me sing before. Thank you
very much. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and also
hello to you, Congressman Dicks, it is good to see you again as
well.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Rice. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittee, and to talk about a wonderful locally
driven project, the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage
Corridor. We have achieved a lot of success during 1999. It is
basically a 107-mile National Heritage Corridor. I believe you
are very familiar, Mr. Chairman, as well. You have a Heritage
Corridor within your district as well, the Tennessee Civil War
Battlefields, a National Heritage Corridor.
Ours goes along a 110-mile greenway, preserving the Ohio
and Erie Canal, developing a tow path trail. We developed many
new visitors centers just within the past year and also we are
working on a number of different programs to preserve many
historic buildings and stimulate economic development
throughout the Heritage Corridor.
I did not bring along the children this morning, but I did
bring along just a little bit of piece of the children's work.
These are some pieces of artwork that the children who have
actually been hiking on the towpath trail sent to us. We do a
program every year with the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in
which they sponsor an event to encourage kids to go out there
and utilize the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor
and if they hike four sections of the Canal Corridor, they
receive a nice little patch, so it does a couple of things. It
gets you out there to do a little bit of exercising, at the
same time they learn a little bit about the history of their
community.
But one of the other exciting accomplishments which we
achieved during 1999 was the completion of our corridor
management plan. This was mandated by the legislation. It is a
complete inventory and analysis of the resources along the
Heritage Corridor and it is my pleasure to present that to you,
Mr. Regula. That is basically our implementation document for
the Heritage Corridor. You will notice it is a little smaller
than that Norton Anthology of earlier this morning, a little
bit easier to read, actually too.
Many of the issues identified in the Corridor Management
Plan are actually under development already. We are actually
building the project as we speak. Today, of the 110 miles, we
have about 55 miles of the towpath trail completed today and
the other 55 miles are under some form of construction. But
most importantly we are leveraging, funding resources at the
local level basically on a 4 to 1 level. We just recently
granted some grants of local folks and granted about a million
dollars and then that leveraged about $4 to $5 million of local
and private investment in the project.
Mr. Regula [presiding]. You got state money approved.
Mr. Rice. Absolutely. We just had an announcement recently.
The State Capital funding funded $1.8 million. That is over and
above the 4 to 1 match that we are having at a local level and
so the State of Ohio is really putting its support behind it
and it really is a good demonstration of the public/private
partnerships.
So at this point in time, I would like to request again an
additional $1 million for the Ohio and Erie Canal National
Heritage Corridor, so you can continue to leverage those local
and private and State resources.
As you are also aware, Mr. Chairman, I serve as chair of
the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, the federation of 18
congressionally designated heritage areas. And each heritage
area will actually be presenting a request to the Subcommittee.
We support their individual requests. It is based upon what
their needs are and they know their needs best, essentially,
but we do support where they are in the process.
The Alliance is also in the process of developing
organization plan and probably most likely within the next
three to six months we actually are filing for 501(C)(3)
status. So we are basically developing an organized structure
to lay a foundation to work on heritage development across the
country.
During 1999, we had some very successful technical
assistance workshops as you are familiar, funded also through
this Committee's budget. We greatly appreciate that support and
we would like to continue those training opportunities with the
National Park Service. We like the way that they are set up
currently in which the technical assistance training programs.
We come up with topics and work to bring in outside experts to
provide technical assistance to make sure the heritage areas
are successful. We look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman and the Members of the Subcommittee and other Members
of Congress to develop a successful, efficient and cost
effective technical assistance program.
Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks. Outstanding presentation.
Mr. Regula. It is a terrific project, really. It has lots
and lots of people on the trail. Of the 87 miles of the
original trail, you must have more than half completed.
Mr. Rice. Actually, we are, Mr. Regula. It is about 55
miles of it that is already completed as we speak.
Mr. Regula. Am I correct that Stark County has bought an
extra side trail for horses?
Mr. Rice. That is correct.
Mr. Regula. The old railroad right of way?
Mr. Rice. That is correct. As a matter of fact I was down
there in Dalton last night, talking to some folks and as a
matter of fact ran into some folks who claim that you and your
brother used to pick up their milk.
Mr. Regula. That is probably true.
Mr. Rice. And they were real big and enthusiastic
supporters, talking about the equestrian users down there. We
basically said that that is the type of use that we want to
have as well as hikers and bicyclists.
Mr. Regula. That will be a parallel, that is on the other
side of the river.
Mr. Rice. Absolutely. Marge Nesbaum was the woman's name.
Mr. Regula. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thanks a lot.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
WITNESS
RANDALL IRVIN, DIRECTOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Mr. Regula. Okay, World Wildlife Fund.
Mr. Irvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Robert Irvin, not
Randy Snodgrass who was scheduled to be here. It is nice to see
you and see you, Mr. Dicks. On behalf of World Wildlife Fund's
1.2 million members, I appreciate this opportunity to come
before you and in particular, I want to thank you and Mr. Dicks
for your leadership in support of conservation programs in the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service and all of
your efforts to oppose weakening, anti-environmental weakening
riders on appropriations bills. We sincerely appreciate your
work there.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is highlight some of the
work the World Wildlife Fund is doing in order to explain why
we are so strongly supportive of some of these Interior and
Forest Service programs. In 1997, World Wildlife Fund launched
a campaign known as the Living Planet Campaign to focus on
endangered spaces, endangered species and global threats to
biological diversity. Our scientists looked at the eco regions
around the world and identified the Global 200. And of those,
116 eco regions were in North America. Thirty-two of them were
found to be globally important and we have focused our effort
in the United States on five of those: the Bering Sea in
Alaska; the Klamath-Siskiyou Forest region in Oregon and
Northern California; the Chihuahuan Desert in Southern New
Mexico, Arizona, Texas and also Mexico; Southeastern rivers and
streams looking at the Tennessee, Cumberland and Mobile river
basins; and South Florida, the Everglades and the Florida Keys,
an area that I know, Mr. Chairman, you fought hard to protect.
We have summarized our assessment of those eco regions in
this book. I would like to leave it for you and the Committee
for your information, but many of the items in the President's
proposed budget will help protect these priority areas the
World Wildlife Fund is focusing on and that is why we are so
supportive of these. For example, $143.7 million for Everglades
restoration, including funding for land acquisition and
national wildlife refuges and to match funds provided by the
State of Florida for acquisition, absolutely key to the
restoration of the eco system. $12.6 million in increased
funding for law enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. A lot of that money will be used to stop illegal trade
of endangered species. That is particularly important in the
Chihuahuan Desert eco region where there is a real problem with
illegal trade in endangered cactus species.
Increased funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Division of Environmental Contaminants, the problem of
endocrine disruptors and toxics in the environment is a problem
for humans and for wildlife. The Administration has asked for
$10.3 million. Frankly, we think that is inadequate. It ought
to be increased dramatically because this is a serious problem.
And $129.5 million for the U.S. Forest Service National
Forest Roads budget. The World Wildlife Fund is strongly
supportive of the proposed roadless policy that the
Administration is working on. In particular, we are supportive
of using the money to maintain the existing road networks in
order to eliminate the problems that are caused by road
failures and inadequate maintenance, degrading fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality.
Mr. Dicks. That is a very serious problem, one that we face
in the Northwest in a very dramatic way and I believe it is
having a negative effect on the salmon runs and helped crate
the listings.
Mr. Irvin. You are exactly right, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. The roads deteriorate and get rain storms and
then the dirt and silt gets into the streams and it chokes off
the eggs.
Mr. Irvin. It is things like having inadequate culverts on
roads and simply not maintaining them.
Mr. Dicks. There is an $8 to $10 billion backlog on roads.
And they did not get into the Highway Trust Fund. I think it is
a major problem.
Mr. Regula. Were these built as logging roads and now used
for recreation?
Mr. Dicks. Well, they are used for both. They are used for
logging and recreation and the Forest Service simply does not
put enough money in, does not have a strategy for how they are
going to deal with this problem.
Mr. Irvin. And the proposed budget is focused on increasing
the funding for those efforts, for the maintenance efforts.
Mr. Dicks. I just hope that we can all be more united than
we have in the past in terms of when it is for maintenance,
when it is for fixing the roads, not opposing it because it is
quote road money. I take in your testimony that you make that
distinction. Some people do not.
Mr. Irvin. Yes, we do, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Irvin. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
again express our appreciation for your leadership and support
of conservation and in particular on the Everglades issues to
encourage you to continue to do so as we know you will and to
just say that the work that you do here in providing adequate
funding for these programs is just absolutely essential if we
are going to achieve what I think is our shared goal of leaving
our children a living planet. So thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Regula. Thank you and thank your group for the work
they do because I think that is vitally important to have these
groups like yours. We have up next the Nature Conservancy.
Interested parties have made a difference.
Mr. Irvin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/FOREST LEGACY
WITNESS
DAVID WEEKES, VP, MID-WEST DIVISION AND DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO CHAPTER,
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Regula. Nature Conservancy, Mr. Weekes. Thank you for
coming.
Mr. Weekes. Chairman Regula, I am David Weekes. I am the
Vice President of the Midwest Division of the Nature
Conservancy and the Ohio State Director, so I am from your
State and I am very pleased to be here to present the Nature
Conservancy's testimony this year for the Fiscal Year 2000
appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
for a number of other conservation projects and programs in
your jurisdiction.
I think you know about the Nature Conservancy, so I will
spare you the description of our organization, but what I would
like to do is share with you some information that has been
recently developed by the Nature Conservancy that we think is
especially important in this discussion.
Last month, the Nature Conservancy released Precious
Heritage, a landmark study on the status of America's natural
heritage. I have a copy of that here for you now.
The findings are both good and bad. On the positive side,
the book confirms that the United States is a country of
enormous biological wealth. Unfortunately, it also documents
that one third of the plant and animal species in America are
at risk today.
We at the Nature Conservancy believe that the conservation
community has an obligation to lead by example and to take
decisive action. As a result, we have launched the most
ambitious fundraising campaign ever initiated by a private
conservation organization. Last month, the Conservancy pledged
to invest $1 billion over the next three years to protect
critically important habitats, both here at home and abroad. In
doing so, we are demonstrating our own firm commitment to
private investment in bio diversity protection, but private
efforts alone will not suffice and of course, I know you
appreciate that. We feel strongly that federal investments in
conservation, as a partner with State and local governments and
the private sector are essential to preserve the nation's
biological treasure.
Mr. Regula. What period of time are you going to raise this
$1 billion?
Mr. Weekes. The campaign kicked off in July of 1999 and we
are at about the $450 million mark now.
Mr. Regula. That is remarkable.
Mr. Weekes. It has been a lot of hard work, but it is going
extremely well and I think that is a testament to people's
concern for these issues.
Mr. Regula. Do you do any off-shore fund raising or is that
all U.S. support?
Mr. Weekes. It is primarily domestic support, but it comes
from all around the world, really.
Mr. Regula. some of it corporate, as well as private
individuals?
Mr. Weekes. It is indeed, although I would say the lion's
share is private.
Mr. Regula. Remarkable.
Mr. Weekes. I would like to take a minute to touch on a few
of our strong recommendations and then I would be glad to
answer any questions.
The Conservancy strongly supports continued federal
acquisition of high priority biologically important lands and
we ask Congress to provide full funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. In addition, we support increases for
improved management on federal lands. Our specific
recommendations are set forth in a new report, Budgeting for
Bio Diversity and a copy is attached to the back of the
testimony there.
We also, Mr. Chairman, acknowledge and support your
leadership in correcting the backlog of maintenance problems on
federal lands and would welcome an opportunity to work with you
to solve those issues.
Through the Land and Water Conservation Fund the Nature
Conservancy proposed funding 57 biologically rich land
acquisition projects, totalling $182 million and a detailed
description of those projects is included in the appendix.
I cannot bypass this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to call to
your attention the project in our home State, the proposed
Little Darby National Wildlife Refuge. I know you have heard a
great deal about it.
Mr. Regula. I heard have it from the people that live
there.
Mr. Weekes. And I am here to tell you that we see that
there is tremendous amount of support throughout the State for
that project.
Mr. Regula. And in the region it is affecting?
Mr. Weekes. Our sense is that there is, in fact, support in
the region.
Mr. Regula. I have not heard from them.
Mr. Weekes. You have not heard from them, but that is a
fair assumption. We feel that the proposal really provides a
unique blend of both habitat, preservation and farm land
protection and from our perspective in terms of preservation of
natural diversity, this is a win-win situation for both the
natural resource and the local community.
Mr. Regula. Okay, wrap it up.
Mr. Weekes. I will wrap it up quickly, thank you. I wanted
to call attention quickly to the Endangered Species Act and we
see that, of course, as the most powerful tool to conserve the
nation's biodiversity. We support funding increases for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to support incentive based,
nonregulatory programs. I would like to underscore incentive
based for programs such as candidate conservation agreements,
habitat conservation plans and safe harbor agreements and then
just finally to wrap up, I too would like to touch on earlier
testimony that was given concerning the Forest Legacy Program.
We think this program has huge potential to achieve
conservation goals while maintaining sustainable use of private
lands and we strongly support the Administration's $60 million
request for that program.
Thank you.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Weekes. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NATIONAL SCENIC AND NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS
WITNESS
GARY WERNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS
SYSTEM
Mr. Regula. The Partnership for the National Trails System.
Mr. Werner. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
testimony, when we were here to see you a few weeks ago there
were several of our organizations who were not able to be here
or get materials, Natchez Trace and the Over Mountain Victory
Trail and they have sent those and want you to have them as
part of the collection of materials we gave.
I am here on behalf of the Partnership for the National
Trails System, as you know, from Wisconsin. I am here to thank
you so much for the support that you and your colleagues have
given over the last several years for the trails, particularly
the increased funding you provided last year for the Trail of
Tears and for the Potomac Heritage Trail and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund money for the Ice Age Pacific Crest
Continental Divide and North Country Trails.
As you know, our trail work and our trail system is
predicated on a dynamic public/private partnership and I am
also representing the private side of that partnership. I am
happy to report again that our contribution has increased
substantially over the previous year. One of the charts I have
included in the testimony, we document 550,000 volunteer hours
in 1999 which is a 10 percent increase over the previous year
and the value of that, plus the value of the monetary
contributions from our organizations amounts to about $13.2
million that we contributed for the trails system and as a
conservative estimate for 1999.
The three agencies that administer the trails, I think in
1999 received about $6.8 million in operations money. So we
feel that we are doing more than our fair share and that allows
me to I think very gladly actually ask in our request for this
year for FY 2001, a total of about $13.8 million for the
National Park Service, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management to operate and administer these trails.
We have also appreciated the support you have given through
the earmarking of challenge cost share funds for the National
Park Service each year and we strongly support the
Administration's request for an increase of, I believe, about
$2.35 million in those funds for the next fiscal year. As you
know, that is a wonderful way to leverage the value of the
federal investment and we have been doing it at the rate of 1.8
to 2 to 1 in projects each year.
In terms of the operations requests for the agencies, for
the National Park Service, we still have six of the trails in
spite of your efforts to increase the funding, six of the
trails that receive less than $100,000 a year in operations
funding and part of our request this year is to bring each of
those up to at least $150,000 to that substantial work can be
done to support the private efforts for the trails.
In particular, I want to point out the four trails that are
administered through the Salt Lake City Office of the Park
Service, the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony
Express National Historic Trails. This is a wonderful example
in this office of collaboration between the three federal
agencies. It is a Park Service administered office, actually
located in a Bureau of Land Management facility, with Forest
Service staff. But it is terribly underfunded and we are asking
for a total of about $577,000 for the four trails increase to
allow that staff, for the three agencies to work
collaboratively.
We are also asking in a new initiative to begin a five year
project to develop a geographic information system that would
be consistent across the 20 trails of the trail system. We have
around 40,000 miles of trails in 44 States and numerous other
jurisdictions and you, knowing from your hiking experience, all
the kinds of things along trails you need to keep track of and
we feel that a good GIS system will enable us to do that.
In the Forest Service funding, one of the things to really
know is we are asking for you to provide $600,000 of money to
the Forest Service to hire a full-time Administrator and
provide the land staff needed to protect the Pacific Press
National Scenic Trail in the way that you have over the years
so steadfastly protected the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Mr. Regula. Is the Pacific Crest Trail on Forest Service
land?
Mr. Werner. It is primarily on Forest Service land, but
also crosses about four national parks and a number of Bureau
of Land Management Lands, State Parks and State Forests.
Mr. Regula. Is it totally public land?
Mr. Werner. No. There are close to 300 miles that are on
easements that were acquired a number of years ago. Many of the
easements are no more than 10 feet wide and being encroached.
So the administration of it really needs to be a unified one
that would support all of that.
At any rate, we also would appreciate the Land and Water
Conservation Funding for the trails to continue as in previous
years for Ice Age, North Country, Pacific Crest and Florida and
it is all detailed in the testimony.
Mr. Regula. Thank you very much.
Mr. Werner. We really appreciate your support and that of
your other colleagues over the years.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
WITNESS
H. ALEXANDER WISE, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICERS
Mr. Regula. National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers.
Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, I too want to thank you for what
you have done for historic preservation and I would like for
you to have this book. My name is Alex Wise and I am SHPO in
Virginia and also the Vice President of the National
Conference. And I am here on behalf of the Conference today to
request a $150 million withdrawal from the Historic
Preservation Fund for Fiscal 2001. That is the amount that
Congress has authorized for this program since 1982 and we
think it is now time to appropriate that amount of money so
that we can really carry out our mandate as it is supposed to
be carried out.
As you know, Congress enacted the National Historic
Preservation Act in 1966. It came after an unfortunate
experience with urban renewal and some other federal programs.
The Congress, in reaction to that, said we better do something
about preserving the history of our country, the material
history.
Congress gave the States the primary operational role for
preserving the material culture of the United States in terms
of buildings and archeology and designed this program as a
ground up program, as a real partnership with the States. The
idea was that Congress would fund it at 60 percent, the States
at 40.
SHPOs are appointed by the respective Governors and our
staffs are State employees. We work closely with local
governments and private property owners as well. We take a big
burden off the federal government by working so closely with
communities. We are the vital link. I know you are involved
with the Smithsonian. As the affiliate program translates the
benefits of the Smithsonian to the country, we do the same
thing for the country's historic preservation program.
You know the SHPO functions. They are set forth in the act,
but I would like to talk for a minute about the benefits. We do
leverage private investment in historic properties,
neighborhoods and districts. We stimulate tourism and job
creation. We help maintain community pride, sense of place and
quality of life. It is so important not just to us as people
and communities, but also for economic development. We
stimulate revitalization of urban centers, districts and
neighbors, thus mitigating urban sprawl. And we help educate
successive generations of Americans in citizenship and in our
heritage.
The SHPOs do put money in people's pockets. This is not
just sort of intangible benefits. Last year, every federal
dollar spent on this program leveraged a minimum of $65 in
private and State funds. I say a minimum because we cannot
exactly qualify the tourism benefits or the benefits of
creating quality of life and communities that attract business,
but I can tell you in Virginia there are two major
international corporations that came there and have told us one
of the reasons is because they like the historic character of
the place, AXA Group and Siemens with a bid semiconductor
plant. But on the things that we can measure, you have got the
State match, actually it is a State overmatch which I will get
into in a minute. In the Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program,
last year the State Historic Preservation Officers helped
leverage over $2 billion in investment in historic districts,
neighborhoods and buildings across the country which I think is
pretty remarkable. That created 60,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in
household income.
Now as I said, the program was set up as a 60-40 match, the
fed, 60, the States, 40. I can tell you that in Virginia we are
overmatching more than 80 percent. Just this year in the
legislature, the State put up $600,000 new dollars, added that
to our base for each year of the biennium. Our federal
contribution in Virginia is $656,000, so we are overmatching
between 80 and 90 percent now. We also came up with $3.4
million, new dollars for battlefield preservation to match the
land and water conservation fund grants. We are not unusual.
Massachusetts and Maryland are in the same boat and many other
States.
The federal government is putting as much money into this
program as about one fighter plane for the whole country's
history outside the National Parks.
Just a word about the dynamics or the trends over the
years. Today, Congress spends 25 percent less in this program
than it did in 1983 after the Reagan Revolution in real terms,
in real dollars. So in conclusion, we would like to see the
partnership restored for the future.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WITNESS
SUSAN H. GUNN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Regula. Wilderness Society.
Ms. Gunn. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. How are you?
Ms. Gunn. It is a pleasure to sit here in front of you
again this year. I want to thank you for your leadership and
the integrity you bring to land management issues in this
nation.
This year I want to do something a little different and
focus on the Bureau of Land Management, the poor, pitiful,
orphaned agency of our nation. We really believe that the BLM
has a historic opportunity here to become one of the foremost
conservation agencies in the United States, but what it needs
is considerable funding. After years of insufficient funding,
the Administration is putting forward requests, they are a
little bit higher, but I think it is a cycle of incremental----
Mr. Regula. Would that be funding for land acquisition?
Ms. Gunn. Well, mostly I am looking at wilderness land use
planning, invasive weeds and there is a Great Basin initiative
and wildlife fisheries. They are also up in land acquisition
this year, mostly I think it is from the Catellus Piece. They
could probably use sufficient funding for in holdings because
they do have a lot of in holdings and areas that used to be
remote are not remote any more. There are a lot of trophy homes
going up out in the West these days.
But in terms of some of the more conservation oriented
programs, we think that they could use a sufficient shot in the
arm in terms of funding. Also, you know about the arcane
Reclamation Act of 1902 that takes 76 percent of BLM's funding
and turns it over to reclamation. I perceive this as sort of
like a gaping wound in the side. 76. They are the fourth
largest revenue generator in the United States, but they are
losing most of their money to rec and they are having
insufficient fundings in requests from the Administration. So I
challenge you this year to outmatch the Administration in a
couple of these accounts. It is hard to believe.
We are recommending $30 million for their wilderness
program and also making a separate program. Right now it is
underneath recreation. About half of its money gets
reprogrammed every year. They do not see it. They do not have a
staff. They need new wilderness, a new wilderness management
policy. About half of the designated areas have no management
plans. They can probably use 75 full-time FTEs. I think that is
a theme. We are looking at more money and more permanent full-
time FTEs to meet the needs.
The same thing with the land use planning. We would
recommend $40 million this year and it is sort of analogous to
what happened with the grazing issue in the last couple of
years. It gets so far behind and litigation starts up and it
becomes a potential for a rider. It would be nice just to get
proactive, invest the money and do the appropriate planning out
of court.
Invasive species could probably use on the order of $15
million. Invasive species are a critical problem in the West.
They choke out native species. They increase habitat collapse
and drive out species. This year I know BLM had a program, the
Great Basin Restoration Program that was based on the big fires
that went through the West last year and we really support
that. We would support $20 million for that program because it
is cheaper to do restoration than to do a combination of fire
management, putting out fires, rehabbing and dealing with the
weeds and also the cycle of fires increasing because of these
invasive species. So they are dealing with fires far more
frequently.
Also, wildlife, fisheries and T&E species. We are looking
at one biologist per million acres and one botanist per 4.8
million acres in that program. They could use serious FTE in
funding and we would recommend about $86 million for both of
those programs in combination.
I am just here to tell you the sad and pitiful story of BLM
and hope that you can support incredibly higher numbers,
incrementally, larger than incrementally numbers.
Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Gunn. You are welcome.
Mr. Regula. Our problem is not having enough money. Money
is going to be in short supply this year.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION/ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION/NPS
WITNESS
RICHARD B. NETTLER, CHAIRMAN, PRESERVATION ACTION
Mr. Regula. Preservation Action.
Mr. Nettler. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Nettler. I
am Chairman of the Board of Preservation Action. I thank you
for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
Preservation Action submits this testimony in support of
the full funding of the Historic Preservation fund at $150
million as was you have heard before from the State Historic
Preservation Officer from Virginia on behalf of the National
Conference on State Historic Preservation Officers as part of
the Fiscal 2001 Department of Interior appropriations bill. As
you know, in 1976, Congress enacted legislation to direct the
proceeds from the Outer Continental Shelf oil leases be used to
support the programs and activities mandated 10 years earlier
when it enacted the National Historic Preservation Act and
funded through the Historic Preservation Fund. Congress, in
effect, made a promise to the American people that it would use
the revenues derived from the exploration or exploitation of
one nonrenewal resource to fund the preservation and
enhancement of other nonrenewable resources of our nation's
cultural, scenic and historic treasures. That promise,
unfortunately, has largely gone unfilled. Since its inception
the Fund has rarely received even half of its authorized
amount. Indeed, when adjusted for inflation and cost of living
considerations the Fund has declined markedly.
Even in years when the appropriations have topped 30
percent of its authorized amount, only about half of the
dollars made available have actually gone to fund the programs
that are the core mandates of the National Historic
Preservation Act. These mandates include the 106 review that is
done on federal projects and the consequences for historic
resources, the certification of rehabilitation activities that
are eligible for tax credits and the survey and documentation
of historic resources.
We recognize that each year you are forced to make tough
choices regarding which programs to fund at what levels. We
also understand that in spite of projected budget surpluses you
are being asked to prepare a 2001 appropriations package with
nearly identical dollars which amounts to those available to
you in 2000.
From our perspective, there is no component of the program
that illustrates the power of the federal/State partnership
than the tax credit program. That tax credit program which has
leveraged more than $2.3 billion in private investment in 1999
is up over 10 percent over 1998 and has rehabilitated 4,394
housing units and created 9,439 more. Of these, more than one
third were for low and moderate income units. They mean that
boarded up and vacant buildings are restored and reopened as
viable business enterprises. The tax act program cannot work
without the technical support and administrative commitment,
time and effort of the State Historic Preservation Officers and
in fact, many of the federal agencies now are looking in terms
of privatization component to use the tax credits as a linchpin
for insuring that private money can take over some
responsibilities that federal agencies have.
They are the field officers, the State officers are the
field officers of the federal government for this program. At
$2.3 billion in private investments and a sharply rising trend
pushing that number upward, the program could soon repeat the
levels of the early and to late mid-1980s.
Ironically, in spite of this multiplication of
responsibilities, a tax credit, the 106 reviews, the federal
appropriations to the States' tribes and the CLGs have actually
declined in the same period. This means we are a nation unable
to reap the benefits of a fully endowed, comprehensively
engaged and strong protective preservation program. We settle
instead for getting by with essentials. We make no big plans.
Historic preservation activities, funded through the Historic
Preservation Fund are cost-effective, all inclusive and
successful such as the Washington Union Station, Ellis Island.
These have all been recipients of that fund.
Preservation Fund has given new life to small towns and to
big city neighborhoods. It has made Main Street a profitable
place to do business again. It has celebrated and protected the
best of our paths.
Mr. Regula. Do federal dollars help to trigger local
investment?
Mr. Nettler. Federal dollars help to trigger investment,
that is correct.
Mr. Regula. I imagine that is a good selling point.
Mr. Nettler. It is an extremely good selling point and to
the extent that the federal government may be able to use it
for its own privatization, it is even a larger selling point.
None of this can be accomplished without the Historic
Preservation Fund living up to what was intended in 1976.
Mr. Regula. Right.
Mr. Nettler. I would ask for your support for increasing
the Fund and thank you very much for your past support.
Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
STATUS OF CENTER'S ACTIVITIES
WITNESS
JOHN BOGLE, NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER
Mr. Regula. Let us do the National Constitution Center. We
have to vote shortly, but I think we can get your five minutes
in. Are you up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania?
Mr. Bogle. Yes sir.
Mr. Regula. We are going to be there this summer.
Mr. Bogle. I hope you will come by and see our work.
Mr. Regula. I may plan to do that.
Mr. Bogle. It is very nice. We would welcome you. Well,
thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
National Constitution Center on Independence Mall. My name is
John Bogle and I am the founder of the Vanguard Group, the
nation's second largest mutual fund group. I have been a
director of the Center for nearly a decade now and have served
as its chairman since last autumn. Joining me here at my left
is Joe Korsella, the Chairman's Chief Executive.
We are here to urge you to continue support of the creation
of the Center through a final construction budget allocation of
$10 million and through statutory aid appropriation of $500,000
for Fiscal 2001. Three years ago we first proposed our plan for
funding this $131 million, requesting $65 million in federal
funds over three years. That would be half from the Education
Department and half from the Department of the Interior which
will, in turn, comprise about one half of our overall budget of
$130 million.
Thanks to your leadership, sir, we are precisely on track
with this plan and have received our 1999 and 2000
appropriations. We are deeply grateful for your support and
respectfully urge you to appropriate the final $10 million
through the Department's construction budget which we believe
will again be matched by an equal amount in Education
Department funding. At that point our funding plans will be
realized and we will make no further capital request.
Mr. Regula. Write that down.
Mr. Bogle. You heard it here. We recognize the Committee's
stalwart support of this vital national project represents
substantial national investment. Like all intelligent investors
you deserve and your committee deserves an annual report on
evaluating how well we have managed the resources you have been
generous enough to entrust to us. I am delighted to deliver
that report to you, for in my 50-year long career in this
investment world, rarely have I seen an annual report with so
much good news. We have completed the architectural and exhibit
designs for the project and they are truly world class. We
continue to attract the nation's most distinguished and capable
individuals listed in our written testimony, to the project. We
adhered assiduously both to the project schedule, we are right
on schedule, and to our budget. We have also made exceptional
progress on our pledge to you to raise substantial funds from
the private sector. Indeed, since I testified before you a year
ago we have raised $20 million in private funds, a wonderful
start on a $25 million total.
Most respectfully, however, I do urge you to restore the
Center's annual statutory aid appropriation to last year's
fiscal level of $500,000. We commend the Administration's
inclusion of the Constitution Center and the proposed
construction budget. We strongly disagree with its proposal to
eliminate statutory aid support. Importantly, we expect no
federal operating support whatsoever once the Center opens. Our
private capital campaign includes this healthy $25 million I
have described to you in operating endowment to ensure we will
operate in the black without any on-going governmental support
at all. Arthur Anderson, our consultant, agrees with that
conclusion.
However, the Administration's reduction of $750,000 to the
Fiscal 2000 appropriation has already----
Mr. Regula. What are you going to use to operate, fees?
Mr. Bogle. We were going to take some fees and income from
the endowment that we are raising. There will be a lot of
revenue raising.
Mr. Regula. How much endowment do you anticipate?
Mr. Bogle. $25 million. At least $25 million.
Mr. Regula. It will be well-invested, of course.
Mr. Bogle. It will be very well invested, indeed, sir.
Mr. Regula. In a mutual fund or something?
Mr. Bogle. Well, only low cost mutual funds, sir. We have
an unexpected challenge in the private fundraising and we will
meet that challenge, but I urge you not to compound that
difficulty and urge you to restore our statutory aid
appropriation of $500,000.
This annual report, to be worth its salt, has looked not
just at the past, but to the future. I am delighted to share
with you our terrific results so far. I am even more optimistic
about our future.
Yes, we have used the resources you have entrusted to us
wisely, but the key question is will you get a good return on
your investment of these national investments. It is going to
create a physical monument to America's most enduring
achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America,
a system of government that gives power to we, the people, a
national center for debate, scholarship, education and
outreach, explaining and illuminating the legacy of our
Founding Fathers. It is a terrific calling.
Over the long course of my career, sir, I have evaluated
thousands of potential investments and I have never said this
before and probably never will again, but this investment in
our heritage is a sure thing.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you.
Mr. Regula. I think over 200 years of experience, backs you
up on that one.
Mr. Bogle. Yes sir.
Mr. Regula. I think you would be interested to know, I do a
project with students each year addressing a given topic. One
year I gave them about 150 years and they were going to change
the Constitution around. When they finally got around to doing
the report they said they like what we have.
Mr. Bogle. Well, I am delighted to hear that, sir. So do
we.
Mr. Regula. Let us suspend. We have a couple of votes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LAND ACQUISITION
WITNESS
KEITH ROSS, PRESIDENT, NEW ENGLAND FOREST FOUNDATION
AMOS ENO, NEW ENGLAND FOREST FOUNDATION
Mr. Regula. Okay, we are done voting for a while so let's
resume the hearing. We have the New England Forest Foundation.
Welcome.
Mr. Ross. Hello, Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Keith
Ross, the Vice President and Director of Land Protection for
the New England Forestry Foundation. This year and this year
only we have an unprecedented opportunity to provide a model
for sustainable forestry applicable to two-thirds of the State
of Maine. In January of 1999, the New England Forestry
Foundation negotiated a two year option to purchase from the
Pingree Family a conservation easement over 755,000 acres of
forest land in northern and western Maine for $37.10 an acre.
We are requesting this Committee's support for a one time
appropriation of $5 million to permanently protect from
development an area of prime forest and recreation land larger
than the State of Rhode Island, nearly as large as the entire
White Mountain National Forest. The project protects 1,180
square miles of land, 2,000 miles of river frontage, 110 lakes
and remote ponds, 5 bald eagles' nests, 67 rare and endangered
plant sites. The easement preserves the historic public and
recreation opportunities such as hunting and fishing and
hiking----
Mr. Regula. Would this be development easement,
conservation easement?
Mr. Ross. That is correct, conservation easement.
Mr. Regula. What would they do at the harvest end?
Mr. Ross. The land will continue to be managed by this
family who has owned it for 160 years and they have managed it
for sustainable forestry. They were recognized in 1994 as the
first----
Mr. Regula. And they would continue to harvest?
Mr. Ross. They would continue to harvest in a sustainable
manner.
I would like to stress that there will be no subsequent
request for annual operating expenses as the lands will remain
in private hands and managed for sustainable forestry. The cost
of maintaining and monitoring the easement will be undertaken
by the New England Forestry Foundation and our option expires
at the end of this year, December 31st.
Mr. Regula. Everything in orange on your map?
Mr. Eno. Everything in orange and this was a recent Nature
Conservancy Project on the St. John.
Mr. Chairman, I have been testifying before you and this
Committee since February 1974 and I have never seen a project
with such conservation value presented to you for funding. This
is one of the four drainages and if you look at the prior
investments of this committee over time, this project protects
almost the entire remaining lands in the Umbagog National
Wildlife----
Mr. Regula. How much money will Maine put in?
Mr. Eno. We are seeking private matching money for----
Mr. Regula. This is Maine?
Mr. Eno. Right.
Mr. Regula. In other words, you are talking $5 million from
us and how much private?
Mr. Eno. The rest is going to be privately raised. We have
already raised $13 million.
Mr. Regula. So the total cost is going to be in the range
of $18 to $20 million?
Mr. Ross. Total cost is $30 million.
Mr. Regula. $30 million.
Mr. Ross. $30 million. $37.10 an acre, except it is 755,000
acres. The largest conservation easement now is about----
Mr. Regula. How would the public use it? What would be the
public use of it?
Mr. Ross. There is existing public use of about 90,000
visitors a year. It is used extensively for hunting, fishing,
camping. There are a number of campsites.
Mr. Regula. Well, if you had a conservation easement, that
would allow them to continue the cutting of the timber.
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Regula. Would there be any control over that? Could
they clear cut? Could they do most anything they chose as far
as cutting?
Mr. Ross. The conservation easement requires the family to
manage the land according to the sustainable forestry
guidelines that are attached to the easement.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Mr. Eno. This company was the first company to become green
certified by FSC.
Mr. Regula. Under this conservation easement, what are the
characteristics of the public access, camping, fishing,
hunting?
Mr. Ross. Yes, one of the purposes of the easement, built
right into the easement is to protect and maintain the historic
recreation opportunities of the land. This family is very
interested in maintaining the historic uses of the property.
They have a long history----
Mr. Regula. Would it be managed? Who would have oversight
management?
Mr. Ross. New England Forestry Foundation.
Mr. Eno. New England Forestry Foundation.
Mr. Regula. Which is a nonprofit?
Mr. Ross. Yes, we were started in 1944.
Mr. Regula. You would hold the easement?
Mr. Ross. You would hold the easement.
Mr. Eno. This is basically one-fifth the cost of other
easements in Maine. Nicatowas, for example, just got legacy
money. That was $202 per acre, but because of the scale, you
have been able to get these amazing cost savings.
Mr. Regula. Does any of it abut national forest?
Mr. Ross. No. This is the closest. This is the Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge. And those two green areas are
previous Legacy projects. The pink areas are projects that were
done through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation with the
Rangely Leggs Trust.
Mr. Regula. How much of this 760,000 acres would have
public access?
Mr. Ross. The entire property would be open to the public
as it is now, but the access is managed by the family. There is
no grant of public access as a part of the easement. They are
not buying public access. We are only buying the development
rights on the property, but the family wants to insure that
those historic recreation opportunities are there so we built
that into the purpose.
Mr. Regula. What guarantee would you have that 50 years
from now that the public would still have access to it?
Mr. Ross. In the State of Maine there is a law that permits
any individual to go over any unimproved land to any pond, ten
acres or larger in size. The conservation easement would
prohibit forever the development of this land, thereby always
making it open.
Mr. Eno. Maine is unusual in that none of the major forest
lands can charge access fees and this family was in the
forefront of creating what is called the Northern Forests.
Mr. Ross. The North Maine Woods, which is a nonprofit of 4
million to manage the private lands.
Mr. Regula. Okay, well, it sounds interesting. Thank you.
Mr. Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Eno. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
WITNESS
LAURIE WAYBURN, PRESIDENT, THE PACIFIC FOREST TRUST
Mr. Regula. The Pacific Forest Trust.
Ms. Wayburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Laurie
Wayburn. I am the President of the Pacific Forest Trust. We are
a regional organization dedicated to preserving private,
productive forest lands in Washington, Oregon and California.
Mr. Regula. Preserving them to be cut or preserving them
for recreation or, when you say preserving private lands,
define that.
Ms. Wayburn. We are preserving them for the range of uses
that they provide, sustainable timber, watershed values,
habitat values, recreational values, scenic values, open space
values. You have caught the synergy of the two words that we
use in our mission which is to preserve productivity.
We work with the thousands of private forest land owners in
this region. This is the most valuable forest land in the
United States. It is the most productive. Washington, Oregon
and California are the three most productive timber States in
the United States. It is also the most threatened. Washington
and California top the NRI's list of States in danger of
conversion. These two States alone, actually, the three States
alone lose 120,000 acres of forest land a year.
Mr. Regula. To harvesting?
Ms. Wayburn. To conversion.
Mr. Regula. Conversion to other uses?
Ms. Wayburn. Conversion to other uses. The primary loss is
to development and the secondary loss is to agriculture, but it
is far secondary on about a 3 to 1 measure.
This forest land has so many values that when we lose it
because the competing uses of conversion are more economically
rewarding for land owners, we do not have an alternative market
for conservation values and that conservation includes
sustainable forestry as well as traditional values.
Mr. Regula. What do you propose to do?
Ms. Wayburn. We endorse the increase of forest legacy to
$60 million.
Mr. Regula. To do what, to buy conservation easements?
Ms. Wayburn. To do two things, to increase the amount of
money available to facilitate donations of easements and to
increase the amount of money for acquisitions.
In California, where we have focused on facilitated
donations----
Mr. Regula. Are you talking about acquisition in fee or in
conservation easements?
Ms. Wayburn. Acquisition of conservation easements.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Wayburn. Which enables the land to maintain private
ownership which we believe is very important, but basically
supports landowners' goals of keeping their land and managing
it well. It provides them with additional funding to support
the carrying costs of the land. Without that funding,
conversion is an overwhelming temptation.
When I was a child in this area, land values were about
$100 an acre. Today, they may be $50,000 in an urbanizing area;
$15,000 for bare land in an agricultural conversion area.
Stumpage values, for example, for redwood, was $1 a thousand
when I was a child. It is $1,000 a 1,000 today and sometimes up
to $14,000 a 1,000. So in terms of the liquidation values, they
are very, very high for these land owners.
What Forest Legacy does is provide much needed funding to
help pay for the costs of conservation of these lands to
maintain them as a working landscape.
Mr. Regula. This would be done by the State?
Ms. Wayburn. By the States, yes, and there are private
partnerships which are extremely effective. We have worked in
California on facilitated donations where the value of the
easement donated is over $3 million and the cost to the public
is less than $40,000. That is enormous leverage with the----
Mr. Regula. Is this land you are talking about north of the
headwaters?
Ms. Wayburn. The State of California is in the process of
adding another 28 counties into the Forest Legacy Program. The
State of Washington has limited the program to the Puget Sound
area. They have chosen to focus just on the Puget Sound area.
It includes therefore, all the forest land in the State of
California, all the forested counties, including that, for
example, in Humboldt County.
Mr. Regula. That would go to the border.
Ms. Wayburn. Which goes to the border. Oregon has not yet
chosen to join the Forest Legacy Program because there is not
enough funding yet for it to be meaningful to the State.
Increasing the appropriation would help Oregon decide to join.
Mr. Regula. Would this money generate State money?
Ms. Wayburn. Absolutely. The State of California,
actually, just passed a bond measure, Bond Measure 12 and it
dedicated $5 million to Forest Legacy.
In addition, it identified over $200 million that would go
into other forms of watershed protection. The Forest Legacy
Program in California has an emphasis on watershed protection,
so there is a real ability to leverage federal monies with
State monies here.
Mr. Regula. Yes.
Ms. Wayburn. And for the first couple of years, the State
of California is putting real money into the program, so I
think that it is an opportunity to really build it.
I just want to mention one other example, given what you
just heard in the State of Maine. In the State of California,
we have been working with Big Creek Timber Company. They own
10,000 in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, the heart of the
Silicon Valley. They have an incredibly valuable traditional
use of the land. They are also certified forest land owners.
They have key watersheds. They have habitat for threatened and
endangered species and they would like to work with Forest
Legacy. In fact, they are doing a first acquisition with them
this year. But that is the kind of leverage that can be
achieved with this program. I know that there are some who feel
that this program has not necessarily been one that you have
liked as strongly as others, but I feel that it has a
tremendous potential in leveraging private voluntary
cooperation with land owners in keeping them on their lands.
Mr. Regula. Our problem is, of course, we have a lot of
demands and a limited amount of money.
Well, thank you very much for coming.
Ms. Wayburn. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF
WITNESS
BUFORD CRITES, MAYOR, CITY OF PALM DESERT AND BOARD MEMBER, COACHELLA
MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
Mr. Regula. Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy.
Mr. Crites. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Buford
Crites. I am the Mayor of the City of Palm Desert and I am a
member of the board of the Coachella Mountains Conservancy.
This year, as in for a decade now, to testify in favor of LOBCF
funding for the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. It
has been and remains at the top end of the BLM's national
priorities and we believe the BLM has done an excellent job in
its management of the area. As you heard from the previous
speaker, Prop. 12 was passed in California that will bring a
minimum of $5 million to the conservancy which is a State lands
conservancy and we think probably around $10 million. Local
cities are good partners to the federal efforts. My home city
of Palm Desert is spending $1.5 million this year for buying
some of the expensive lands right around the Toev Slope. BLM
LWCF lands primarily go for interior lands that are as low as
$300 an acre and both by purchase and by conservation easement.
It is from my past visits here a beautiful area. It has all of
the requisite qualities and that is probably why both
Congresswoman Bono and Secretary of Interior Babbitt are headed
to Congress for a congressionally improved BLM Forest Service
joint co-managed national landscape monument during this
congressional session and as we have in the past, we appreciate
your support and ask for it to continue this year for $1
million.
Mr. Regula. This is near Palm Springs too, is it not?
Mr. Crites. It is between the Coachella Valley, Palm
Springs, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and then to the west is the
urbanized area of the Los Angeles basin.
Mr. Regula. This is the area in question?
Mr. Crites. It is the mountainous areas.
Mr. Regula. Yes. Is this used by the public for recreation?
Mr. Crites. It is. It is hiking and mountain biking and
hang gliding and all of the various----
Mr. Regula. It is managed by BLM?
Mr. Crites. Most of it is managed by BLM. The normal
western elevation, you go high enough it is managed by the
Forest Service and it is sprinkled in with the checkerboard of
State conservation lands, local conservation lands.
Mr. Regula. Mostly public lands.
Mr. Crites. It is over 80 percent now. And of course, the
other side of our valley is Joshua Tree National Park. So we
live in an area that obviously is blessed with natural
resources.
Mr. Regula. Is there any agriculture in this valley?
Mr. Crites. The east end of our valley is traditionally
agriculture. That is towards the Salton Sea at the bottom of
your map. And the west end of the valley has been traditionally
been the Hollywood tourist end of the valley and now the two
ends have grown together and still most of your spring grapes
and strawberries and asparagus and such things come from there
and the Salton Sea lies to the southeast.
Mr. Regula. That is a bit of a problem too.
Mr. Crites. It is. Your understatement is appropriate.
Mr. Regula. I just happened to be watching the History
Channel and the building of the Hoover Dam. I gathered from
what they said the Salton Sea was in part a result of a flood
that drove the water into the area and was trapped.
Mr. Crites. Around 1903 the California Land Company was
busy doing many inappropriate things and because they could not
get approval through the U.S. they routed the canals across the
border through Mexico and the flooding came, both out of
Arizona, the Salt River system and out of the Colorado that
year and for almost three years the Colorado came around and
emptied what used to be the lowest part of the continental
United States into now the largest end of the lake, certainly
in the western U.S. In doing all of that, the Colorado delta
literally does not exist any more and so for wildlife and
everything and especially for migrating birds, the Salton Sea
is the only place left in Southern California inland.
Mr. Regula. Is it heavy on salt? Is it the kind of thing
that birds want to land on?
Mr. Crites. I suspect if we gave them a mountain stream
they might choose that, but yes, it is. It is used by over 100
species of birds. Enormous numbers of pelicans.
Mr. Regula. No recreation though, is there?
Mr. Crites. Yes, boating, fishing, big issue truly as with
any land locked lake is salinity.
Mr. Regula. Yes, that is what I understood. They thought
that there were a lot more issues with toxicity and showed
those are fairly small problems and the big problem truly is
the salt build up.
Mr. Regula. Okay, well, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Crites. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM: NPS/FS/BLM
WITNESS
MARY MARGARET SLOAN, VP, CONSERVATION & POLICY, AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY
Mr. Regula. American Hiking Society.
Ms. Sloan. I am Mary Margaret Sloan. I am with American
Hiking Society. I am here representing our 10,000 individual
members and the 500,000 members of our 130 affiliated
organizations.
My testimony today will focus on two points. First, federal
land managers are struggling to keep up with the dramatic
increase in trail use in America and the solution is not, I
think, just to throw more money at the National Park Service,
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, but to couple
directed increased funding with increases on the ground, trails
coordinators and volunteer coordinators.
And then the second issue that I wanted to raise today was
to urge Congress not to make the fee demonstration program a
permanent one quite yet. As a demonstration project, it is not
entirely a success from our perspective. Last month, our board
unanimously approved a policy supporting the fee demonstration
program, but opposing making it permanent unless and until
certain changes were made to the program or to the way the
agencies were administering the program. Our concerns with the
program are three-fold and I will go into them in more detail
later, but they are basically inconsistent implementation,
agency accountability and equity issues.
So to address the funding issue, briefly first, last year
11 nonmotorized recreational organizations and industry groups
got together and put together a budget which is attached to my
testimony. I just wanted to talk about a couple of things that
were raised in there. One is that we come in every year and
support increased funding for the Forest Service trails
programs, the maintenance program and the construction,
reconstruction program. And your Subcommittee has been very
supportive of those. But we are concerned though that with the
emphasis that Chief Dombeck is placing on recreation through
the Forest Service's natural resource agenda is a conversation
that is happening at the top, but it is not translating down to
the ground. Very few national forests have even one full-time
trails coordinator and despite the number of hiking and other
recreational organizations that want to volunteer and build, to
build and maintain trails on national forests. Very few forests
have volunteer coordinators. But last year, Congress passed a
bill directing National Wildlife Refuges to institute a pilot
project for volunteer coordinators at either individual refuges
or a complex of them and this may be a good model for national
forests as well.
And the other funding program I wanted to touch on briefly
is the Park Service's Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program which I know you are very familiar with and
we appreciate the increase funding to the program that this
Committee gave it last year.
I know you are very familiar, but I just wanted to let you
know what is happening in other States. In Tennessee, for
instance, in Chattanooga, I was there recently and it is now a
beautiful city, but in the early 1980s, the rivers were
polluted, people were fleeing the city and it was really quite
economically depressed. RTCA was contacted and they helped with
regional, city-wide trails plan, greenway plan. Then that was
so successful that the city then contracted with it to ask them
to help work on an eight county regional plan and it is really
a beautiful trail system and it is drawing people into the city
and connecting some of the other infrastructure, pieces of
infrastructure that they are putting together there.
The recreation fee demonstration program as I indicated, we
support the concept, but there are some issues that I wanted to
bring to your attention that need to be addressed.
Mr. Regula. You have about a minute.
Ms. Sloan. I will be brief. One is inconsistent
implementation that the agencies have not addressed yet. For
instance, regional fee passes, which are a good idea, but what
they do is they tend to just cover entrance fees. So for
instance, our constituency, hikers, they not only have to pay
an entrance fee, but then a back country fee, an overnight fee,
a trail head fee----
Mr. Regula. Well, some of those things have to be sorted
out, I realize you get some inequities.
Ms. Sloan. Yes, what the Forest Service has told us though
which was distressing is that they would like the program to be
made permanent before they can really address these problems
and we think that it should be the other way around.
Mr. Regula. I will make note of that.
Ms. Sloan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
LWCF/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
WITNESS
ANDREA L. COLNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE
Ms. Colnes. Can I tempt you to stay for five more minutes?
Mr. Regula. All right, 5 minutes. North Forest Alliance.
Ms. Colnes. That is very kind of you, thank you very much.
I have had the pleasure of speaking with you a couple of times
before over the years. I am Andrea Colnes, Executive Director
of the Northern Forest Alliance which is the Northeastern chunk
of this country. You have been listening to lots of folks today
so I am going to try and not only be brief, but also maybe
capture your attention with just a breath of what that place is
about.
I got off the plane this morning. I had left my coat, hat
and mittens in my car because I was scraping the fresh snow off
my windshield and arrived in Washington to see a couple of
things which jump out at me, the cherry blossoms, the flowers,
the greenness, the life and myriad people streaming in and out
of our buildings, our Capitol buildings, coming to sit before
Members of Congress and the government asking for money and for
help on all sorts of issues.
And you have the privilege of sitting on a Committee that
is truly about something which endures through generations and
through time.
Mr. Regula. I agree with that.
Ms. Colnes. It is the land. And in the Northern Forest
region we are at a time of true absolute historic significance.
If you look at the publication that is right next to you and
breeze through the unbelievable images of this place in the
front, turn to the very back, the second to last page. And look
at the map, the lower map. That is the page and the map on the
bottom there. All of those colored areas, not the green, but
all of those colored areas are the large industrial ownerships
that have been put on the market in the last year. And we
printed this publication a couple of months ago, so it is
already out of date. Five to six million acres have changed
hands. Twenty percent of the entire State of Maine champions
ownership across almost the whole region, International Paper,
Bowwater----
Mr. Regula. Why are they selling? Are they going out of
business? Obviously, not.
Ms. Colnes. It is a great question. There are a couple of
different forces at work. One is international competition,
global competition. Another is the intense pressure of money
from Wall Street. Money on Wall Street right now is generating
such return, given the day of the week that it puts incredible
pressure on the large multinational corporations to return
profits to shareholders and keeping money invested in the North
Woods just does not do that compared to what it can do
elsewhere.
There are also other economic forces at work. These
companies used to own their forest lands for wood supply. Now
they need to perform as investment returns, so they are
separating ownership of their mills and their lands.
So these are deep forces. They are not here today and going
to go away tomorrow. It also has encouraged a whole cycle of
debt financing which is forcing two things. Hard and heavy
cutting of these lands, clear cutting analogous to what you
have seen coming out of the Northwest and sale for development.
Given the pressures of the economy, these lands are absolutely
at risk.
We have an opportunity, as we never have before. People
across the region are mobilized and pushing for all Governors
to act. Angus King in Maine has heard this. He is requesting
assistance from the federal government to purchase some of
these incredibly important places.
Mr. Regula. So the thrust of what you are saying is that we
should put as much money as possible into the programs that
purchase conservation easements which are the least expensive
way we can do it.
Ms. Colnes. Well, we need a solid mix of fee and easements.
Easements can go so far in protecting certain values. They are
quite appropriate where you are trying to protect managed
forest lands. We also need to protect lands outright in fee for
public access and recreation and wilderness.
The folks from the New England Forestry Foundation spoke
passionately about their project. There are a lot of many,
many--I want to give you a sense of the scale so you can sort
of get some perspective about what the federal government's
role might be in this. I think over the next five years
intensively, perhaps longer, five to 10 years, there is going
to be an array of deals coming forward, 600,000 to one million
acres a year for the next five years. The places that are the
icons of the Northeast, the St. John River, the Allagash, the
Depscaneps, the West Branch of the Penobscott.
Mr. Regula. They are interested in the riparian problems as
well as the forests.
Ms. Colnes. It is an incredibly water based area. All of
these areas are river based and thousands and thousands of
lakes all through the State of Maine. If you fly over the area,
you are actually more impressed with the amount of water than
the amount of land. And shorefront is what is so sensitive to
development. One project, I will just feature, I want to bring
two to your attention at the moment. One is involving the West
Branch of the Penobscott River, the whole northern tier of
Moosehead Lake which is a huge lake in the middle of northern
Maine, that is largely undeveloped and essential to the
recreation economy as well as the ecology of the region. There
is one project which we do anticipate bringing before Congress
this year, supported by the State of Maine and various
partners, including obviously the land owners, to purchase
656,000 acres in a combination of easement and fee in the
center of Maine, including the West Branch of Penobscott, the
north shore of Moosehead Lake, abutting some of the lands that
you were hearing about earlier. I want to put that in
perspective so you do not see these projects as competitive. It
is about a historic opportunity that the country needs to
address in some way.
Mr. Regula. Okay.
Ms. Colnes. All right. Thank you for staying.
Mr. Regula. More money, that is our problem.
Ms. Colnes. Sure, but there is no more land.
Mr. Regula. I know. I understand that. I live on a farm and
like every farmer all I want to own is what is mine and what is
next to it. And I have been working on that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
BLM
WITNESS
GEORGE LEA, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION
Mr. Nethercutt [presiding]. The next witness will be from
the Public Lands Foundation, George Lea, President. Welcome,
sir.
Mr. Lea. Thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Glad to have you. Your testimony will be
inserted in the record and I would be happy to have you
summarize it.
Mr. Lea. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
explain the Public Lands Foundation views on BLM's budget
request. As a national nonprofit organization, principally
retired, but still dedicated BLM employees, we think we have a
unique body of knowledge and experience on public land
management. It is important that you understand that and why we
support the Bureau's program and the Bureau. We are not a
captive of the agency and we are independent in our views.
I would like to remind the Committee again that the
Bureau's budget contains a substantial amount of money that is
not for public land management, it is pass through money like
PILT and so the budget request of $1.4 billion is not all for
public land management.
In addition, it is important to remember that the Bureau is
one of the few agencies that will return more money to the
Treasury than what their expenditures are.
Let me just highlight a few of the programs that we believe
should be considered for increased appropriations. The land use
plans. The Bureau's plans, there is apparently one third of
their plans that are outdated. Many of their plans have to be
updated to keep abreast of the increased use of the public
lands. The large number of endangered species and currently the
controversy over off road vehicles, so we recommend some
increased funding to get at their land use planning, bring it
up to date.
In the case of wild horses and burros, this is one of the
more difficult management programs that the Bureau has. Today
the horse herds are perhaps 75 percent over the appropriate
level in numbers and they are increasing in some areas, 20
percent a year.
The program was a success when the Act was passed in 1971.
It was considered to be an endangered species type of
legislation. Now the animals are overpopulating the land. What
is needed, and I realize this is not a policy committee, but
the law needs to be changed to provide the agency with more
flexibility in managing the animals and disposing of the
unneeded, the surplus animals.
The Bureau is asking for a substantial amount of money for
the program and we support it, but it is not a solution. The
long term solution is some legislative changes.
Mr. Nethercutt. Animals should be removed?
Mr. Lea. Pardon me?
Mr. Nethercutt. I noticed in your testimony, do we want to
remove these surplus horses and burros, wild horses and burros,
put them some place?
Mr. Lea. Yes, they should be controlled to their capacity
of the land.
Mr. Nethercutt. Right.
Mr. Lea. And they are exceeding that every year.
Mr. Nethercutt. So you want them to have flexibility?
Mr. Lea. The Bureau needs more flexibility in disposing of
the animals that cannot be adopted, which turns out to be
thousands of them. You can put them in private sanctuaries and
keep them alive until they die naturally. That is expensive.
The other thing I would like to point out to the committee
is that the Bureau has a substantial amount of recreational
maintenance backlog and again with the increased use of
recreation of the BLM lands and it is the most--largest growing
use of BLM lands today, in order to protect the people who
visit and to increase their, enhance their visitations, the
Bureau needs some assistance in their maintaining their
recreation facilities.
And then finally, let me just point out the fact that the
Bureau has a program of land exchanges to acquire in-holdings
through exchanging lands, yet keeping with a no net gain in
total acreage. We encourage the Committee to help the Bureau
accelerate that program. In fact, there is a need for them
probably to sell some of their isolated tracts to use those
funds to acquire in-holdings. I think if the Committee were to
look at other natural resource agencies such as the Forest
Service and National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service, you will find that they also have lands, they would
not openly admit it, but they had lands that could be disposed
of because they do not fit their management. The proceeds could
be put aside so that they can acquire in holdings. All agencies
have a problem of in-holdings and having the funds to acquire
them is a problem.
So with those brief comments, sir, I appreciate the
opportunity and hope that my comments will be helpful to the
Committee.
Mr. Nethercutt. They really will and with your experience
and background we appreciate having the testimony. You make
some good suggestions and I know the Committee will take it
under advisement. Thanks so much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM/NO. AMERICAN
WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT
WITNESS
JEAN HOCKER, PRESIDENT, LAND TRUST ALLIANCE
Mr. Nethercutt. Next witness is Land Trust Alliance, Jean
Hocker, President. Welcome, Ms. Hocker.
Ms. Hocker. Thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Your statement will be placed in the record
in its entirety and we would be happy to have you summarize it.
Ms. Hocker. All right, I am happy to do that. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman, and the Land Trust Alliance is pleased
to testify. We are a national organization serving more than
1200 individual, local and regional land trust organizations.
These are nongovernmental organizations, mostly, as I said
local and regional, who work with private landowners and public
agencies to protect natural areas, working farms and forests
and other kinds of important open space. They do it by
acquiring land, by acquiring conservation easements, often, and
by other voluntary means.
I am here today to urge you to fund an increased funding in
the next fiscal year for four programs. And I am lumping these
together because they are all really extraordinary in their
ability to leverage a federal investment in land conservation
with really significant State and local and private money and
they all encourage partnerships among federal, State, local and
private organizations and individuals.
You have heard about many people have testified today about
Forest Legacy. This is a wonderful program. It is simple. It is
direct, but it is highly innovative. We support the
Administration's request for $60 million for this program. Now
that is double last year's appropriation, as you know, but this
program is highly leveraged. It requires at least a 25 percent
match. In actuality, it has actually been much higher than
that. Moreover, the numbers of States that are enrolling in the
program is growing very rapidly. Two years ago, 11 States were
enrolled. Today there are 21 and several more want to be part
of this program. So more federal money is not only going to
mean more projects that are funded, but funding that is large
enough in scale, when it is combined with State and local and
private money to make the kind of difference that Andy Colnes
was talking about. We believe this should actually eventually
grow to $100 million because it is a very leveraged and
effective program.
The next program, similar in its characteristics in many
ways is the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This is a
program that conserves wetlands that are critical for waterfowl
and other migratory birds. It is a competitive grants program.
Proposed projects are reviewed and recommended to the North
American Wetlands Conservation Council on which I have been
privileged to serve for almost two years. The Council
recommends projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission of Congress. There is huge leverage in this. These
proposals have to be matched, at least one to one, but in
reality, again, the match has been much, much, much higher.
Since I have been on the Council, every one of my fellow
members of the Council has shared the enormous frustration
because of the numbers of wonderful projects that have come
before us that we do not have the funds to recommend.
Let me just give you an example of the kind of project that
comes before us in Washington, and in Oregon. There is a broad
partnership that is proposing to protect and enhance wetlands
in the lower Columbia River Valley through acquisition and
restoration, a project that includes 900 acre estuary and marsh
along the Chinook River. Over 2,000 acres of wetlands in the
Julia Butler Hansen Wildlife Refuge and 1800 acres at the Smith
and Bybee Lakes Wildlife Area in Portland. Partners in this.
The partners who are requesting this money include the Columbia
Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited, the county governments, the Oregon
and Washington Departments of Natural Resources and three
private land owners. They have requested, as a partnership, a
NAWCA grant in the amount of $1 million which they will augment
with more than $6 million in nonfederal funds. That is a really
good federal investment and I just urge you to fund NAWCA at
$30 million this year. I can assure you that it will be very
well used and leveraged for conservation.
The third project, again, with similar characteristics is
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I hope that you will
fund that at the slightly over $13 million total that includes
$8 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a little
over $2 million from the Forest Service and $2.5 million from
the BLM. As I am sure you know, the Foundation solicits private
contributions and makes matching grants to help meet federal
wildlife management.
Mr. Nethercutt. We have water if you need it.
Ms. Hocker. Thank you. That is okay. When I talk about the
land I just get all choked up, yes, I do. Thank you very much.
It is very important. It is another one for every $3 of
investment in conservation projects, there has been, has
generated $3 of investment in conservation for every $1 that
you have appropriated so it is another really excellent
investment.
And finally, I want to mention the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, particularly the State side of this fund. We
support the request of $600 million for the full fund, but
especially urge $150 million for the States. Again it is highly
leveraged and State funds need to be matched by at least 1 to 1
in the State side of the Land and Water Fund. It promotes
community and nonprofit involvement in conservation.
In conclusion, I just want to point to the report that we
have given you which we have done as part of our testimony
which documents that last year voters passed 90 percent of 102
local and State referenda to provide new money for land
conservation. Many of these were tax increases. People voted to
increase their own taxes in order to buy land and protect the
parks and open space. I cannot think of a better demonstration
that the voting public is willing and eager to spend public
money and tax dollars to protect green space.
So these programs that I have discussed will be a
significant investment of public dollars to leverage private
dollars and other monies and I know that you will consider
them. I hope you will consider them carefully and your
decisions will make a big different in future generations.
Mr. Nethercutt. We will do our best and our biggest
challenge in the Subcommittee, it is a wonderful Subcommittee
with great opportunity to do good things, is a question of how
we make it all fit.
Ms. Hocker. I know.
Mr. Nethercutt. We have got a lot of pressures that way and
we are very sensitive to the suggestions you raise. I
appreciate your being here. We are going to do our best.
Ms. Hocker. Thank you very much. We are happy to work with
you and appreciate the work that you do. Thanks very much.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursdasy, April 6, 2000.
FWS/BLM/FS/NPS/USGS
WITNESS
R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VP, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Nethercutt. International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President.
Welcome, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got an
impossible job and that is to try to cover six agencies in five
minutes. What I am going to do is try to share a few principles
with you and ask that you look at our testimony.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes sir.
Mr. Peterson. Our testimony has the support of all 50 State
Fish and Wildlife agencies, Mr. Chairman, including your great
State of Tennessee.
Mr. Nethercutt. Washington.
Mr. Peterson. Washington, I am sorry.
Mr. Nethercutt. Tennessee is a great State too.
Mr. Peterson. I have got to get you in the right State here
for a minute. State of Washington.
I have been here for 25 years before this Committee and I
have heard the same thing every year that we would like to do
all kinds of good things, we just do not have the money. If we
wait on a year by year basis for conservation, we are going to
lose, because over the last 25 years conservation funding is
now less than half what it was as a percentage of the national
budget. We have always got other exigencies somewhere in the
world or somewhere in the United States to spend the money.
That is the reason the Fish and Wildlife agencies of the
States, some 10 years ago said we have got to have permanent
funding for wildlife conservation or we are just going to seek
continued listing of species with all the social and economic
and environmental dislocation that occurs as in your home
State. Now if that is the way we want to go, we just stay where
we are. If we want to just have more and more species listed as
threatened and endangered, we just continue this year by year
process. That is the reason 370 of your colleagues in the House
have now supported the Conservation Reinvestment Act. I know
your Chairman does not. I have talked to him about it. I
respect the fact that we disagree there, but in his own State
of Ohio, as well as your own State of Washington, it is
supported by your Governors, it is supported by your Mayors, it
is supported by your counties. It is supported by all the
conservation groups, all of the Fish and Wildlife organizations
out there. It is supported by 3,000 organizations. We are told
by the latest polls by a Republican pollster, by the way, that
80 percent of the public support this. So I am hoping this year
that you can get some funding that will buy these easements
that we have been talking about, purchase development rights.
You have been hearing about the leveraging of money. I think
that is the second principle I want to talk about is as you
look at this budget, the more you can do to leverage State and
local money and do things like purchase development rights and
conservation easement the further conservation dollars will go.
So you will find throughout our testimony that is one of the
principles that we pick up throughout this that trying to
leverage more money by calling for matching funds and so on.
In the Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, we also ask
for more Section 6 money for endangered species to be used by
the States and let them decide how the best way to use it
rather than deciding in here. We think States should determine
the priorities like that, not try to determine in here from
within the beltway.
We also support the Administration's first time request for
$100 million for nongame funding, but that is a one year
request. Even if it is approved, that is clearly inadequate. If
it is there this year and not there next year it will not do
the job. That is the reason we think it is far superior to
enacting the Conservation Reinvestment Act so that you have the
permanent funding so your State can begin to do something to
prevent species from becoming threatened and endangered.
We do support the increase in refuge operation and
maintenance. Federal lands out there like National Wildlife
Refuges, national forests, BLM lands, they need adequate funds
to operate and maintain those lands and as a former chief of
the Forest Service I am a strong believer in support of that.
We are strongly opposed to the idea of putting in
legislation restrictions on trapping. That is a de facto
amendment of the National Wildlife Refuge Act that we just
passed in 1997. We think it is inappropriate for an
appropriations committee to pass a de facto amendment to that
Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service needs the professional tools
that are necessary, sometimes even to protect endangered
species on those lands. It makes no sense for the Congress to
try to override the professional judgment of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
We are concerned throughout the country, especially in your
State, about the diminishing of hatchery operations and that
there be mitigation for that. And the Fish and Wildlife Service
was assigned that mitigation role for all the federal agencies
and we found over the last 10 years that the budget for
hatchery operation and maintenance just deteriorates year after
year.
I would, as you would expect, probably say quite a bit
about the Forest Service budget, but my colleague Stan Adams is
going to appear next, so I am going to let him cover that and
say I support his testimony. I do want to speak for about a
quarter of a minute about the biological resources division of
USGS. We are happy that they are finally seeing some increased
funding. We think BRD has turned the corner in terms of getting
its act together and getting a reasonable program together. We
support the recommendations there and particularly the
recommendations to develop more efficient ways to disseminate
information.
I have been a long time advocate of more money for BLM. Of
all the federal agencies, the federal land management agency
and I know them all quite well, BLM over time has been the
least well funded. It seems like regardless of the
Administration, within the Interior, first National Park
Service and then Fish and Wildlife Service and then whatever is
left is BLM. And that is not fair because they have got some
really important lands to manage.
In the Forest Service budget, we particularly like Forest
Legacy. This has been mentioned because that again it spreads
money further by having easements. I was part of the
development of the Forest Legacy program and I think it has
been a good one.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have run out of time.
Mr. Nethercutt. There is the old flashing red light. Well,
I will not disappoint you in saying that we are going to do the
best we can with our money.
Mr. Peterson. I know you will.
Mr. Nethercutt. It is real hard. I mean the conservation
mandatory spending requirement under that bill has an effect
that takes discretion away from this Committee, Subcommittee.
So does transportation spending. So does aviation spending. All
that stuff becomes mandatory. It squeezes down the
discretionary budget. We cannot do what we want to do.
Mr. Peterson. I would argue that you cannot do conservation
on the cheap. You cannot decide year after year how much you
are going to put in. If you do, you will be right where you
are. In the 25 years that I have been here, less and less money
every year, apologizing because you just have to hit the high
spots. Now that is the way--if we are 25 years from now have
half of what we got now, which is the trend we are on, heaven
help us.
So if you like the present system, do not vote for the Act.
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand.
Mr. Peterson. Okay?
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, Apirl 6, 2000.
FS
WITNESS
KEITH A. ARGOW, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WOODLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Nethercutt. Let us see, National Woodland Owners
Association, Keith Argow, President.
Mr. Argow. Right.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, sir, welcome. Glad to have you.
Mr. Argow. And if you would add this to the record, I would
appreciate it.
I will summarize my points because time is short.
Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
Mr. Argow. Money is as we have seen it, in programs that we
have tracked for the last 15 years, really has been very well
spent. We are getting an extraordinary return for the buck.
Yes, you are right, you are looking at a one page summary
there. We like to be lean and mean.
Mr. Nethercutt. Good for you.
Mr. Argow. We are 10 million of us who have 58 percent of
the timberland, but produce 60 percent of America's home grown
wood supply which is a stunning figure. Much of that is in the
5th District in Washington in that corridor you know so well,
Cullville, Deer Park and down through Walla Walla.
The comments today, by the way, are shared by the Alliance
of Forest and Woodland Owners Association which includes your
own home State, Washington Farm Forestry Association.
Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
Mr. Argow. Nels Hansen and the group. The comments I am
going to kind of skip over here because we have really got a
lot to do, but there are two big variables that the federal
government has as it influences nonindustrial private forestry.
One is the important appropriations through this Committee,
through the federal government to the State foresters and you
will be hearing from them right after me. The other, of course,
is on the other side, the death tax reform and a number of tax
reform initiatives that the Congress is undertaking.
The important variables here, as you well know, are fire,
insect, service forestry, the stewardship program, research and
forest legacy. I would just like to comment, limit the rest of
my comments to the Forest Legacy Program because we see a
remarkable opportunity to get more for the money here. And that
is something we have testified in recent years to encourage
that it be operated more like CRP and become much more
available to all 50 States. It is just too small and it is
going to be small, even though, I like Jean Hocker's
suggestions of one day maybe $100 million because it is an
extraordinary leveraging program. But the important thing is
here, we would like this Committee, your Subcommittee and the
staff to oversee a study that could be really quite informal.
We would certainly be glad to assist the State foresters and
the Forest Service would have the data readily to see just how,
what are the overhead costs of that program as currently
structured, both administratively and by the Congress. We
believe there is quite a bit of money that could be saved by
more voluntary, much like the CRP has been administered, and
there will be more money to go to more States.
Mr. Nethercutt. What would the study cost in your judgment?
Mr. Argow. We do not see any cost to that study, zero. All
it is looking over some past data and looking at it, frankly,
in-house. You could look at it in relatively few days and come
up. Now there maybe some good reasons why it does not work and
I am sure there are, but there are some other reasons why it
will work. It is so structured now that we are beginning to see
opposition to it and the Pennsylvania Forest Stewardship
Committee recently voted out not to get into Legacy.
Pennsylvania is a big NIPF State and a State that should be
warmly supportive of the Forest Legacy Program and we believe
they are, but something is in here that we think could be
tweaked a little bit to get more bang for the buck.
Mr. Nethercutt. Would your association be willing to do a
study or to give us some additional information on this
subject?
Mr. Argow. Of course, we would. We work with you all the
time and we would be willing to work. As I say, this does not
need to be a big gilded edge heavily bound study. We could do
it with resources at hand, by working with the National
Association of State Foresters, by working with us and working
with the Forest Service State and Private Program which has
done very good leadership of it. We are not critical of the
people. We are critical of the way it has evolved. Not
critical, we just feel it could be better. And we know money is
short because we fight every year right here for it and we
think we could do some important things here.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, that is wonderful. I appreciate your
suggestion and your testimony and I feel that the Chairman, the
real Chairman, will take you up on your offer.
Mr. Argow. Okay.
Mr. Nethercutt. We will see if we can work with you.
Mr. Argow. Okay.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks so much.
Mr. Argow. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FS
WITNESS
STANFORD L. ADAMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
Mr. Nethercutt. National Association of State Foresters,
Stanford Adams, President. Welcome, Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate very much
the opportunity to testify on the Forest Service State and
Private Forestry Program's budget today. We appreciate the
Subcommittee's continued support for these programs and urge
close review of the testimony that we have submitted for the
record.
Mr. Nethercutt. It will be in the record in its entirety.
Thank you.
Mr. Adams. After hearing all of the speakers, I am coming
from down home in North Carolina and I do not make my living on
a regular basis in the District of Columbia. I am almost
hesitant to testify as obviously no one has got any money,
including Bill Gates and he lost most of that earlier in the
week.
Mr. Nethercutt. I am not worried about him.
Mr. Adams. State government is poor, the federal government
is poor and Bill Gates is poor. So with that I will try to
summarize my testimony.
I am not going to talk about all the programs that are
included in our testimony because State foresters have a
diverse mandate and a responsibility to carry out many programs
in support of the nonindustrial private landowners of the
country and in the protection of forest lands from insects,
disease and fire.
Last week, Ken Arney, Tennessee State Forester and Chairman
of the Southern Group of State Foresters testified before the
Subcommittee and stressed the vital importance of the forest
inventory and analysis program of the Forest Service. I will
not rehash that today because it was covered very adequately,
except to say that I want to again stress that this program is
the highest priority for funding by the National Association of
State Foresters in the budget.
Keeping our forest inventory program up to date and
accurate is the foundation of our efforts to achieve forest
sustainability. I would further add that until this country can
accurately assess the extent and the condition of its forest
land, any discussion on sustainability is academic and further,
any discussion on the amount of investment it needs to make to
insure sustainability of America's forests is further academic,
so this is the pinnacle, this thing that we absolutely must do.
The Congress reaffirmed its leadership role of the Forest
Service in this program as part of the 1998 Farm Bill Research
Title and in that it mandated that the Forest Service move to
an annualized inventory across the entire country. We hope that
you will see fit to provide the funding to implement the
strategic plan that was subsequently developed after the
congressional action and provide the funding that is necessary
to fully implement that plan. The Administration's proposal is
short, substantially, in doing that.
Our other top priority for the coming year is the
cooperative fire program. This program has two major
components, the State Fire Assistance Program and the second
component is the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program. The
volunteer fire departments in this country provide services
worth $36 billion annually to the citizens of this country.
They provide fire protection services in rural areas and many,
many cases frequently adjacent to and on federal lands.
In North Carolina, to illustrate the value of these folks,
we have 1600 volunteer fire departments. My agency, Division of
Forest Resources, trains these firemen in wildland fire
suppression tactics because they are trained primarily in
structural fires and our fire crews are trained primarily at
wildland fires. The two do not mix very well without some
extensive training. We also assist them in the purchase of
personal protective clothing, Class A foam and other needed
equipment as a part of the volunteer fire assistance program
that we have, albeit very, very small.
In 1999, North Carolina had 6,244 wildfires which burned
28,298 acres. In those fires we lost 344 structures, including
27 homes. However, with the help of volunteer fire departments,
our fire crews were able to save 5300 structures, which
included many homes, though not all of them were homes.
With the rapid build up of the rural urban interface, 70
percent of all of our wild fires involve structures and that is
what we are facing any time we go to a fire. I called home a
while ago. We have 15 to 20 percent humidity and 25 to 30 mile
winds. Everybody is on alert.
Mr. Nethercutt. I bet.
Mr. Adams. It will be a long afternoon. I think it is
important to note here that no individual State or federal
agency has the resources needed to handle a real bad fire
situation. State foresters have formed interstate compacts to
assist each other. We assist the federal agency with an MOU
with the U.S. Forest Service. The cooperative fire program is
the federal vehicle that helps States organize and train to
help each other and the federal agencies, as well and to assist
the volunteer fire departments in our States to help us all.
Our testimony includes our other core programs, fire
stewardship, urban forestry, forest health protection, urban
and community forestry and as many have testified today, the
Legacy Program now is in 21 States and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
We appreciate your consideration for our views on these
very important programs. As you know, the State foresters view
these programs as a true partnership. The federal dollars spent
on these programs leverage considerable investments from State
forestry agencies, towns, cities and private landowners. In the
case of my State, North Carolina, we get about $2 million in
federal grants. Our budget ranges $50 to $55 million a year, so
we are looking at 25 to 26 to 1 in ratio. We believe the
federal government needs to pay a little bit more because we
are doing an awful lot to help keep our part of the world
together.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, thank you for coming. I might just
parenthetically tell you before I got this job I was an
attorney out West and for 18 years I was the secretary for a
couple of volunteer fire districts in rural areas, farm country
and you are right about the contribution they make. They had to
go fight some wild land fires as well as rural fires, so it is
very important that we try to help them.
Mr. Adams. We could not do our job without them.
Mr. Nethercutt. I believe it.
Mr. Adams. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks for your testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FS
WITNESS
DEBORAH GANGLOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FORESTS
Mr. Nethercutt. American Forests. Deborah Gangloff,
Executive Director.
Ms. Gangloff. Hi, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nethercutt. Welcome.
Ms. Gangloff. Thank you so much for your time today.
Mr. Nethercutt. Glad to have you. To all of you who are
waiting, I am very sorry you are having to wait. This is no fun
and the vote has got in the way. I am awfully sorry that you
are inconvenienced at all, but we are glad to have your
testimony.
Ms. Gangloff. Well, thank you so much. I am having fun,
actually.
I represent American Forests. We are the oldest national
nonprofit conservation organization in this country. We were
founded in 1875 by a group of concerned citizens, and we now
represent about 100,000 people, very diverse, scientists,
landowners, activists, basically folks who care about trees. We
developed an agenda for ecosystem restoration and maintenance
in American Forests in which we try to put tools and resources
in the hands of communities so that they can plan and take
action to improve their forests. We believe strongly that
forests, better forests, healthy forests mean healthy people
and healthy communities and so our agenda helps that.
I am here to talk about co-op forestry programs and State
and private forestry at the Forest Service because we find that
that is where federal dollars are leveraged the most at the
State and local level. We believe that is an appropriate role
for the federal government, to provide resources that can be
leveraged locally, especially in communities.
The main program I would like to talk about is urban and
community forestry, and urban forestry is perhaps unusual
within the Forest Service. It is not an oxymoron. It shows that
the trees in cities and towns are an important part of the
health of that community and in the environment. There was a
great story on National Public Radio this morning that talked a
little bit about the value of those trees in cities and towns
and the work of American Forests. Those trees filter out air
pollution, water pollution. They reduce storm water and they
can actually conserve energy so our cities are less expensive
to operate and they improve the quality of life for people in
those cities. So we think an investment in urban forests is an
important part of what the federal programs can do, especially
through urban and community forestry at the Forest Service. We
have done some studies and I will leave a package with you, Mr.
Chairman, on the analyses that we have done in areas across the
country, including in the Puget Sound in your own State.
Mr. Nethercutt. Right.
Ms. Gangloff. That showed that the trees in the Puget Sound
are worth billions of dollars for air and water quality and as
you may know, this is going to help against the expensive
regulatory alternatives to clean our air and our water or to
bring back salmon habitat, which you know is a very expensive
problem there in the Puget Sound.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes.
Ms. Gangloff. We are urging that the budget be supported at
$50 million in urban and community forestry. That will leverage
local and State-wide support and bring great dividends. We are
already seeing that California has committed over $3 million
for tree planting within that State as a result of the work of
the Forest Service and urban forestry. In Georgia, they have
committed $30 million for open space preservation in 2001.
Those are the types of leverage that we can see. In the State
of Washington, there was a bill brought forward for the State
to invest in urban forests. It did not pass the first year, but
we are hopeful it will pass again. It is that kind of leverage
this program brings.
I would also like to speak briefly in support of the Forest
Legacy program like so many of my colleagues have done here
today. Again, it is going to help protect our private forests
from some development and demonstrate more importantly how
working forests can integrate environmental, social and
economic objectives.
Another part of what American Forests does in rural areas
is work with communities that have been dependent upon their
forests for their economics. The economic action programs and
the Pacific Northwest programs are the ones in the Forest
Service that can really help those communities deal with the
loss of timber receipts which has caused all sorts of problems
for them that we have seen, increased poverty and domestic
violence and problems like that, from loss of timber. What we
see is some of these programs building back that institutional
capacity of those communities to take care of themselves and be
more self-sufficient, general businesses. Basically, the bottom
line is those communities are finding that they can bring
products out of the forests and leave that forest healthier
than before they took that timber out. That is what we would
like to see happen with those programs.
I would also like to mention that we are very supportive of
the collaborative stewardship efforts of the National Forest
system. Again, that is going to help leverage local community
involvement in improvement of the overall health of our
national forests. It will create jobs and it will stimulate the
creation of small businesses. Also, on monitoring, we very
strongly urge must be a part of that collaborative process so
that the agency is held accountable to Congress and so that we
can learn from those actions what works and what does not work.
We believe the investment in these collaborative stewardship
projects should be increased by the agency.
And lastly, I would like to put in a good word for the
Bureau of Land Management. We believe that there should be
increased funding for the Public Domain Forest Management
Program, the Jobs In the Woods Programs, to help that agency
become a significant part of ecosystem management projects.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nethercutt. Great, thank you very much for your
testimony. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FS/BLM
WITNESS
WILLIAM H. BANZHAF, EXECUTIVE VP, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Nr. Nethercutt. Society of American Foresters, William H.
Banzhaf. Did I say that right, sir? Glad you are here.
Mr. Banzhaf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
really appreciate the opportunity. And before I get into my
testimony which will, of course, be asking for something, I
would like to give something. This year is our 100th
anniversary, the Society of American Foresters. That is a
pictorial review of the history of forestry and if you could
give this to Mr. Regula as well, we would certainly appreciate
it. We appreciate the support of forestry and there are some
wonderful pictures of the State of Washington in there.
Mr. Nethercutt. I am sure. That is great.
Mr. Banzhaf. I had the opportunity last week to present
testimony on research before the Subcommittee and during that
testimony did, indeed, indicate that our highest priority, our
top finding priority is for the Forest Inventory and Analysis
program. Mr. Adams discussed that a bit and I would reiterate
that position. It is truly the foundation in terms of an
information base for all of forest policy in the United States.
Without sound information as to what we have today and taking a
look at how that changes over time, we cannot make sound,
scientific decisions in forestry.
That program also ties directly into the criterion
indicators program that the Forest Service is implementing that
came out of UMSAID at the RIO Conference and out of the
Montreal Process where we are being responsible citizens in the
international community to determine how our forests are being
managed sustainably. So it is a key part of not only our
national, but international efforts.
I would like to strongly support as did Mr. Adams, the
Cooperative Fire Protection Programs. I would like to just add
one thing to his testimony and that is, I think, particularly
relevant in the State of Washington. That is that the Volunteer
Fire Assistance Program is particularly needed now in those
States where they have small communities that were originally
timber dependent communities and we really need to help in
those areas.
Something that ties closely to the fire programs,
unfortunately, is the need for funding to begin to address the
ecological infrastructure backlog. The real problem we have
with hazardous fuel build up, with high risk areas, insect
infestations, so we believe that this is an area that really
needs to have some prime focus. It needs to have the dollars
placed on the land for the natural resource professionals at
the local level to do the work they need to reduce some of the
risks we find in our national forest system.
I also want to mention very quickly technical assistance
through State and private, to help the more than 10 million
nonindustrial private forest landowners. That really is the
major forest asset of this country held by individual private
landowners. Right now nationally we have less than 10 percent
of those that have sound forest management plans. Now whether
you agree with what they have in their forest management plan
is not necessarily important. What we are concerned about is
without such a plan, we have some concerns about long term
sustainability, conversion to other land uses. So that, we
feel, is very important.
And then finally, the Bureau of Land Management. Mr.
Peterson mentioned that sometimes they get sort of the last
piece of the pie. I think another example, although there was
real success in Fiscal Year 1998 with the establishment of the
BLM Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund. We have over the
last several years seen a 65 percent reduction in their forest
management staff. So now they have the program in place and
they do not have the people to carry it out on the ground. So
we would urge consideration when you are looking at that
particular budget line item.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you very much. You know, on your last
point, we are seeing that throughout the federal government.
This good economy, whether it is the military or otherwise,
people are leaving government service to go elsewhere and we
are losing some institutional memory, I think.
Mr. Banzhaf. And some very good people.
Mr. Nethercutt. Indeed.
Mr. Banzhaf. And that is troublesome to us to try to
encourage people to get in and make a career out of maintaining
our forest lands.
Mr. Nethercutt. You cannot just leave them. You have to
manage them.
Mr. Banzhaf. They have to be managed, that is right. Once
the human population has affected the forest lands, you have to
manage them.
Mr. Nethercutt. I agree. You cannot just put a fence around
them and leave them. And some people want to, it seems like,
but that does not work either.
Mr. Banzhaf. Not in today's population.
Mr. Nethercutt. I know.
Mr. Banzhaf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks so much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FS
WITNESS
MARY COULOMBE, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Nethercutt. American Forest and Paper Association, Mary
Coulombe.
Ms. Coulombe. Thank you.
Well, I am Mary Coulombe and I am here representing
American Forest and Paper Association and our member companies,
associations and the allied groups. Just as a point of
reference the forest industry has sales in excess of $270
billion annually and we employ 1.2 percent of the entire U.S.
workforce. I do not think a lot of folks recognize that.
Thanks a lot for this opportunity and AF&PA really is
committed to programs and policies that support sustainable
forestry on both public and private lands. I would like to
summarize my testimony. I am sure it will be entered into the
record.
Mr. Nethercutt. It will indeed.
Ms. Coulombe. We have three general concerns about the
Forest Service budget and then I would like to address some
specific programs. But I think the general concerns frame the
recommendations we would like to make for the specific
programs.
Our first concern is forest health and Mr. Banzhaf just
talked to some extent about that. Our biggest concern is we do
not believe that this proposed budget adequately addresses the
forest health crisis. And in fact, we do not think it even
really acknowledges the forest health crisis, the 66 million
acres at risk from fire and insect and disease. And we think
that is pretty frightening.
Mr. Nethercutt. You have an insect disease ridden forest
you almost have to cut it down as I understand it is spreading
bark beetles and that sort of thing. I know it is tough to
eradicate it and stop it without taking pretty drastic action.
Ms. Coulombe. I think the GAO report actually said cutting
it down or mechanical treatment is one alternative. The other
alternative, likely that is going to happen is it will burn
down.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes.
Ms. Coulombe. The second concern, general concern we have
is the circumvention of Congress, that we think is going on by
trying to administratively change the mission and purpose of
our national forests. We know that is not the purview of this
committee, but we see intimations of that in this budget and we
think there are some serious budget implications of some of the
policy. The five initiatives, the Forest Service has introduced
over the last six months have drawn money away from field level
programs and so that money is not getting to the ground.
The third area that I would like to mention is that at this
point, we oppose the new proposed budget structure we saw in
this budget. We do not think it is adequately fleshed out or
mature. There is no system of accountability and we are
concerned that it will even more mask the movement of funds
away from needed programs to other initiatives.
I would like to say though that we do support the
development of new performance measures for the Forest Service.
We do not think the ones the Forest Service provided are
adequate because they do not link the performance measures, the
funds and desired forest conditions which is the key to the
forest health issue.
Okay, let me go to the National Forest System and some
specific recommendations. We think that budget would be best if
its top priority was restoring and maintaining forest health.
We are disturbed by the trend of the Forest Service not
accomplishing the programs they have been funded to do.
We think there are some examples of that. The timber sale
program is one of them. We would like, because of forest health
to support an increased funding to accomplish timber sales
directed specifically at the forest health issues. But we are
fearful that funds will get drawn away. They are reprogramming
a request for the Fiscal 2000 program, signaling that because
they are actually asking for approximately the same to
reprogram down to the same amount they requested in Fiscal 2000
which was specifically disapproved by Congress last year.
In the roads program, we have heard over and over and over
about the $8.4 billion backlog, but we do not see any
indication in this budget that there is really a serious
attempt and strategy to deal with that backlog.
We would like to support a 10 percent increase above what
the Administration has requested and have that targeted to road
maintenance and reconstruction.
We are concerned about the huge amount of money requested
for inventory and monitoring and land management planning, not
because we do not think that those are important items, but
because those funds are getting drawn off on these national
initiatives.
AF&PA testified last week on the Forest Service research so
I am not going to go in any detail about that. I want to
support, as you have heard from some previous witnesses our
strong support for forest inventory and analysis. We would like
to support the level endorsed by the State foresters. We would
also like to suggest or draw your attention to a recently
signed memorandum of understanding between AF&PA and the Forest
Products Laboratory, under research, in order to support
further work in sustainable forest management and utilization.
In the State and private forestry area, our top priorities
are forest health management, cooperative fire protection and
forest stewardship because they focus on forest health. Again,
that is that framework. They do have--they have nested
international forestry under the State and private program. We
do not support the increase. We support the level they got last
year and we think that is because we need more specifics on
their priorities for that program.
In conclusion, our goal is that the national forests
continue to be world class examples of sustainable forest
management, but our fear is that this proposed budget does not
realistically provide for that.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you so much. You make some very good
points and I know the Committee appreciates your testimony and
your assessment of all this. We are going to look at it very
carefully. I do not know that we are ready to accept the budget
of the President and the Forest Service on this point either,
so thanks very much for being here.
Ms. Coulombe. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
FS
WITNESS
STEVE HOLMER, AMERICAN LANDS
Mr. Nethercutt. American Lands, Steve Holmer. Welcome, sir.
Mr. Holmer. Good to see you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Doing great, nice to see you too.
Mr. Holmer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Mr. Nethercutt. Good to have you.
Mr. Holmer. American Lands represents forest activists
around the country and we have put together a forest
appropriations initiative for three years running and I would
just like to share with you a copy of that document.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Mr. Holmer. It basically outlines what we would like to see
happen and my testimony is based on that. Here is a copy for
Chairman Regula here. Basically, what we see happening on the
national forests is continued mismanagement, continued
overemphasis on resource extraction and in general,
mismanagement of these programs. And to document that, last
year we put together the first ever National Forests Yearbook
and this actually documents what is happening on every single
national forest, along with the local contact of a citizen or a
group that is working to protect that forest. And it just
basically offers a quick snapshot of what is happening. We
continue to see logging of old growth forest, logging of
critical habitat for endangered species, logging in
communities, watersheds that they rely on for their clean
drinking water supplies. And so we do feel like the timber
program needs to be scaled back and at the same time we see a
large number of restoration needs that are being unmet. And so
we would like to move the Forest Service and this Committee
away from thinking about timber volume as the measure of
success. We would like to move it to a jobs based issue where
we are trying to put people to work fixing the damage from past
logging and excessive road building.
Specifically, we would like to propose a $70 million
reduction to the timber sale management line item, a $20
million reduction to engineering support for timber road
construction, and a $10 million reduction for offroad vehicle
trail construction. We feel like the agency is not properly
managing for offroad vehicles and until they do, we would like
to just not see any new trails being built. We are actually
proposing that money be shifted into law enforcement to deal
with the problem of off-road, illegal off-road use in cross
country travel.
Another priority area that we see a lack of funds is road
maintenance and decommissioning and so we would like to propose
a $15 million increase there. Obviously, a lot more is needed
and annually we would like to see this program get ramped up.
Another priority issue is the problem of timber theft.
There are two problems. One is trees are just outright being
stolen off the national forests to the tune of upwards of $100
million a year. There are also a great deal of problems with
contracts not being properly monitored, particularly some of
the restoration and forest health projects can be fairly
complex and so we are very concerned that leave trees and other
requirements of these contracts are not being complied with
including the removal of temporary roads after the timber sale
and so we would like to see a lot closer attention paid to the
contracting and to the problem of timber theft.
A new issue that we have been working on is invasive
species. You are probably aware of the situation in Florida
right now. They have already destroyed half a million trees. In
the eastern U.S., we saw the loss of the chestnut which was the
single most dominant tree in the forest and we would hate to
see something similar happen to the forests in the West. Right
now we do not feel like the USDA is taking proper steps to keep
new pests out of the country. So we do feel like a lot more
money needs to go into that and also into Forest Service
research to come up with bio controls and other means of
stopping these infestations.
Another key area is inland fish habitat management. This
would be fisheries programs in your area, also other parts of
the country and the Southeast and in general, we have a crisis
of declining fish stocks around the country and so we do feel
like a lot more emphasis is needed there. In our view, this is
basically a jobs neutral proposal. We are talking about
shifting money within the Forest Service budget and putting
people to work doing restoration. Within this longer document,
we identified numerous other areas that could also use
increases in funding and we support increases to the economic
action programs, Pacific Northwest Assistance and other
programs to support communities and workers, but we do feel
like timber management should not necessarily be the emphasis
of those programs.
Another critical area that we are concerned about is the
logging of old growth forests. Recently, a number of major U.S.
corporations including Home Depot and Centex Homes have agreed
to stop using old growth wood as part of their product line. A
number of other major corporations, Mitsubishi, IBM and Kinkos
ran ads last year saying that they do not need old growth
products to run their corporations. We basically would like to
see the U.S. government catch up with corporate America and
move away from logging of old growth forests in terms of the
biodiversity and the clean water values. We see that as the
real value of these forests and would like to see them
permanently protected. And when you look at where the
controversy is, old growth sales are appealed and are litigated
and they will continue to be so, so it is really just not the
best place to be spending forest management dollars.
Another major concern we have is habitat conservation
plans. These HCPs are predicated on the notion that public
lands are being protected and therefore the private landowners
will have greater leeway in the management of their lands and
so we are very concerned about this because we do not see the
public lands being protected and we also do not see adequate
science being employed to develop these HCPs and so we are
interested in seeing funding for HCPs be directed towards
improving the implementation of the existing HCPs, improving
the process for developing HCPs and possibly finding some new
alternatives.
Another major concern is the fire program. We support
prescribed burning in the West, but in the Eastern U.S. fires
have often been used as part of timber management to convert
diverse pine-hardwood stands into pine plantations and this is
a direct violation of the National Forest Management Act which
prohibits type conversation of the national forests. It is also
basically not scientifically valid fire restoration so we
propose cutting all money off for regions 8 and 9, except for a
few noted exceptions and instead shift that money to Western
States where it is being more properly used.
Also, in the fire program a number of years ago, the Forest
Service adopted the Wildland Fire Management Policy. We do not
see this policy being implemented. What it said is that in
general some fire should be allowed to burn, but what in fact
we are seeing is still a systematic and intensive attack on
fires right when they break out. And in a lot of cases we just
do not feel like there is adequate science to back up that
approach and when you looked at the taxpayer dollars that are
going into some of these fires, it just does not add up to
being a good program and we think there are a lot of ways to
improve it. One is to do more advanced fire planning and do
more research so that when they do take action it is more
appropriate.
I guess the last area that I would like to mention is
something that possibly has some bearing in your district which
is a grazing permit retirement pilot project. We are
specifically asking for $10 million to be used in the Southwest
where there has already been some work done by ranchers and
conservationists to allow ranchers, basically an honorable way
to stay on their land and keep their ranch, but retire the
allotment that might be surrounding their property. What we are
finding is a lot of ranchers do not have children who want to
take over necessarily, but they would like to stay there. This
is one way where ranchers who want to get out of the business
have that opportunity, have some dollars to keep their base
property. At the same time we are concerned that a lot of areas
have been overgrazed and it will give a chance for the land to
recover and heal.
So I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Nethercutt. I thank you for being here. I appreciate
your ideas and your thoughts. Your testimony will be part of
the record and we are grateful you took the time. Thanks for
your patience.
Mr. Holmer. You bet.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 6, 2000.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WITNESS
KATHRYN HIGGINS, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Nethercutt. Our last witness, the most patient person
of all is Kathryn Higgins, National Trust for Historic
Preservation. I am sorry Dick Moe could not remain.
Ms. Higgins. Unfortunately, he had a conflict, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Nethercutt. I understand. I am sorry he is delayed and
sorry you are delayed. But thanks so much for being here.
Ms. Higgins. He sends his regrets. Thank you for taking our
testimony today. As the last witness I will try and be brief.
We have submitted our full statement for the record.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes.
Ms. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to
be here to testify in support of Fiscal Year 2001 funding for
the nation's historic preservation program. You and Chairman
Regula have been very supportive of preservation in past years
and we very much appreciate that, particularly in light of the
tight allocations under which this Subcommittee has operated.
We know that this is Mr. Regula's last year as Chairman of
the Subcommittee and we want him to know that his leadership in
the area of historic preservation has been significant and
lasting. We are grateful and honored to work with him and all
Members of this Subcommittee. We want to take this opportunity
to propose a lasting legacy for our Chairman and this Committee
in the form of full funding for the Historic Preservation Fund
for the Fiscal Year 2001. The Administration has proposed
significant increases in funding for a number of conservation
funds in its Lands Legacy initiative to the total amount of
about $1.4 billion. There has been a lot of support for that
initiative here today. The Administration is proposing that
congressional appropriators, this Subcommittee in particular,
cap the funding at $1.4 billion and protect it by creating a
new budget category that would be fenced off from other
spending programs. Unfortunately, they have not chosen to
include the Historic Preservation Fund as part of the Lands
Legacy initiative although it has been included in the
conservation bill that Chairman Young and Congressman Miller
are supporting and that there are almost 300 Members of this
House have supported. We feel that it is a significant
oversight not to include the Historic Preservation Fund as part
of Lands Legacy. Funding for Historic Preservation efforts is a
natural and essential complement to protection of our nation's
natural resources. In order to protect open space, we must
revitalize and preserve already built up areas including and
especially historic neighborhoods and towns around the country.
The $150 million we seek is just a little more than 10 percent
what the Administration is proposing for their Lands Legacy
initiative. From that $150 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund we would hope that your Subcommittee would
fund a third year of Save America's Treasures at $30 million as
requested by the Administration and provide the balance or $120
millon to the States, Tribes and Historically Black Colleges
and Universities which make up the heart of the HPF program.
The States and Tribes are responsible for the day to day
functions of our nation's historic preservation and most
significantly for providing assistance to communities and
citizens seeking to save their resources and to utilize
preservation as a revitalization tool and a way to combat
sprawl.
Save America's Treasures, which is an initiative that this
Administration has done in partnership with the National Trust,
has proven to be an extraordinarily successful and popular
initiative. This modest initiative has sparked tremendous
interest and participation in preservation from citizens all
across the country. This Committee's leadership in providing
$30 million in fiscal year 1999 and another $30 million in 2000
has made it possible for communities everywhere to preserve the
artifacts and icons of American history. These funds have been
used for projects as diverse as the First Ladies' Library in
the Chairman's hometown of Canton, Ohio; the Ancient Cliff
Dwellings at Mesa Verda National Park; F. Scott Fitzgerald's
Papers in Princeton and the Tacoma Art Museum in your home
State of Washington.
But we have only begun to scratch the surface of what is
needed. In FY 1999, the National Park Service received over 300
applications, but was only able to fund about 20 percent of
those requests. The National Trust, the principal private
partner of Save America's Treasures, has raised almost $40
million from private sources. Demand for these private dollars
is of similar magnitude; almost 500 official SAT projects that
have been designated representing more than $2 billion in
preservation needs. A $1 million SAT grant fund was created by
the Getty National Foundation. That $1 million alone attracted
over 200 applications. We were unfortunately only able to award
37 grants. These are monies that have gone out through private
resources. None of these grants were over $50,000, but they
were funded in about 29 States.
The 500 SAT projects I mentioned have been officially
designated, but unfortunately not funded. There are a number of
these in your home State of Washington, the Yakima Valley
Museum Collection, the Nathaniel Orr Pioneer Home Site and the
Green Mountain Lookout in Mount Baker National Forest are three
of Washington State's projects that are Save America's
Treasures. Unfortunately we do not have enough resources at
this time to fund them although they are active in raising
their own private money.
Another important effort that has come out of the Save
America's Treasures programs is that the States are beginning
to put additional money into preservation. Virginia, for
example, the legislature there has just authorized $162,000
toward the conservation of the battlefield tents that George
Washington used during the Revolutionary War. The State of New
Jersey is matching the federal funding for the restoration of
the Ferry Building at Ellis Island. And Massachusetts has met
the match for all four of its Save America's Treasures Grants.
And we're working with a number of other States to make sure
that they are contributing as well. So this really is truly an
effective, we think, federal, State and private partnership.
We hope that the Subcommittee will find another $30 million
this year for the Save America's Treasures program and we want
to thank you and the Chairman for all that you are doing and we
look forward to working with you this year to continue these
important initiatives.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you. You do good work and it is
critically important that we try to save some of these national
treasures and preserve our history. We are well aware of it and
the Subcommittee has, I think, been very supportive.
Ms. Higgins. You have.
Mr. Nethercutt. And is willing to do more, as much as we
can and try to make it all fit.
Ms. Higgins. I know, it is tight.
Mr. Nethercutt. It is a challenge, but some of these things
you do not want to lose either.
Ms. Higgins. I have only been with the Trust a few months,
but it has been surprising to me that these things that we all
sort of take for granted like George Washington's tents or some
of these other treasures really are in danger of being lost if
we do not find some resources.
Mr. Nethercutt. Where were you before?
Ms. Higgins. I was with the Administration as Deputy
Secretary of Labor.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, this may be a little easier job, I
hope for you.
Ms. Higgins. Different kind of challenge.
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, it is indeed, thanks so much for being
here and for your patience.
Ms. Higgins. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nethercutt. And we will do our best for the National
Trust that we can.
Ms. Higgins. Great, thank you.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Nethercutt. If there are no more witnesses, the hearing
is adjourned. Thanks for your patience.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Able, E. H. , Jr................................................. 125
Adams, S. L...................................................... 302
Ali, Dr. S. A.................................................... 76
Allison, F. G.................................................... 450
Anderson, N. I................................................... 490
Antebi, Eric..................................................... 367
Appelson, Gary................................................... 393
Applegate, Dr. David............................................. 424
Argow, K. A...................................................... 299
Attwood, Brian................................................... 14
Bajura, R. A..................................................... 37
Banzhaf, W. H.................................................... 315
Barnett, J. A.................................................... 386
Bartholic, Dr. Jon............................................... 105
Beard, D. P...................................................... 163
Beck, Dr. Richard................................................ 420
Beetham, M. B.................................................... 181
Bender, Mike..................................................... 464
Bevc, Frank...................................................... 44
Bogle, John...................................................... 241
Brown, J. C...................................................... 194
Brown, Molly..................................................... 152
Campbell, F. T................................................... 397
Castle, R. L..................................................... 544
Castro, Bernadette............................................... 428
Clark, Les....................................................... 464
Colnes, A. L..................................................... 272
Comolli, A. G.................................................... 517
Conrad, G. E..................................................... 99
Coulombe, Mary................................................... 321
Crites, Buford................................................... 262
Cunha, Manual, Jr................................................ 464
Davidson, Sam.................................................... 497
DeLaney, P. M.................................................... 412
Denton, Jan...................................................... 132
Dickens, Michael................................................. 94
Donnelly, Peter.................................................. 138
Doolittle, W. T.................................................. 351
Duncan, Roger.................................................... 536
Eno, Amos........................................................ 248
Faris, Jack...................................................... 118
Fritts, C. H..................................................... 69
Fumich, George................................................... 37
Gangloff, Deborah................................................ 309
Gastelum, R. R................................................... 382
Geller, Howard................................................... 8
Geringer, Jim.................................................... 390
Gilmore, Dan..................................................... 440
Golan, Jay....................................................... 598
Gordon, Steve.................................................... 371
Greenblatt, Stephen.............................................. 111
Gunn, S. H....................................................... 230
Gupta, G. D...................................................... 520
Halleran, Michael................................................ 145
Hamilton, David.................................................. 57
Hammer, John..................................................... 626
Hayes, Justin.................................................... 158
Higgins, Kathryn................................................. 335
Hocker, Jean..................................................... 285
Holder, G. D..................................................... 513
Holmer, Steve.................................................... 328
Holmes, C. D..................................................... 50
Holmes, Charles.................................................. 446
Huffman, Dr. G. P................................................ 510
Irvin, Randall................................................... 205
Jackson, Susan................................................... 492
James, Sharpe.................................................... 622
James, Ted....................................................... 464
Janger, S. A..................................................... 636
John, Ismael..................................................... 640
Kavanaugh, L. W.................................................. 14
Klass, Dr. D. L.................................................. 506
Kunde, Robert.................................................... 464
Lawrence, Dr. L. R., Jr........................................375, 547
Lea, George...................................................... 279
Leuchtenburg, Tom................................................ 20
Long, Michael.................................................... 486
Lyons, L. C...................................................... 344
Manners, Dell.................................................... 493
Marcum, Deanna................................................... 626
Menzel, B. W..................................................... 348
Meyer, E. G...................................................... 561
Miller, Vic...................................................... 1
Moe, Richard..................................................... 338
Mooney, Marianne................................................. 483
Moriarty, C. M................................................... 514
Mosher, Jim...................................................... 468
Mosman, J. D..................................................... 522
Moyer, Steve..................................................... 457
Nettler, R. B.................................................... 236
Nobel, Suzanne................................................... 464
Ohanian, L. M.................................................... 491
Overbey, M. M.................................................... 611
Pacelle, Wayne................................................... 169
Pape, W. K....................................................... 363
Park, P. C I6099, 500............................................
Peet, Steve...................................................... 453
Peter, Neptali................................................... 640
Peterson, R. M................................................... 292
Ponder, Dr. Henry................................................ 633
Pugmire, R. J.................................................... 515
Raup, J. D....................................................... 614
Rice, D. M....................................................... 198
Riley, T. Z...................................................... 442
Robertson, Dr. J. M.............................................. 472
Robinson, Jim.................................................... 464
Ronan, Joseph.................................................... 375
Ross, Keith...................................................... 248
Schafer, Jennifer................................................ 26
Sedano, Richard.................................................. 31
Silver, Scott.................................................... 494
Simpkins, Eric................................................... 82
Sloan, M. M...................................................... 266
Sonleitner, Karen................................................ 400
Stevens, Christine............................................... 175
Stieglitz, W. O.................................................. 359
Styles, G. A..................................................... 532
Tierney, J. W.................................................... 513
Tindall, B. S.................................................... 188
Trent, Dr. R. H.................................................. 574
Tugend, Thomas................................................... 89
Turney, T. C..................................................... 380
Warfield, T. R................................................... 590
Wayburn, Laurie.................................................. 255
Webster, D. E.................................................... 626
Weekes, David.................................................... 211
Weiner, Heather.................................................. 404
Wender, Irving................................................... 513
Werner, Gary..................................................... 218
Wilson, L. R..................................................... 630
Wise, H. A....................................................... 224
Woolf, Dr. Alan.................................................. 475
Woolsey, Dr. J. R................................................ 479
Yamagata, Ben.................................................... 63
Zimmerman, G. R.................................................. 346
I N D E X
----------
PUBLIC WITNESSES AND ADDITIONAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY
Natural Resource Programs
Page
Alachua County, Florida.......................................... 414
American Cultural Resources Association.......................... 363
American Forest and Paper Association............................ 321
American Forests................................................. 309
American Geological Institute.................................... 424
American Hiking Society.......................................... 266
American Lands Alliance.......................................... 328
American Rivers.................................................. 158
American Society of Civil Engineers.............................. 461
Appalachian Mountain Club........................................ 367
Association of American State Geologists......................... 472
Calpine Corporation.............................................. 375
Caribbean Conservation Corporation............................... 393
Center for Marine Conservation................................... 432
Center for Marine Resources and Environmental Technology......... 479
City of Gainesville, Florida..................................... 412
City of Miami Beach, Florida..................................... 408
City of Palm Desert, California.................................. 262
Colorado River Board of California............................... 346
Colorado River Salinity Control Forum............................ 386
Defenders of Wildlife............................................ 181
Doris Day Animal League.......................................... 344
Endangered Species Coalition..................................... 404
Friends of Back Bay.............................................. 152
Frontera Audubon Society......................................... 397
Humane Society of the United States.............................. 169
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.......... 292
International Society of Tropical Foresters...................... 351
Interstate Council on Water Policy............................... 416
Izaak Walton League of America................................... 468
Kern County HCP Industry and Government Coalition................ 464
Land Trust Alliance.............................................. 285
Lane Council of Governments...................................... 371
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California............... 382
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs............. 500
National Association of Conservation Districts................... 446
National Association of State Foresters.......................... 302
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges....................................................... 475
National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs....................................................... 348
National Audubon Society......................................... 163
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers...... 224
National Constitution Center..................................... 241
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation............................ 453
National Recreation and Park Association......................... 188
National Trust for Historic Preservation......................... 335
National Volunteer Fire Council.................................. 450
National Woodland Owners Association............................. 299
Nature Conservancy............................................... 211
New England Forestry Foundation.................................. 248
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.......................... 380
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation................................................... 428
Northern Forest Alliance......................................... 272
Ohio & Erie Canal Association.................................... 198
OhioView Consortium.............................................. 420
Pacific Forest Trust............................................. 255
Partnership for the National Trails System....................... 218
Pelican Island Preservation Society.............................. 359
Piedmont Environmental Council................................... 430
Preservation Action.............................................. 236
Public Lands Foundation.......................................... 279
Society for Animal Protective Legislation........................ 175
Society of American Foresters.................................... 315
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition............................ 436
State of Wyoming................................................. 390
Tennessee River Gorge Trust...................................... 194
Travis County, Texas............................................. 400
Trout Unlimited.................................................. 457
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association........................ 355
Virginia Native Plant Society.................................... 483
Western Interstate Energy Board.................................. 486
Wilderness Society............................................... 230
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America............................. 379
Wildlife Management Institute.................................... 442
Wood River Land Trust............................................ 440
World Wildlife Fund.............................................. 205
Energy Programs
Alliance to Save Energy.......................................... 57
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy................. 8
American Gas Association......................................... 69
American Gas Cooling Association................................. 594
American Iron and Steel Institute................................ 14
American Public Power Association................................ 526
ASME International............................................... 566
Auburn University................................................ 514
Biomass Energy Research Association.............................. 506
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc................................... 547
Business Council for Sustainable Energy.......................... 578
California State Teachers' Retirement System..................... 522
Caterpillar Inc.................................................. 544
Central California Ozone Study Coalition......................... 540
Coal Technology Corporation...................................... 561
Coal Utilization Research Council................................ 63
Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science.................. 510
Council for Chemical Research.................................... 577
Cummins Engine Company, Inc...................................... 530
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas..................... 582
Engine Manufacturers Association................................. 555
Foster Wheeler Corporation....................................... 520
Fuel Cell Power Association...................................... 82
Gas Research Institute........................................... 20
Gas Turbine Association.......................................... 570
General Electric Power Systems................................... 557
Ground Water Protection Council.................................. 89
Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc.................................... 517
Integrated Building and Construction Solutions--IBACOS........... 94
International Fuel Cells......................................... 562
Interstate Mining Compact Commission............................. 99
National Association for State Community Services Programs....... 590
National Association of State Energy Officials................... 31
National Corn Growers Association................................ 1
National Institutes for Water Resources.......................... 105
National Mining Association...................................... 50
National Research Center for Coal and Energy..................... 37
National Gas Vehicle Coalition................................... 586
Plug Power, Inc.................................................. 26
Rolls-Royce North America........................................ 76
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation........................... 44
Southern Company Generation...................................... 532
U. of Alaska School of Mineral Engineering....................... 574
U. of Pittsburg.................................................. 513
U. of Utah....................................................... 515
U.S. Council for Automotive Research............................. 551
Urban Consortium Energy Task Force............................... 536
Arts and Other Programs
American Anthropological Association............................. 611
American Arts Alliance........................................... 132
American Association of Museums.................................. 125
American Museum of Natural History............................... 618
American Symphony Orchestra League............................... 605
Americans for the Arts........................................... 138
Association of American Universities............................. 145
Association of Research Libraries................................ 626
Carnegie Hall.................................................... 598
City of Newark, New Jersey....................................... 622
Close Up Foundation.............................................. 636
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation................................. 614
Dance/USA........................................................ 607
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council........................ 640
Marietta College................................................. 630
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies......................... 601
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education... 633
National Humanities Alliance..................................... 111
OPERA America.................................................... 644
Washington Commission for the Humanities......................... 118